ODI Australia's Best ODI World Cup Winning Team

[Pippen94]

It's a weird one, I actually don't think that 1999 side is that far away from the 2003 & 2007 teams despite the 1999 team losing 2 games and the others not losing any. Lots of things to take into consideration. How good the opposition is, where the World Cup is played, etc.

The 1999 South Africa & Pakistan teams were probably better than anyone we faced in 2003/2007.

1999 seemed to rely on 3 or 4 players in big moments while 2007 seamed to have more match winners across the board

 

[Pippen94]

Considering the way Bichel batted against New Zealand and England in 2003, yes.

AUS vs NZ Cricket Scorecard, , 5th Super at Gqeberha, March 11, 2003

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get Australia vs New Zealand 5th Super, cricket scorecard, ICC World Cup 2002/03 dated March 11, 2003.

www.espncricinfo.com

AUS vs ENG Cricket Scorecard, , 37th Match at Gqeberha, March 02, 2003

Live Cricket Scoreboard: Get Australia vs England 37th Match, cricket scorecard, ICC World Cup 2002/03 dated March 02, 2003.

www.espncricinfo.com

Without that contribution things may have been very different in 2003 world cup.

Tell me, would Bracken have made 64 with the bat in the same scenario?

Purely as a bowler at one day level, Bracken was superior, I agree with you on that. But to say it is not a contest is disrespectful to Bichel's contributon to Australian cricket.

Bichel was a better bat than McGrath too

 

[Pippen94]

Bracken has significantly better ODI bowling stats. Really not a cometh-the-moment match-winner though (and Bichel was, in every aspect of the game).

How many man of the match performances did he have?!

 

[Pippen94]

you could mount an argument for all of those squads, plus the '75, '92, '96 squads.

the '03 initial squad also had warne, gillespie and watson who eventually didn't go.
- warnies replacement was hauritz which meant hogg was off the bench and into the XI.
- gillespie's replacement was bracken which meant bichel was off the bench and into the XI.
- watto's replacement was harvey and watto was probably only going as a reserve at that stage of his career.

the '07 initial squad had brett lee who eventually didn't go and johnson went, which pushed tait off then bench into the XI.


87 bench: moody, p.taylor, zesers
99 bench: martyn, s.lee, julian, dale
03 bench: maher, harvey, hauritz, bracken
07 bench: hodge, haddin, johnson, s.clark
15 bench: bailey, m.marsh, doherty, cummins

some good sides when you can leave out the likes of cummins, martyn, johnson, bracken etc

Cricketing world felt more competitive in 1987 & 1999. I've gone with 2007 on the back of a truly unique & versatile bowling attack coupled with batting so long you have Watson at 7.
Those earlier world cup winners were really put to the test by opposition & came through.

 

[Gough]

Cricketing world felt more competitive in 1987 & 1999. I've gone with 2007 on the back of a truly unique & versatile bowling attack coupled with batting so long you have Watson at 7.
Those earlier world cup winners were really put to the test by opposition & came through.

03 was the best for mine because all of the other teams in that tournament were so good as well.

 

[BronCrow]

Bichel was a better bat than McGrath too

I also said that Bracken was a better bowler than Bichel in the one day format. Pull your head in. Seriously.

 

[BStaff17]

03 was the best for mine because all of the other teams in that tournament were so good as well.

Even the might of Kenya

 

[HalloweenJack]

03 was the best for mine because all of the other teams in that tournament were so good as well.

Spot on. In 2007 Australia was so far in front of all other teams that it was a foregone conclusion we would win it.

 

[Flogwater]

Spot on. In 2007 Australia was so far in front of all other teams that it was a foregone conclusion we would win it.

This is a tough question.

All things considered, I rate the 1999 side marginally ahead of the 2003 side, which is a fraction better than the 2007 line-up.

In comparing the teams, I am looking at their line-ups in the respective finals. Therefore, Shane Lee, Adam Dale and Brendon Julian are not included in rating the 1999 combination!

It's interesting that, despite Australia's best line-up in 1999 being very strong, they lost two games and tied another in the 1999 tournament. As noted in previous comments, Australia were wobbly at various stages in their 2003 games, but they overcame these challenges and were undefeated. In 2007, Australia were dominant and I can't recall them being in real danger in any of their matches.

