nathan bracken was a better odi bowler than brett lee

[stephen]

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.

They were winning like 4 times the amount they lost at the time though so they were doing something right.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Interesting to wonder how many Zimbabweans could've got into a Southern African XI at the time - Neil Johnson, Goodwin, Andy Flower, Heath Streak etc. Sad to see them now

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I don't think you are giving Gary Kirsten enough credit there. And Cronje too.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The crazy thing is that WC was the last time South Africa beat us (NZ) in the tournament and they've had some quality sides in the years since.

 

[StephenZA]

I don't think you are giving Gary Kirsten enough credit there. And Cronje too.

Cronje avg 39, Kirsten avg 41. I loved Kirsten loved his determination and grit. In the same way I love Dean Elgar. But I am fully aware that they are not the best of the best in batting. And yet were the best we had available. We had a couple of decent all-rounders, a long batting line up which made up for lack of batting at top and a couple of pretty awesome bowlers.

 

[stephen]

South Africa had a great team but it was not a team of great players exactly. There were a few great players but most of their players were "merely" very good.

 

[ankitj]

SA were a machine between 1996 and 1999 even if they didn't have greatest of natural talent (fast bowlers excepted). I remember watching many India SA games back then with no hope whatsoever of a win. The 99 semi debacle is something they didn't quite recover from and never became ruthless efficient machinery again.

 

[Bolo.]

Rsa didnt have ATG bats, but they had a bunch that were very good in their batting positions. In the mid 90s, the top was weak, but they got a few new bats around 96 and some of the older ones got better. By 99, the the whole top order was quality (except Cullinan), even if nobody was ATG level. And they had Boucher, Klusenar, Pollock from 7-9, or occasionally an even stronger lower order when not playing Elworthy.

Rsa absolutely did have ATGs in the side though. Pollock, kallis, klusenar and donald unquestionably ATGs. 4 in a side (around their peak) is a big number. Maybe Aus topped this sometime in the early 2000s, but I doubt another team has.

Team had some issues, but the klusenar reliance is more a result of underperformance than paper weakness.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The only memory I have of bracken is the drop of Gibbs in the 438 game

 

[trundler]

Wasim, Waqar, Inzi, Anwar

 

[Bolo.]

Inzi and Anwar were greats of their time, but I wouldnt call them unquestionably ATGs.

 

[trundler]

Anwar was definitely an ATG, Inzi probably not. Anwar was only second to Tendulkar in that bat long, score fast, go big role. I think he had the most 100s at one point. If he played today he'd be Rohit.

 

[stephen]

In the 99 World Cup final Pakistan fielded a side which had Wasim, Shoaib, Saqlain, Inzi, Moin Khan, Razzaq and Anwar. All of whom were Pakistani greats. It was honestly probably a better side on paper than the 92 side which won the final.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

That WC Jersey was also a great Pakistan Jersey.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

I don't think you are giving Gary Kirsten enough credit there. And Cronje too.

Nah you are overrated the 1999 SA batting massively. They were solid but nothing special. Their real strength was in their lower-middle order all-rounders, where they were unparallelled, and the rest of the side was solid enough for them to be consistently competing to be the best.

Agree with those saying that the Pak team looked very strong on paper. If the 99 cup was played in Asia they would have been hard to beat.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

141 matches, 15 centuries, 5720 runs, average 44, strike rate 77 over 10 years batting as opener.

In the 99 World Cup final Pakistan fielded a side which had Wasim, Shoaib, Saqlain, Inzi, Moin Khan, Razzaq and Anwar. All of whom were Pakistani greats. It was honestly probably a better side on paper than the 92 side which won the final.

None of them were as mentally tough as Miandad and Imran though.