*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[Dingo]

Right now India are batting far better than the Aussies, while both sides are bowling about as well as each other. Had it not been for a storm in Sydney, and a meltdown in Melbourne, India would be 3-0 up. The Aussie batting needs to step up a notch or two...bring back Boof

 

[age_master]

Please drop the sportsmanship lectures, have you any idea how daft you sound?

sorry for expressing my opinions


its not about winning or losing, its about how you play the game....


sorry if i consider sportamanship important.

 

[marc71178]

As for one day cricket 96-99, check where the big W's all are, that's what matters.

OK then:

96 SA 25 Wins, 5 losses, Aus 13-13
97 SA 17-5, Aus 7-12
98 SA 17-5, Aus 15-10
99 SA 18-6, Aus 26-9

Overall SA 77-21, Aus 61-44

Like you say, look at the W's - they're all that matter!

 

[age_master]

Right now India are batting far better than the Aussies, while both sides are bowling about as well as each other. Had it not been for a storm in Sydney, and a meltdown in Melbourne, India would be 3-0 up. The Aussie batting needs to step up a notch or two...bring back Boof

haha i wouldn't go quite that far, Australia were in good shape before that storm, and with that momentum, you cant possibly say what would have happened, as for melourne, well who's fault was that.....


as for batting strength, well the Aussie middle order has a small form slump and weakness against spin in damien martyn, well hopefully boof will be back soon

 

[garage flower]

sorry for expressing my opinions


its not about winning or losing, its about how you play the game....


sorry if i consider sportamanship important.

I think the point he's making is that sportsmanship lectures are a bit rich coming from Australians.

 

[Pratters]

In 1996 Australia made the World Cup final and in 1999 they won the World Cup, and I'm pretty sure Australia won every World Series between 1996-1999. They also won many other 1-day competitions, IMO you cannot say that Australia weren't the strongest 1-day side between 1996-99.

1996 World Cup - South Africa and Sri Lanka came out the best teams in the league stages. Australia were down and out in the semis vs Windies with the Windies requring 41 to win with 7/8 wickets left in the last ten overs. Windies collapsed charecteristically but Australia clearly came out second best in the finals vs Sri Lanka

1996 Titan Cup - they didnt even reach the finals (other teams - South Africa and India)

1997 7 match one day tournament in South Africa - they won 4-3.. which was truly a good achievment

1998 February in New Zealand - They lost a one day series to the Kiwis


1998 Sharjah - Australia lost in the finals to India

1999 World Cup is when Austraila turned it aroud in the one dayers. They were not unbeatable before that in the one dayers and showed characted by fighting in the World Cup and South Africa was easily the best team in the competition before Australia made the resurgence.

Winning in home doesnt prove a lot. India has consistently won a logt of one day tournaments in home.

 

[Salamuddin]

sorry for expressing my opinions


its not about winning or losing, its about how you play the game....


sorry if i consider sportamanship important.

Is it now ?

It's not as if Australia can take the moral high ground on Ganguly.
Several Australian players aren't exactly leading exhibitors of sportsmanlike behaviour (ala Pat Rafter) ?

Remember the outbursts of several Aussies in the 4th test v W. Indies last year because they couldn't hack losing.
Remember McGrath's abuse of batsmen simply beacuse they hit him for 4.
Remember what Steve Waugh said to Steve Elworthy after he was hit on the head -- no compassion just, "Yeah and I bet they didn't even find a brain inside".

 

[username]

In one day Internationals Pakistan were dominant up until (but defenitely including) 96 (not just on the back of the world cup win), there in after Australia took the ODI crown, SA were a close second (Australia beat them and drew with them in the world cup, and beat them in 2 close 1 day series, 1 in SA and another at home) up until 2000 and since then there has been no competition, and still isn't. On paper SA probably had the better team, the difference was Steve Waugh.

The last test in Sydney said loads more about India than the Australians. It said about the Australians, we miss McGrath and Warne, big surprise. About the Indians, it said pure and simply, they are scared, and there's no 2 ways about it. It's not a mistake, it's fear.

