The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[TheJediBrah]

You are right about what's annoying. It's not about Australia all the time. And whole in subcontinent or against subcontinent slight on other teams all the time is completely ****.

M8 I know. I know more about Australia than other times and hence am happy to talk about them to a disproportionate degree and even I'm starting to roll my eyes every time stephen brings the conversation that way. But he's not breaking any rules and it doesn't help to be overly sensitive and put words in his mouth that he didn't say.
Even if it was an attempt to paint Australia in a positive light where it wasn't warranted, he didn't say what you're attributing to him.

 

[vcs]

During Titan Cup in India, SA defeated Aus in 3 games out of 3 without losing a sweat. Australia with less than 1 win to lose ratio can't be argued to have been better than a team with win/loss ratio of 3.5 no matter what country and opposition filters you apply.

India winning that tournament was a complete robbery TBH

 

[ankitj]

India winning that tournament was a complete robbery TBH

Robbery seems right word for a fixed match!

 

[ankitj]

M8 I know. I know more about Australia than other times and hence am happy to talk about them to a disproportionate degree and even I'm starting to roll my eyes every time stephen brings the conversation that way. But he's not breaking any rules and it doesn't help to be overly sensitive and put words in his mouth that he didn't say.
Even if it was an attempt to paint Australia in a positive light where it wasn't warranted, he didn't say what you're attributing to him.

Fair. I didn't actually read his posts in entirety and didn't reach 'bogey man' conclusion before replying which is my bad.

 

[vcs]

Robbery seems right word for a fixed match!

Were there fixing allegations over that match? I thought it was SA's 2000 tour that was under scrutiny. Think Sachin was captain in that tournament, so I doubt India were involved in any corruption.

 

[stephen]

Fair. I didn't actually read his posts in entirety and didn't reach 'bogey man' conclusion before replying which is my bad.

Apology accepted captain ankitj. </vader>

 

[Coronis]

Just a fun XI I was thinking about. Not my ATG XI, but a combination of great players who rank up there as some of my personal favourites.

M.L Hayden
H. Sutcliffe
D.G Bradman*
R.G Pollock
W.R Hammond
G.S Sobers
A.C Gilchrist+
Wasim Akram
M.G Johnson
D.W Steyn
C.V Grimmett

I really love the R L pattern of the top order, as well as the pairing of more aggressive batsmen (Hayden, Bradman, Pollock, Sobers) with Sutcliffe (SR of ~38) and Hammond (SR of ~46). Johnson and Grimmett will remain my favourite pace and spin bowlers for a long while to come I’m sure.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

SA and SL were the teams to beat in that period. Migara pointed this out some time back and got attacked for it.

99 world cup changed all this.

South Africa and Pakistan were the best teams in 99 WC. SL was a great team around 1996-1998.. but they lost it way before 99WC.

 

[stephen]

South Africa and Pakistan were the best teams in 99 WC. SL was a great team around 1996-1998.. but they lost it way before 99WC.

You're definitely correct about the group stages. It was, however, a relatively close tournament. SA and Pak went 4/1 in the group stages but six other nations went 3/2. And humorously enough, the match that SA dropped was against Zimbabwe (though tbf they were at their peak as a side at that point) and Pakistan lost theirs to Bangladesh (Pakistan gonna Pakistan I guess).

It reminds me of all those times where the NRL minor premiers don't win the grand final (which is often and which is why the premier league's method of deciding a winner is completely lame).

Ultimately you've got to perform when the stakes are highest. Why did Carthage lose the second Punic war when Hannibal crushed every Roman army he met in Italy? Why do people know the name "Peter the great" but not "Charles XII"? How did Germany go in world war 2 after claiming most of mainland Europe in the first year? Arguing who was the better side leading into, or even during the earlier stages of a tournament is meaningless. It's all about how you finish.

 

[_00_deathscar]

It's all about how you finish.

That's what she said/title of your *** tape etc.

 

[harsh.ag]

Ultimately you've got to perform when the stakes are highest. Why did Carthage lose the second Punic war when Hannibal crushed every Roman army he met in Italy? Why do people know the name "Peter the great" but not "Charles XII"? How did Germany go in world war 2 after claiming most of mainland Europe in the first year? Arguing who was the better side leading into, or even during the earlier stages of a tournament is meaningless. It's all about how you finish.

