20 Greatest ODIs (by ESPNCricinfo)

[The Hutt Rec]

Yay, I was at the fourth best ODI of all time.

 

[honestbharani]

England have had 4 entries so far and none of them have ended in a victory - and there are plenty who think 2019 didn't either!!

It didn't. You won the cup but the game was tied.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England have had 4 entries so far and none of them have ended in a victory - and there are plenty who think 2019 didn't either!!

It objectively wasn't a victory

 

[Adorable Asshole]

It objectively wasn't a victory

Objectively they lost.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The 92 and 96 final got robbed

Meh they were good games but no issue with them being left out.

The final that deserved a spot more than those two was 87

 

[Molehill]

Meh they were good games but no issue with them being left out.

The final that deserved a spot more than those two was 87

You could actually get a decent Top 10 out of England non-'victories'. Throw in '87, '91, Bichel, the 2005 Tie with Australia and Brett Lee turning defeat into victory and there's a handy 10.

 

[ankitj]

So three of the top four will involve South Africa. Typical Cricinfo bias.

And none of the top 5 will involve India. What do they have against India!

 

[Teja.]

438 v 434 was a great game but I hate the partial impact it becoming so iconic had in the process of the making of the 280-320 par modern 'competitive' ODI game cycle.

 

[Sunil1z]

438 v 434 was a great game but I hate the partial impact it becoming so iconic had in the process of the making of the 280-320 par modern 'competitive' ODI game cycle.

That is on T20 not 438-434

when Teams are scoring 180-200 in 20 overs than 320 score was always going to be gettable.

 

[OverratedSanity]

438 v 434 was a great game but I hate the partial impact it becoming so iconic had in the process of the making of the 280-320 par modern 'competitive' ODI game cycle.

The bowlers (apart from Bracken ) were irrelevant in that game which was definitely not great, but ODIs were going to get more and more high scoring anyway with the advent of t20s. Its really cool that such a freak game actually happened before t20s caught on and hasnt happened since.

 

[GIMH]

Objectively they lost.

It objectively wasn't a victory

Objectively we won on the tiebreak criteria. Not complicated

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Objectively we won on the tiebreak criteria. Not complicated

The world cup not the final

 

[TheJediBrah]

Objectively we won on the tiebreak criteria.

How do you type that out without feeling embarassed

 

[Daemon]

Yeah the match was tied but England won the world cup*.

*immoral WC

 

[Adorable Asshole]

They lost the moral world cup tho

 

[The Sean]

So neither the 1987 or 1992 World Cups are going to be represented at all. There are several other World Cups which have been excluded in their entirety as well, but those two to me are the most surprising.

 

[honestbharani]

That Chennai 1 run win by Aus against India in the 1987 WC was a great game. There was also the game against NZ when we needed to boost our NRR and our batters just went bonkers, including Sunny G smashing a 100 off 70 balls or something.

 

[subshakerz]

The 92 and 96 final got robbed

The 92 semi is a bigger miss. And yeah should have had a 96 SL game, final specifically though even the semi is not that bad of a shout. Nothing from 87 too.

Crap list with odd selections and clear India bias.

 

[OverratedSanity]

So neither the 1987 or 1992 World Cups are going to be represented at all. There are several other World Cups which have been excluded in their entirety as well, but those two to me are the most surprising.

The 92 semifinal is an omission that really sticks out.

 

[Burgey]

Meh they were good games but no issue with them being left out.

The final that deserved a spot more than those two was 87