You mentioned weather interferance hindering the Indians, well the Indians owe their only series draw this summer with the Australians to the washed out Brisbane test. Thank the heavens, for without them the Indians would be returning home with a hat trick of losses.

And it's no coincidence that the Indians are making inroads into the Australians bowling attack when they are without McGrath. But I'm not even going to bother down that road, they are dominating regardless, I'll just say that everything will be back to normal on his return.

The amount of hype which surrounds Indian cricket is absolutely insane, from Tendulkars batting, Gangulys captaincy to Pativs future, but that's nothing new, and no problem. That is, until I'm being sold this 'true competition' charade. They can continue to make all these rediculous claims as they always have, but don't tell me I'm watching something I'm not.

 

[username]

OK then:

96 SA 25 Wins, 5 losses, Aus 13-13
97 SA 17-5, Aus 7-12
98 SA 17-5, Aus 15-10
99 SA 18-6, Aus 26-9

Overall SA 77-21, Aus 61-44

Like you say, look at the W's - they're all that matter!

Now go look up the Series wins, and have a look who they were played against. Then have a look where SA beat Australia, notice I said 'big' wins, you know big as in the ones that matter. Pakistan were the best team at the beginning of that era, from there on it was the Australians, they were better than SA because they beat SA. SA may have bashed about more teams, kudos to them, but when it mattered, like the back end of a world cup or a deciding final series, the 'big' W's were all in the Australians corner. But thanks for your input.

Was going to let this go, but no. What was the point of posting this? Were you around watchign cricket at this point? Or were are just trolling to try and prove people wrong by looking up statistics? Anyway, there's no denying that Australia took the honours in the rivalry between SA and Australia during the times in which both teams were neck and neck. Now are you stupid enough to continue the argument?

 

[garage flower]

IThe amount of hype which surrounds Indian cricket is absolutely insane, from Tendulkars batting, Gangulys captaincy to Pativs future, but that's nothing new, and no problem. That is, until I'm being sold this 'true competition' charade. They can continue to make all these rediculous claims as they always have, but don't tell me I'm watching something I'm not.

India have beaten you and drawn with you in the last 2 test series and are competing equally in 1-dayers home and away. What more competition would you like? You seem to be pinning a lot of hope on a whingeing, ageing bully like McGrath and an ageing cheat who hasn't played for a year.

 

[Pratters]

In one day Internationals Pakistan were dominant up until (but defenitely including) 96 (not just on the back of the world cup win), there in after Australia took the ODI crown, SA were a close second (Australia beat them and drew with them in the world cup, and beat them in 2 close 1 day series, 1 in SA and another at home) up until 2000 and since then there has been no competition, and still isn't. On paper SA probably had the better team, the difference was Steve Waugh.

The last test in Sydney said loads more about India than the Australians. It said about the Australians, we miss McGrath and Warne, big surprise. About the Indians, it said pure and simply, they are scared, and there's no 2 ways about it. It's not a mistake, it's fear.

You mentioned weather interferance hindering the Indians, well the Indians owe their only series draw this summer with the Australians to the washed out Brisbane test. Thank the heavens, for without them the Indians would be returning home with a hat trick of losses.

And it's no coincidence that the Indians are making inroads into the Australians bowling attack when they are without McGrath. But I'm not even going to bother down that road, they are dominating regardless, I'll just say that everything will be back to normal on his return.

The amount of hype which surrounds Indian cricket is absolutely insane, from Tendulkars batting, Gangulys captaincy to Pativs future, but that's nothing new, and no problem. That is, until I'm being sold this 'true competition' charade. They can continue to make all these rediculous claims as they always have, but don't tell me I'm watching something I'm not.

The records are with South Africa. The losses are with Australia. South Africa sure wasnt as consistent as Australia from 1996-99 but comparing the two teams, South Africa sure played better.

So you think the Indian batting attack would be mauled if McGrath and Warne was there?

And regarding the hype, yes there is hype as is with Australia at times. But that doesnt mean India should say they didnt play well when they did.

Parthiv Patel is a debatable issue. I have my views and so do others. Check the Parthiv Patel thread maybe.