However, Australia were by no means an obvious choice to win in 2007. In early-2007, the lost the triangular ODI finals series to England and were beaten 0-3 in New Zealand. It's fair to say that they were justified favourites for the 2007 World Cup, but they were not in juggernaut form when they started the 2007 campaign in the West Indies.

A good, thought-provoking thread.

 

[eth-dog]

Spot on. In 2007 Australia was so far in front of all other teams that it was a foregone conclusion we would win it.

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

Was the 1984 Essendon side better than the 2000 one because Hawthorn was great as well? 2000 is something we'll likely not see for a long time and is still historically the best season ever produced.

 

[Gough]

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

Was the 1984 Essendon side better than the 2000 one because Hawthorn was great as well? 2000 is something we'll likely not see for a long time and is still historically the best season ever produced.

Last quarter of the 84 GF haunts me. If I ever met Bill Duckworth I'd tell him he made me cry.

 

[eth-dog]

Last quarter of the 84 GF haunts me. If I ever met Bill Duckworth I'd tell him he made me cry.

I wasn't alive, however I have been known to watch it from time to time.

 

[Gough]

I wasn't alive, however I have been known to watch it from time to time.

Enjoy your ban.

 

[ioppolo]

Spot on. In 2007 Australia was so far in front of all other teams that it was a foregone conclusion we would win it.

Doesn't that make them the best of the winning teams?

 

[HalloweenJack]

This line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

Was the 1984 Essendon side better than the 2000 one because Hawthorn was great as well? 2000 is something we'll likely not see for a long time and is still historically the best season ever produced.

I can see your point.

The 1984 Essendon was better than the 2000 Essendon because the competition was better just like the 2003 ODI side was better than 2007 ODI side. All of those teams mentioned were awesome and hard to argue against any of them.

As an aside. I watched the 1984 GF with 2 mates who are both Essendon fans. For w reasons I barracked for Essendon for the first and only time, 1. to support my mates and 2. Bill Duckworth because he played for my team West Perth prior to playing for Essendon.

 

[Belnakor]

Spot on. In 2007 Australia was so far in front of all other teams that it was a foregone conclusion we would win it.

without a doubt, the most dominant team to have won a WC. Never ever came close to losing.

Look at these results:

won by 203 runs
won by 229 runs
won by 83 runs

Won by 103 runs
Won by 10 wickets
Won by 7 wickets (3 overs to spare)
Won by 9 wickets (after 12 overs)
Won by 7 wickets (7 overs to spare)
Won by 215 runs

semis
Won by 7 wickets (nearly 20 overs left over)
Won the final by 53 runs.

 

[Pippen94]

without a doubt, the most dominant team to have won a WC. Never ever came close to losing.

Look at these results:

won by 203 runs
won by 229 runs
won by 83 runs

Won by 103 runs
Won by 10 wickets
Won by 7 wickets (3 overs to spare)
Won by 9 wickets (after 12 overs)
Won by 7 wickets (7 overs to spare)
Won by 215 runs

semis
Won by 7 wickets (nearly 20 overs left over)
Won the final by 53 runs.

Final wasn't close. Sri Lanka chase not in hunt for most of it.

 

[Santana]

Final wasn't close. Sri Lanka chase not in hunt for most of it.

There was a period there where Sri Lanka looked like they were half a chance. It was the Sangakkara/Jayasuriya partnership that was big and they got to around 120 for 1 before Sangakkara got out. RRR would have been high granted but they had wickets in hand before Sangakkara & Jayasuriya both departed. It was pretty much over after that but I remember getting nervous.

 

[Pippen94]

There was a period there where Sri Lanka looked like they were half a chance. It was the Sangakkara/Jayasuriya partnership that was big and they got to around 120 for 1 before Sangakkara got out. RRR would have been high granted but they had wickets in hand before Sangakkara & Jayasuriya both departed. It was pretty much over after that but I remember getting nervous.

I don't remember even thinking they had chance. Rain reduced target makes it look closer than what it was