nathan bracken was a better odi bowler than brett lee

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe Boucher shouldnt be classed as a power hitter because he did rotate the strike a lot. But the pretty significant delta between his SR and Bevans is due to his greater ability to hit boundaries.

I am excluding Symonds because I dont think there was enough overlap to be considered of the same era. Include him if you like, as well as however many players you consider comparable to Boucher. The more there are, the more clear my point is- Bevan was not even a good power hitter by the standards of his own era, so reckoning he would be a great one now days is a huge assumption.

Yeah true. I just put Symonds name in the ring because you mentioned Lee who actually came after Symonds.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia's '99 side was solid but SA's was probably the better team on paper. Tom Moody, Lehmann and Reiffel were decent but not greats in that format, Ponting was not yet close to his peak. Fortunately they finished the job and smashed Pakistan after fluking their way past SA.

very debatable. I'd take Lehmann ahead of most of SA's batting line-up. Reiffel at least matches Elworthy as the "worst" bowler from each side.

Maybe SA were considered stronger at the time but looking back on paper the Aus side looks far stronger IMO, but a lot of that might be based on their careers from after 1999 tbf

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah true. I just put Symonds name in the ring because you mentioned Lee who actually came after Symonds.

Hmm, I more or less had their debut dates backwards. Scratch Lee from my list and add Symonds

 

[mr_mister]

Australia's '99 side was solid but SA's was probably the better team on paper. Tom Moody, Lehmann and Reiffel were decent but not greats in that format, Ponting was not yet close to his peak. Fortunately they finished the job and smashed Pakistan after fluking their way past SA.

Yeah I genuinely disagree with this and feel in ODIs he was already really, really good and treated as such by opposition bowlers. I feel his 1998 was one of the best years he ever had as an ODI batsman - by '99 he was definitely close to his max potential in the format even if he did go on to have his best year a while later in arguably 2003 or 2007(depending on how much you rate his 140* in the '03 final)

peaks are tricky. Here's a great run he had from late '97 to early '99,

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

averaging 55 over 32 games, especially around that era and for a number 3 is pretty special. In a 32 game period he would have only ever averaged that high again around 06-07, and of course ODI batting had changed a lot by that era.

In '99 he was a long way from his best ever year/performance in terms of time, but he wasn't that far off in terms of ability


He even managed to to reach 4th in the world in early '99!

http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/datespecific/odi/?stattype=batting&day=16&month=01&year=1999

 

[Red]

Reiffel was such a good cricketer. Perfect 3rd seamer who could bat comfortably at 8.

 

[vcs]

Yeah I genuinely disagree with this and feel in ODIs he was already really, really good and treated as such by opposition bowlers. I feel his 1998 was one of the best years he ever had as an ODI batsman - by '99 he was definitely close to his max potential in the format even if he did go on to have his best year a while later in arguably 2003 or 2007(depending on how much you rate his 140* in the '03 final)

peaks are tricky. Here's a great run he had from late '97 to early '99,

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

averaging 55 over 32 games, especially around that era and for a number 3 is pretty special. In a 32 game period he would have only ever averaged that high again around 06-07, and of course ODI batting had changed a lot by that era.

In '99 he was a long way from his best ever year/performance in terms of time, but he wasn't that far off in terms of ability


He even managed to to reach 4th in the world in early '99!

ICC Player Rankings

Yea it could be a perception thing and down to me not following his career that closely till the '00s.

 

[stephen]

Yeah Reiffel was so good Australia A were made to give him up to play for Australia as 12th man because he had taken so many wickets in *that* series.

Australia basically had a worked class side from 98 onwards. Much as I loved him at the time, the dropping of Healy for Gilchrist and the removal of Taylor as captain and opener were what took the 90s Aussie side from good to great. The world cup 99 side was a very good side and even though South Africa ere dominant in the era it's clear to see in retrospect that Klusener aside Australia had a bunch of players in that side who's accomplishments would dwarf those of the South African players.

McGrath + Warne were a better bowling pair than Donald and Pollock. Australia's batting was stronger than the South African batting - Bevan and Mark Waugh were already great, Ponting was becoming a great, Gilchrist was destined for greatness, Lehmann was also very good. The addition of Hayden at the expense of Waugh was pretty like for like as an opener, Martyn was a step down on Bevan but Symonds was a revelation once her hit his stride. The latter additions of Watson and Hussey were a continuance of the excellence.

And of course in the Australian bowling the additions of Lee and Bracken both gave Australia three deadly pace bowlers and a top notch spinner (Warne to 02 and then Hogg, though Warne was never as good as his pre 1998 self in ODIs, he was still very good).

 

[stephen]

Basically I see 90s Australia ending with Taylor and Healy being moved on and 00s Australia beginning with Gilchrist moving to the opener slot.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah I feel on paper Australia > South Africa at the beginning of the '99 WC quite comfortably. 4 batsman in the top 10 at one stage in early '99 (Bev, M Waugh, Ponting, Gilly) and while Steve Waugh was held a little lower in terms of ODI reputation I still think he was definitely considered one of the prize wickets. I'd give the bowling to SA maybe though.

Arguably on paper though Pakistan > both of them before the tournament began.