I dont know where you got me blaming the weather for India. Keep bashing the Indians when India does better than you expect and keep praising the Aussies no matter what. Thats what I call a true cricket fan. You certainly dont believe in Australian hype as I do in Indian hype it seems.

 

[username]

India have beaten you and drawn with you in the last 2 test series and are competing equally in 1-dayers home and away. What more competition would you like? You seem to be pinning a lot of hope on a whingeing, ageing bully like McGrath and an ageing cheat who hasn't played for a year.

This is great. A prime example. Competing equally in 1-dayers? Well I won't bother to touch that because I live in reality, and as such garbage like that has no relevance. Test series, they won a 3 test series in India. Yes. On the back of Australia winning 16 straight tests. That is a record. This record was set in the first test of that series, where Australia won in 4 days, Warne (amazing ball which tore Ganguly in 2) and McGrath causing havoc. Remember those guys? So after setting that record, where is your incentive to go on? Anyway yeah you won a series against Australia, you can have that. But since you're bringing up history, who won the series before? Need I ask? And the current series, drawn yes, but saved by rain in Brisbane.

Pinning hope? Australia still tore India apart in India without their bowlers. And you show little respect for 2 bowlers you'd have to go back decades to find Indian bowlers to which you could compare.

The competition I want comes from a team who would tear Australia apart with the horrendous bowling they've been displaying. A team which doesn't have to overcome a fear of embarassment before they can actually start attempting to win a game. If Australia bowled as bad and feilded as poorly as they have recently against the 1999 SA team, what would have happened? That is the competition I mean, where Australia are pushed to perform, not just plod along and still get through with the wins.

And oh yeah the cheat comment. 2 current Indian players have been disciplined for ball tampering and Gangulys unfair manipulation of the game is common practice. Please, the sub-continent is the reason why half the rules in cricket exist.

 

[username]

The records are with South Africa. The losses are with Australia. South Africa sure wasnt as consistent as Australia from 1996-99 but comparing the two teams, South Africa sure played better.

Ok now you're making things up. The losses that matter are the 98 version of the VB series, Carlton United series I beleive at that time, in which Australia won the final series 2-1. Was great cricket.

Then there were 5 or 7 1 dayers in 97 (I think) that Australia won either 3-2 or 4-3. This was in SA.

And then the World cup, won't need to highlight that one for you.

These 3 meetings were the reason Australia were considered the best at that time (it was a general consensus), and deservedly so. Now that was true competition.

 

[Pratters]

1996 World Cup - South Africa and Sri Lanka came out the best teams in the league stages. Australia were down and out in the semis vs Windies with the Windies requring 41 to win with 7/8 wickets left in the last ten overs. Windies collapsed charecteristically but Australia clearly came out second best in the finals vs Sri Lanka

1996 Titan Cup - they didnt even reach the finals (other teams - South Africa and India)

1997 7 match one day tournament in South Africa - they won 4-3.. which was truly a good achievment

1998 February in New Zealand - They lost a one day series to the Kiwis


1998 Sharjah - Australia lost in the finals to India

1999 World Cup is when Austraila turned it aroud in the one dayers. They were not unbeatable before that in the one dayers and showed characted by fighting in the World Cup and South Africa was easily the best team in the competition before Australia made the resurgence.

Winning in home doesnt prove a lot. India has consistently won a logt of one day tournaments in home.

This answers your question I hope. I already posted this. Now winning the VB series in home is the result which mattered? Then India could say Titan Cup was he result which matter which had tough teams in Australia and South Africa competing like in the VB sereis you mentioned which Australia won. Sorry, I am not making things up. It is you who just keeps with wrong perceptions.

 

[Salamuddin]

And the current series, drawn yes, but saved by rain in Brisbane.

Pinning hope? Australia still tore India apart in India without their bowlers. And you show little respect for 2 bowlers you'd have to go back decades to find Indian bowlers to which you could compare.

Australia tore apart India in India ? Australia haven't won a test series there since 1969, mate.

