-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread
- Thread starter Daemon
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Wasn't RSA the only side they had beaten in the group stages among the semifinalists?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Only in hindsight though. The team looks very strong on paper now, but in that WC, they weren't actually playing that well for most of the tournament.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Dude.. they HAD to beat RSA who looked the best side in the world at that time in ODIs in order make it to the semis.. I was there and watched the full WC and nobody, no expert thought they were favorites against those 3 sides. NZ, with Geoff Allott taking wickets for fun, looked strong in those conditions, Pak and RSA just looked plain better as an ODI side. Hindsight does not change the fact that they had to play out of their skins to even make the semis and it took an almighty choke from RSA for them to make the finals.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Lol.. they literally lost to both the other semi finalists earlier in the WC. What exactly is your point?
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is my point, made earlier. In the regards to the statement we couldn't beat the other semi finalists in a series. Don't be daft
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
in a series in those conditions.. I dont think the 87 India or Pak side could have beaten Australia in Australia either. You are the one being daft. My post had enough clarity to not miss what I meant.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Fine. I think in English conditions I would have backed the other sides to beat that Australian side just like the 87 side. You have to remember a lot of them became very good POST that tourney.
Jade's
Cricket Spectator
You have to remember that if your aunty had balls she would be your uncle. Aussies were the best side no doubt in 1999 but they werent as dominant as 2003 and 2007 and 2015
CricAddict
Cricketer Of The Year
Kumble going the Chappell way. Looks like Indian players are unhappy as he is a hard taskmaster.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I dunno man. The 87 Australian side had Marsh, Boon, Jones, Border, S Waugh in it. They were all pretty handy players in English conditions.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The 1999 side had the strongest competition though. Nearly every side had a strong bowling attack and the were some cracking batsmen going around as well.
I mean look at that South African side. They were incredible.
The 2007 were way better than every other side of their time but bowling stocks worldwide (excluding Australia) were at their worst at that point. Tait and McGrath totally rekt all in their way. And Australia's batting was brutal. Hayden was in peak ODI form. The way he took Pollock apart in his first spell was obscene (Pollock was rated #1 in ODI cricket at the time). Then there was Ponting, Gilchrist and Hussey (who barely got a bat).
The 2003 side was nowhere near as dominant, particularly early on. Symonds was yet to arrive (but boy when he arrived he did so with a bang).
I'd rate the teams 2007 > 1999 > 2003 > 1987 > 2015 (though Starc would have lead the attack in any of the other sides).
I mean look at that South African side. They were incredible.
The 2007 were way better than every other side of their time but bowling stocks worldwide (excluding Australia) were at their worst at that point. Tait and McGrath totally rekt all in their way. And Australia's batting was brutal. Hayden was in peak ODI form. The way he took Pollock apart in his first spell was obscene (Pollock was rated #1 in ODI cricket at the time). Then there was Ponting, Gilchrist and Hussey (who barely got a bat).
The 2003 side was nowhere near as dominant, particularly early on. Symonds was yet to arrive (but boy when he arrived he did so with a bang).
I'd rate the teams 2007 > 1999 > 2003 > 1987 > 2015 (though Starc would have lead the attack in any of the other sides).