Amazing amount of smugness given the semi was a tie.

 

[stephen]

Amazing amount of smugness given the semi was a tie.

Not smugness, but it's insane how much form running into that tournament is brought up. You don't hear the same thing with the 83, 87, 92 or 96 world cups which all went to unexpected victors. Why do people continuously bring up the form leading into the tournament when that means jack squat on grand final day. Particularly in 83 all I ever hear about was how great India and in particular Kapil was. You never hear people talk much about how the West Indies completely dominated in the run up to the tournament.

England in 2019 almost went the same way - bottling it when it really mattered. But in the end, with cups it doesn't matter about form, it only matters who's name is written on the trophy, a lesson Australia leaned hard in 1996 after beating Sri Lanka in a tri tournament just before the world cup only to lose badly on the day.

 

[stephen]

I'm fact, India winning the 83 world cup is even more remarkable than Australia winning 99. The West Indies had a w/l of 2.7 and India had a w/l of 0.64 between 80 and 82.

 

[morgieb]

It's bizarre that between 79 and 03 none of the favourites won. Yet since then pretty much all the favourites have won.

 

[harsh.ag]

Not smugness, but it's insane how much form running into that tournament is brought up. You don't hear the same thing with the 83, 87, 92 or 96 world cups which all went to unexpected victors. Why do people continuously bring up the form leading into the tournament when that means jack squat on grand final day. Particularly in 83 all I ever hear about was how great India and in particular Kapil was. You never hear people talk much about how the West Indies completely dominated in the run up to the tournament.

I'm fact, India winning the 83 world cup is even more remarkable than Australia winning 99. The West Indies had a w/l of 2.7 and India had a w/l of 0.64 between 80 and 82.

Literally everyone I know acknowledges India winning the 83 WC was remarkable and a huge shock. No one has ever said the same thing about Aus 99. You're fighting ghosts.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm fact, India winning the 83 world cup is even more remarkable than Australia winning 99. The West Indies had a w/l of 2.7 and India had a w/l of 0.64 between 80 and 82.

It was a classic upset at the world stage and they wiped the floor with us in India winning 5-0 as revenge.


But winning the WC was of course, worth it.

 

[trundler]

87, 92 and especially 96 are told as classic tales of the underdog triumphing too. Ffs we made our WC winning captain PM of the country.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Pakistan had all the talent but were erratic in 92. We bowled them out for 70 in the group stage and had it not rained they would have been eliminated.

 

[ankitj]

Not smugness, but it's insane how much form running into that tournament is brought up. You don't hear the same thing with the 83, 87, 92 or 96 world cups which all went to unexpected victors. Why do people continuously bring up the form leading into the tournament when that means jack squat on grand final day. Particularly in 83 all I ever hear about was how great India and in particular Kapil was. You never hear people talk much about how the West Indies completely dominated in the run up to the tournament.

England in 2019 almost went the same way - bottling it when it really mattered. But in the end, with cups it doesn't matter about form, it only matters who's name is written on the trophy, a lesson Australia leaned hard in 1996 after beating Sri Lanka in a tri tournament just before the world cup only to lose badly on the day.

Ok

I'm fact, India winning the 83 world cup is even more remarkable than Australia winning 99. The West Indies had a w/l of 2.7 and India had a w/l of 0.64 between 80 and 82.

Ok

 

[stephen]

Literally everyone I know acknowledges India winning the 83 WC was remarkable and a huge shock. No one has ever said the same thing about Aus 99. You're fighting ghosts.

Hey, I'm not the one who is throwing around the insults. The last two pages have been nothing but talking about how great a number of sides were before the 1999 world cup and how great they were early on in the cup. Which is the exact same discussion about the exact same cup from a week ago. It's not even a different look or a new insight. It's literally the exact same discussion about the exact same teams in the exact same tiny three year window. All I'm saying is that there's a) other cups to look at which had winners who weren't favourites that might be more interesting to talk about; and b) when it comes to tournaments, only winning really matters.