Anwar, Ijaz(who had pretty damn good ODI resume), Inzy made up a decent batting unit but their full strength bowling lineup was something else.

Scorecard - 1999 ICC World Cup - 31/05/1999

They used Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain, Afridi and Mahmood in that match. All bases covered. That was Waqar's only match of the whole tournament for some reason though. Maybe they thought Razzaq and Mahmood offered more to the XI through their batting

oh and I'm aware of the irony of using a loss to Bangladesh as an example of their bowling ability - throughout the rest of the tournament their bowling was great though. And in that match they basically had their ATG XI bowling lineup minus Imran

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah... I honestly think that Pak team is the best ever ODI side to have not won a WC that stayed together for a period. Juz so ****ing OP. But you are seriously under rating 1999 SA. That battinng line up was al class. Kirsten, Gibbs, Kallis, Cullinan, Cronje, Rhodes, Boucher, Pollock, Klusener, Donald and whoever the spinner was. No way that Aussie side was better man to man.

 

[mr_mister]

True yeah they had some great names, batted super deep and all that but I still feel it's a sum of its parts type scenario. Maybe I underrate what Rhodes and Cronje bring to the table. Cronje had a pretty crappy tournament but he was also right up there in the top 10 batsmen in the world before the tournament began. Rhodes of course I always consider a specialist fielder(unfairly I know) but yeah his ODI batting was great really

I feel Gibbs and Kallis played great during the tournament but were kinda unknown entities before right? Even Klusener too took a lot of people by suprise

 

[honestbharani]

Kallis had that breakthrough 100 in Australia in tests and there were his exploits in the 1998 ICC KO where he smashed Murali at his best in ODIs in SC conditions. Gibbs had also made his name as an opener by then. I honestly feel, just based on paper, RSA were still the best side in that WC (mainly coz it was in England), Pak second.

 

[vcs]

Pakistan were very strong on paper obviously but they took 4 losses in that tournament.

 

[mr_mister]

fair enough yeah I may retract my statement. The ICC ratings looked like this in mid Jan '99:

ID Rat. Name Nat. Career Best Rating
1 886 B.C. Lara WI
2 883 M.G. Bevan AUS
3 867 S.R. Tendulkar IND
4 785 R.T. Ponting AUS
4 785 M.E. Waugh AUS
6 771 W.J. Cronje SA
7 763 P.A. de Silva SL
8 753 A.C. Gilchrist AUS


but Kirsten, Kallis, Rhodes and Cullinan all made the top 25 at this stage fwiw


and I know this is an arbitrary date benefiting my argument, as well as England being more bowler friendly than Australian conditions like you said, but yeah Australian batting was definitely quite a force I guess in 1999 if there are people who think maybe they overachieved or something

 

[ankitj]

Kallis even played a few games in 1996 world cup He was not a regular though and IIRC he got a look in in India's tour to SA 1997. Right then he looked like a annoyingly hard batsman to get out IIRC. He kept getting better after that of course.

 

[honestbharani]

Aussie top order was top class for sure but middle order, with the exception of Bevan, was not that great. And I don't think they "over achieved" or anything but surely they overcame two sides who most people would have fancied to beat them on paper to win the WC. Making the semis was not really an over achievement for that side with 4 ATG ODI batsmen and 2 ATG ODI bowlers at that point And obviously, once you have made the KOs it is about getting a couple of good games and they certainly played a great game against Pak and got lucky with RSA choking in a close game in the semi.

 

[mr_mister]

It's funny the term choking in relation to that game. I know yes, with 1 run to get and 4 balls to get it you should win 99 times out of 100, but they also only had one wicket in hand. And would Australia have been dubbed the chokers had they lost considering it was 16 needed off 8 or something when Reiffel pushed a catch attempt over the boundary for 6?

Luck was definitely on Australia's side that day, but it was a very even, back n forth contest before the final over with the momentum changing several times. South Africa didn't choke from a super strong position or anything - you're never in a super strong position 9 wickets down really


Australia going from 1-54 to 4-68 was the first mini choke, but SA one upped that by going from 0-48 to 4-61.

To allow SA to even get to so close from 4-61 with all the momentum that comes from taking 4-13 in a chase was a bit of a choke in itself.

That match was basically who could **** up the least ended up advancing haha

 

[stephen]

Yeah there were a number of chances that Australia blew - Lehmann actually missed a simple run out the ball before the actual run out.

 

[Bolo.]

Top order/ specialist bats were Aus's main strength and RSA main weakness. Comparing the two doesnt give much pespective on which team was stronger, even purely as a batting unit, before the ARs are factored in. Klusenar was RSAs best and batted at 8 more often than anywhere else.

Relative strength of the entire batting outfits is up for debate, but we need to look at the whole package.

 

[StephenZA]

I still don't think that SA side was the best ODI side at the time. Not enough consistent quality batsmen yet. Some very good players but not top quality. Kallis was the only bankable player at that stage, and still young in his career. What gave SA a competitive edge was the number of all-rounders, it is kinda like the current England side when even 7 or 8 down had players that could still occasionally win and could never count the side out. In that '99 WC SA almost lost a number of games except for an unbelievable run of form by Klusener.