The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread (white ball edition)

[SillyCowCorner1]

00s XI:

Gilchrist+
Tendulkar
Ponting
Yousef
Symonds
Hussey
Flintoff
Pollock
Lee
Murali
McGrath

Yuvraj Singh over Hussey for me

 

[TheJediBrah]

Massive lack of Dean Jones and Martin Crowe noted. Both were better than Aravinda / Steve Waugh IMO. It's just two of them did not have a god mode couple of years that Aravinda had, and the WC happened to be in between.

I'm assuming Steve Waugh is in there for his bowling as much as anything. He was never anything special as an ODI bat but from what I hear was a very useful change bowler in his early days.

Yuvraj Singh over Hussey for me

how

 

[stephen]

Massive lack of Dean Jones and Martin Crowe noted. Both were better than Aravinda / Steve Waugh IMO. It's just two of them did not have a god mode couple of years that Aravinda had, and the WC happened to be in between.

Who does Crowe replace? Jones was very good but I feel he was more a product of the 80s as the 90s.

De Silva won a world cup final off his bat, which definitely counts for something. Steve Waugh is there as an all rounder. The side needs some death bowling and clutch world cup batting. If it wasn't for his bowling and better fielding I'd have taken Ranatunga over Waugh.

Ranatunga often gets forgotten in the discussion of ODI batsmen, which is a shame because he and de Silva carried the Sri Lankan side to the 96 world cup and made them the team to beat throughout the mid 90s.

 

[jimmy101]

I feel Carl Hooper gets overlooked a fair bit when it comes to 90's all-rounders. You could argue that he covers more bases than both Waugh & Arjuna.

 

[stephen]

Yuvraj Singh over Hussey for me

I think Yuvraj, if he's to play has to come in over Flintoff. Hussey was the best number 6 by a country mile with the bat in the 00s. His world cup record was nothing flash but that's basically because he was superfluous to requirements. But in bilateral and tri series he was the king.

 

[stephen]

I feel Carl Hooper gets overlooked a fair bit when it comes to 90's all-rounders. You could argue that he covers more bases than both Waugh & Arjuna.

Yeah he was very good but I wouldn't play him in the same side as Jayasuriya. Here's an alternate 90s XI:

Tendulkar
Crowe
Lara
Jones
Ranatunga
Hooper
Healy+
Warne
Akram
Ambrose
Donald

 

[stephen]

Of course, without Bevan that side is much weaker. More of a B side but I wanted to acknowledge Ranatunga.

 

[Bolo.]

Who does Crowe replace? Jones was very good but I feel he was more a product of the 80s as the 90s.

De Silva won a world cup final off his bat, which definitely counts for something. Steve Waugh is there as an all rounder. The side needs some death bowling and clutch world cup batting. If it wasn't for his bowling and better fielding I'd have taken Ranatunga over Waugh.

Ranatunga often gets forgotten in the discussion of ODI batsmen, which is a shame because he and de Silva carried the Sri Lankan side to the 96 world cup and made them the team to beat throughout the mid 90s.

Lanka was never really 'the' team to beat. Whether fairly or not, the 96 WC was considered a major coup.

4 teams were ranked number one in the mid 90s, none of whom were Lanka (or Pak for that matter). Nice competitive era, along with the early 90s. 80s had only two number 1s, as well as 96-2012.

 

[vcs]

SA were a great ODI team in the '90s (bar the World Cup misfortunes). It felt like India never managed to beat them no matter where we played them. I remember when we robbed them in the final of the Titan Cup after they'd clean swept all the round robin matches. Kirsten and Pollock and/or Klusener should be right up there.

 

[jimmy101]

ODI cricket in the mid-to-late 90's was the most competitive it's ever been, in my opinion anyway. Each of the nine major sides could beat each other on any given day.

One of a myriad of reasons why 90's cricket rules.

 

[Bolo.]

SA were a great ODI team in the '90s (bar the World Cup misfortunes). It felt like India never managed to beat them no matter where we played them. I remember when we robbed them in the final of the Titan Cup after they'd clean swept all the round robin matches. Kirsten and Pollock and/or Klusener should be right up there.

Very strong in the late 90s and early 2000s when they had all the ARs plus a couple of other quality players.

Their run at number 1 ranked at the end of the 90s is comfortably the longest anyone has managed in terms of number of matches played.

 

[vcs]

Very strong in the late 90s and early 2000s when they had all the ARs plus a couple of other quality players.

Their run at number 1 ranked at the end of the 90s is comfortably the longest anyone has managed in terms of number of matches played.

Is that so? Thought Australia would have surpassed that at some point.

 

[TheJediBrah]

ODI cricket in the mid-to-late 90's was the most competitive it's ever been, in my opinion anyway. Each of the nine major sides could beat each other on any given day.

One of a myriad of reasons why 90's cricket rules.

Not a bad call. Even Zimbabwe competed on occasion. If anything it was them and England that were behind the other 7.

 

[jimmy101]

Not a bad call. Even Zimbabwe competed on occasion. If anything it was them and England that were behind the other 7.

Yeah. Poor old England. Though they did manage to secure a 3-zip clean sweep in the ODI series against Australia in '97. Plus they took out 1997 Singer-Akai Champions Trophy, beating India, Pakistan & the Windies along the way.

 

[Bolo.]

Is that so? Thought Australia would have surpassed that at some point.

Just checked it. Im wrong, my bad. Aus are well ahead on games, as well as slighly ahead on time spent at the top.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Zimbabwe were generally a better team than England in ODI's throughout large parts of the 90s. There are few things more iconic in cricket than seeing a somewhat portly chicken farmer blasting the poms out with pace

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah. Poor old England. Though they did manage to secure a 3-zip clean sweep in the ODI series against Australia in '97. Plus they took out 1997 Singer-Akai Champions Trophy, beating India, Pakistan & the Windies along the way.

That was the first time they went with purely white ball specialists. Little did we know it was gonna pay out amazeballs in 20 odd years.

 

[jimmy101]

That was the first time they went with purely white ball specialists. Little did we know it was gonna pay out amazeballs in 20 odd years.

Very true. I always found it strange that they appointed Adam Hollioake as captain during this time, who captained them with great success. Yet, he was out of the team completely approximately one year later. Very odd.

Hollioake's stats are pretty good for the time as well.

 

[Bolo.]

I think Englands poorness in ODIs is more of a meme than anything. They were ranked number one as late as 95.

98-2002 is approximately Zims strongest period, and England were still winning nearly twice as much as them.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1998;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[honestbharani]

Is 98-2002 the time they had Johnson and Goodwin?