 

[Pratters]

This is great. A prime example. Competing equally in 1-dayers? Well I won't bother to touch that because I live in reality, and as such garbage like that has no relevance. Test series, they won a 3 test series in India. Yes. On the back of Australia winning 16 straight tests. That is a record. This record was set in the first test of that series, where Australia won in 4 days, Warne (amazing ball which tore Ganguly in 2) and McGrath causing havoc. Remember those guys? So after setting that record, where is your incentive to go on? Anyway yeah you won a series against Australia, you can have that. But since you're bringing up history, who won the series before? Need I ask? And the current series, drawn yes, but saved by rain in Brisbane.

Pinning hope? Australia still tore India apart in India without their bowlers. And you show little respect for 2 bowlers you'd have to go back decades to find Indian bowlers to which you could compare.

The competition I want comes from a team who would tear Australia apart with the horrendous bowling they've been displaying. A team which doesn't have to overcome a fear of embarassment before they can actually start attempting to win a game. If Australia bowled as bad and feilded as poorly as they have recently against the 1999 SA team, what would have happened? That is the competition I mean, where Australia are pushed to perform, not just plod along and still get through with the wins.

And oh yeah the cheat comment. 2 current Indian players have been disciplined for ball tampering and Gangulys unfair manipulation of the game is common practice. Please, the sub-continent is the reason why half the rules in cricket exist.

I find every statement illogical.

Austraila competed well in India which is commedable. So is India with a second string bowling attack.

Subcontinent is the reso half the cricket rules exits? Ahem.

Keep living in the paradise of your own man.

Regarding if rain hadnt interferred, India would have lost the test series, I would only say it was Waugh who was happier than Ganguly when the series ended in a draw.

Ganguly does go down your skin, doesnt he? Ganguly manipualted games .. right. Steve Waugh didnt do any thing in 1999 to have run rates in his favour. I support the move of Waugh but how are two different when both were not in the spirit of the game?

Just look at cricket outside Australia for a moment.

 

[Eclipse]

I think the point he's making is that sportsmanship lectures are a bit rich coming from Australians.

Funny how Laxman recently said he thought Australia were there most sporting off all the International teams?

Cheek out the artical if you dont beleive me but find it yourself.

 

[username]

This answers your question I hope. I already posted this. Now winning the VB series in home is the result which mattered? Then India could say Titan Cup was he result which matter which had tough teams in Australia and South Africa competing like in the VB sereis you mentioned which Australia won. Sorry, I am not making things up. It is you who just keeps with wrong perceptions.

Sigh this is getting redundant. SA may have had a better record against other countries than Australia did, great for them, not a huge deal, you keep bringing India up as though that has some huge relevance here, why? Fact is, the best 2 teams were SA or Australia and when the 2 met, Australia won. It's simple isn't it? Your arguing somethnig which was taken for granted because it was that simple. Anyway, carry on, convince yourself Australia wern't the best for as long as everyone thought they were....... or something, whatever.

 

[username]

Australia tore apart India in India ? Australia haven't won a test series there since 1969, mate.

Was obviously referring to the 3-1 pummelling in India of the 1 day team. Mate. Anyway why'd you only stop at the test series before the last, guess it was just convenient huh? Anyway, they arn't competetive, media are trying to make a contender out of a team who look asthough their motto should be 'we didn't lose by as much as you all thought we would'.

 

[Pratters]

Sigh this is getting redundant. SA may have had a better record against other countries than Australia did, great for them, not a huge deal, you keep bringing India up as though that has some huge relevance here, why? Fact is, the best 2 teams were SA or Australia and when the 2 met, Australia won. It's simple isn't it? Your arguing somethnig which was taken for granted because it was that simple. Anyway, carry on, convince yourself Australia wern't the best for as long as everyone thought they were....... or something, whatever.

I bring India up? You do I dont dude. You are criticising the Indians, not me when you want to talk about Australia South Africa whatever

Regarding the logic that as Australia beat South Africa, they were the best, if a team beats another one and loses to the others, does that make it the best team? clearly no. Simple if you understand. I dont have to convince myself any thing. South Africa were clearly better than Australia during the period.