Best team not to win the World Cup

[Fuller Pilch]

The Hungarians of the 1950s, Dutch of the 1970s and 1982 Brazilians (might be more - I'm not a huge football fan) are talked about as the best sides not to win the World Cup, while the 1995 All Blacks are seen as rugby's best side not to win (I won't blame food poisoning) the RWC. Which is the best side not to win the CWC? I've given a few options but more could be added to the poll if required. I was tempted to add the 1992 NZ side, but on paper that is probably not justified.

 

[Immenso]

I'd say the 1983 Windies. And also the 99 Saffas (but at least they had tough competition and were knocked out by a greatish team).

Outside of world cups the 90/91 Aussies were awesome ODI cricketers with Dean Jones and Simon O'Donnell etc, way ahead of their time, but the team got collectively old and lost form by 92 and couldn't reverse the slide.

 

[weldone]

1983 WI, followed by 1999 SA

 

[Agent Nationaux]

That 99 RSA team was really strong. Still remember the Semis with Klusener nearly winning it for them.

 

[ImpatientLime]

The Hungarians of the 1950s, Dutch of the 1970s and 1982 Brazilians (might be more - I'm not a huge football fan) are talked about as the best sides not to win the World Cup, while the 1995 All Blacks are seen as rugby's best side not to win (I won't blame food poisoning) the RWC. Which is the best side not to win the CWC? I've given a few options but more could be added to the poll if required. I was tempted to add the 1992 NZ side, but on paper that is probably not justified.

1934 austria would demolish all those pretenders.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1934 austria would demolish all those pretenders.

I didn't know about the Wunderteam - interesting

"In the early 1930s, Austria became a very celebrated team in Europe. They entered the 1934 World Cup as the clear favorites. They had routed many of their opponents, including a 5-0 and a 6-0 victory over Germany,"(Wikipedia)

Was this the real reason for the Anschluss? If you can't beat 'em...


I still don't think they would stop Jonah Lomu in space.

 

[Bahnz]

The 2011 South Africa side was a brilliant team as well - definitely better than the current one. But yeah, it's gotta be the '83 Windies side - though that feels inappropriate somehow given that essentially the same team had won the previous tournament.

 

[Pratters]

1992 SA v Pakistan could have been a sensational final.

 

[marc71178]

Except they were fairly and squarely beaten in the semis.

 

[anil1405]

Wait, whats England doing in that list of options?

 

[ankitj]

Wait, whats England doing in that list of options?

We typically have a joke option in polls here.

 

[ankitj]

Correct answer perhaps is 1983 WI, if you consider how far ahead WI was of whichever team could claim to be second best. Voted for SA in 1999 though for nostalgic reasons.

 

[Jimbo the giant]

Pakistan from 99 were also very good they had an atg odi bowling attack really even if Wasim was a little old he was still a gun and Shoaib and Saqlain were at their peaks really. Waqar was in their as well. Had some solid batting as well.

 

[ankitj]

Pakistan from 99 were also very good they had an atg odi bowling attack really even if Wasim was a little old he was still a gun and Shoaib and Saqlain were at their peaks really. Waqar was in their as well. Had some solid batting as well.

Yeah, I was looking at Pakistan's 1999 world cup sqaud the other day. Except a certain Wajahatullah Wasti, every single player in the squad had a long and succesful ODI career.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/squad/471480.html

Edit: how did they still lose to India is beyond me.

 

[Zinzan]

I was tempted to add the 1992 NZ side, but on paper that is probably not justified.

I'm pleased you didn't, because you rightly point out NZ were actually an incredibly mediocre side on paper.

It annoys me to this day when people talking about NZ's '92 choke. While Wrighty may have got some of the bowling options wrong in that infamous semi, I still maintain England would have done us like a dinner at the MCG had we made it through. I highly doubt our dibbly-dobblers would have strangled England on that quicker bouncier MCG track like it had to sides on those dung-heaps in NZ that year.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Except they were fairly and squarely beaten in the semis.

No they drew. Australia only went ahead as a result of finishing higher on the Super Six table.

 

[morgieb]

No they drew. Australia only went ahead as a result of finishing higher on the Super Six table.

Pratters said 1992, not 1999.

 

[weldone]

The 2nd option shouldn't be there. In 1987, both Pakistan and India had a better team than England; and South Africa was better than England in 1992 IMO.

 

[GIMH]

The 2nd option shouldn't be there. In 1987, both Pakistan and India had a better team than England; and South Africa was better than England in 1992 IMO.

Shame none of those sides beat us to the final then isn't it

 

[Daemon]

It is a shame, upsets do happen from time to time though.