Well them missing out in 92 kinda supports the fact that the same team that won in 87 weren't able to repeat that success, whereas most Australian players and some level of continuity from 96-03 and 99-07. There are some players who overlap but for the most part a lot of the core Australian team was the same in at least 2 or 3 WC's.
How is WI > India? India has an extra final and semi final appearance over them.
Yeah I kinda thought of that after I posted it, I guess its more a question of "sides" than being purely statistical, 75-83 WI had relatively the same set of core players that dominated whereas India's 2 WC wins are formed of completely different set of players. I can see the merit in rating India higher, it just depends on what the exact question is because its a little confusing at the moment, or maybe I'm just not interpreting it the correct way.
...and the 2007 convicts went into the world cup having been whitewashed by England in the tri series finals games, and again against NZ in the Chappell-HADLEE series
I'm not gonna be your tab ffs
Nah, after the WC I'm not thinking about ODI cricket for four years
If it would have stopped you two bickering on here, I would have happily allowed Jono to pay for my chilli and garlic prawn linguine.
No, India won the 2011 world cup due to lack of competition, a weak Pakistani squad nearly knocked them out of the world cup. India were favorites to win that world cup, especially at home. I don't think it was an incredible achievement the likes of which we have seen from other world cup winning sides, i.e even India in the 80s.
I love how you post like you are the God of cricket and what is a good achievement and what is not.
Sure was damn easy for Australia in 03 and 07.
I actually think he's completely wrong, too, on top of that. He seems to be suggesting that winning the WC partly due to short-term form, variance or momentum is somehow better than just winning it because you're the best side. The former may create a more emotional story to tell years down the line, but it's not somehow better than winning after establishing deserved favouritism by assembling a genuinely strong side and doing well in ODIs for a sustained period leading up to the Cup first. I'd argue the opposite if anything.
Who seems to be suggesting that? Pakistan had no business winning the 1992 world cup, India had no business winning the 83 world cup, Sri Lanka caught fire during the 1996 world cup, so there are plenty of world cups where the best sides did not win. It was simply a matter of form, and peaking at the right time. This isn't test cricket, anyone has a chance on their day, and this is what makes the world cup so exciting. Unless of course you have a side as strong as the Australian ODI side which won 3 consecutive world cups, they were simply way too good on paper compared to anyone else in 03 and 07. It is hardly a surprise then that both 03 and 07 world cups were quite boring. So it goes both ways, and form can play a huge role in upsetting far better sides.
Serious query. Why do many here feel this way? A team that has been dominant in ODIs for a considerable period of time over the 4 years might just have a bad day in a WC knockout and get knocked out. Will that mean that the other side is greater than this one? To me, 1983 WI team was much better than the 1983 Indian team. Getting upset in the WC final doesn't change that and make that Indian side the best in the world.
Terrible argument, what is the point in playing countless ODI series if the world cup is all that counts? Teams are concerned about ODI rankings all the time, it's one of the reasons why ODI series remain competitive. You could argue that winning the world cup should be given more weight in the ranking calculations, but to render other odi series/tournaments irrelevant in terms of world ODI rankings is BS.
