World Cups or Test Series Victories?

[Ford_GTHO351]

What do you all think is the greatest team acheivement in cricket, a World Cup or a Test Series?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Test victories are more meaningful in history IMO. World Cup's are very important, but I would trade one for a 5-0 whitewash of Australia away from home.

 

[Linda]

People always say, dont compare ODI's with Tests. So I wont:P

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

but I would trade one for a 5-0 whitewash of Australia away from home.

You wish

 

[amits]

world cups

to me india winning the 2007 cricket world cup is more important than a 5-0 whitewash of australia in australia (or a 3-0 win over them in this series )

 

[Richard]

People always say, dont compare ODI's with Tests. So I wont:P

I agree entirely.
Both equal if you ask me. Different, but equal.

 

[marc71178]

Tests for me since they are actually a far more meaningful way of comparing 2 sides than a 50 over bash.

 

[Richard]

Define meaningful.
They test different skills (and some similar ones), but who's to say one set of skills is more important or meaningful than the other?
One form of the game has been around far longer, but that doesn't neccesarily mean anything.

 

[marc71178]

In ODIs, just about any side can beat any other side, depending on luck at key times.

In Tests, the better side wins far more often than not, so it is a much more meaningful method of comparing teams (since it's not random)

 

[V Reddy]

World Cup any day for me

 

[anzac]

define WC - the final or the series???????

if your talking just the final then the Test series as it's played over a longer period of time

if your talking the whole series in WC then I'd go for that as a result of the variation of opponents & variables such as injury & weather that can have an immediate impact on your success.

While I agree that on any given day that most teams are capable of beating the others, it is the ability to put this together thru the knockout phase that is so important.

 

[Langeveldt]

Id rather SA won the world cup than whitewashed Australia...

Like either will happen though

 

[Neil Pickup]

1) Win Ashes
2) Win World Cup
3) Win any other Test Series

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Just like Richard said, I also reckon that they are both equal

 

[warrioryohannan]

world cups

to me india winning the 2007 cricket world cup is more important than a 5-0 whitewash of australia in australia (or a 3-0 win over them in this series )

India might win the the WC '07, but they simplay can't beat Aus 3-0 in Aus (something they were not even able to do it on their own back yard).

 

[Craig]

Id rather SA won the world cup than whitewashed Australia...

Like either will happen though

You would think South Africa's bad fortune will turn around in the WC.

I'm surprised to be honest they havent won it. They do or have the players.

 

[Richard]

For mine South Africa should have won WC92, WC96 and definately WC99.
WC2003 was a farce in more ways than twenty, though; SA's ****-up was just one of them.

 

[Richard]

In ODIs, just about any side can beat any other side, depending on luck at key times.

In Tests, the better side wins far more often than not, so it is a much more meaningful method of comparing teams (since it's not random)

So that's why Bangladesh have lost their last 40-odd ODIs, then?
Seriously, though, in ODIs the better side wins more often than not; in Tests the better side wins more often than not but even more so.
ODIs aren't, by any streatch of the imagination, random, but they're not quite as definitive as Tests. Still, however, equal in my estimation.
If you offer me the chance to watch a good Test or a good ODI I really wouldn't mind at all, though with a Test you obviously get more to watch.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

For mine South Africa should have won WC92, WC96 and definately WC2003.
WC2003 was a farce in more ways than twenty, though; SA's ****-up was just one of them.

What about 1999?

What on earth would make you think they would win WC 2003?? The only reason they even had a shot was because the WI v Bangladesh game was rained out! They were distinctly substandard against West Indies (bar Klusener) and were comprehensively beaten by New Zealand. I would definitely have to disagree. Had South Africa made the second round it would have been due to good luck for them and the reverse for WI.

Looking at the inconsistency with which they played and that Donald had clearly 'jumped the shark' I think they would have been lucky to make the semi-finals.

 

[Richard]

What about 1999?

What on earth would make you think they would win WC 2003?? The only reason they even had a shot was because the WI v Bangladesh game was rained out! They were distinctly substandard against West Indies (bar Klusener) and were comprehensively beaten by New Zealand. I would definitely have to disagree. Had South Africa made the second round it would have been due to good luck for them and the reverse for WI.

Looking at the inconsistency with which they played and that Donald had clearly 'jumped the shark' I think they would have been lucky to make the semi-finals.

I have confused you with a typo - the first WC2003 was meant to be WC99. Shortly to be corrected.