• 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.

Best team since Waugh/ Ponting’s Australia?

Best team?

  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
_00_deathscar said:
Why does man to man matter here? South Africa were massive underachievers. The thread title says 'Best team' not 'Best collection of individuals'.

They had amazing players, many of whom didn't really hit the heights that they could/should have, and certainly not as a collective unit. Evidence? The fact that there is even a debate if Kohli's team is as good/better is evidence of this. Man to man, South Africa were a stacked unit. The fact is that they weren't quite as good as good as a whole as the sum of their parts should have been.
Click to expand...
I agree, they should have been more dominant, but they were still better than Kohli's team all said and done.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
CricAddict said:
It is all this ****ing thread man. **** you guys. Made the great man step down from captaincy.

Been terrible since it started. Both for cw and for Indian cricket. When are we closing this thread?
Click to expand...
Actually, it makes it easier to debate it now that the Kohli era is officially over. Though I don't think there is anything left to debate.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
subshakerz said:
I agree, they should have been more dominant, but they were still better than Kohli's team all said and done.
Click to expand...
Okay, we've gone in circles regarding that argument but yes, by your criteria South Africa were a better team.

My question is why do you keep bringing man to man into it when it's been shown that man to man South Africa weren't as good as they actually should have been? It's a nothing argument.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
_00_deathscar said:
Okay, we've gone in circles regarding that argument but yes, by your criteria South Africa were a better team.

My question is why do you keep bringing man to man into it when it's been shown that man to man South Africa weren't as good as they actually should have been? It's a nothing argument.
Click to expand...
I have spent most of this thread arguing over the respective teams records though, not the man to man matchup.

Man to man I think can help crystalize to know which teams we are comparing. For example, are we assuming Philander is there, since he only came in 2011? Bumrah wasn't there in 2016 also. We do the same when we talk about 80 WI and 2000 Aus, we compare records but we also look at the team sheets and assess their individual strengths, weaknesses and hypothetical matchups. That is part of the fun.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think Smith's SA were better purely because they were more difficult to beat and lost less but I can easily see why someone who thinks winning more is the criteria will choose Virat's India.

To me, being second best to Smith's SA and the third best cricket side in my time of watching cricket is nothing to be sneezed at and a massive achievement in itself. Salty folks like saltshakerz can keep harping on their agendas.

I just feel lucky to have seen 2 great cricket sides after that ATG Aussie side. Sometimes that is what is lost in these kind of discussions. The actual joy of watching great cricketers and great teams perform great feats. Sucks that saltshakerz can never realize he has been lucky to see a team as good as Virat's India in his lifetime. His loss.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
I think Smith's SA were better purely because they were more difficult to beat and lost less but I can easily see why someone who thinks winning more is the criteria will choose Virat's India.

To me, being second best to Smith's SA and the third best cricket side in my time of watching cricket is nothing to be sneezed at and a massive achievement in itself. Salty folks like saltshakerz can keep harping on their agendas.

I just feel lucky to have seen 2 great cricket sides after that ATG Aussie side. Sometimes that is what is lost in these kind of discussions. The actual joy of watching great cricketers and great teams perform great feats. Sucks that saltshakerz can never realize he has been lucky to see a team as good as Virat's India in his lifetime. His loss.
Click to expand...
Agenda LOL. We pretty much have the same views.

Dude, you need to learn to chill out.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
:laugh: at the most insecure poster in CW.

I mean, the first thing is to actually watch the stuff you are commenting about and its no surprise the ones who dont liked the post.
 
C

cricketsavant

U19 12th Man
Spark said:
You realise you are skating on, like, 0.1mm thick ice right now with regards to trolling and insults, right?
Click to expand...
And all the others aren't? I'm very confused. Have you even seen the thread I started on Kohli's captaincy? The first page is literally trolling. Look forward to your response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top