Which side is better?

[kretchy]

Both won a World Cup, one went through undefeated and lost key players through injury. The other started slowly and came good at the end of the tournament. Both had convincing finals victories.
Which side is better the Australian team of 99 or the team of 03?

 

[Ripper]

If you had of said last year that the team had waugh's & warne and the team has got better no one would have believed you.
Amazing stuff , maybe we do keep players past their use by date.

Big cloud over the 1999 final as many thought that the paki's may have been paid off by the bookies.

 

[Slax]

I'd go for the 99 side. Although this side did go through undefeated I think that the pitches were better suited to Australia than the English wickets (except Port Elizabeth).

 

[Goldenblue]

The 99 side.

When the team was looking down the barrel and looking like they would not make the finals, they knew they had to win 7 games in a row to win the World Cup.

This was the turning point for Waugh as a Captain. This was the start of an Australian side that began to win by self belief. This attitude helped the Aussies win those 17 (16)? tests in a row after the world cup and gave the players a "go for the kill" attitude that has given us the best sides in both forms of cricket.

 

[DaveW]

Australia 2003. EASILY.

The 1999 side had some luck; they scraped through to the second round on net run rate alone after some early losses in vital matches against Pakistan and New Zealand. They were most fortunate to win their final super six match against, really down and out at one stage and a loss would have eliminated them. They didn't even win their semi final but tied it and got through thanks to superior ladder position (net run rate again!).

Contrast that to the 2003 side who were totally dominant. They won every match. They did have some close calls against England and New Zealand, but these were not matches that would have seen them eliminated. The current side rarely looked fragile, even with injury and suspension to two key bowlers. And they didn't require the luck that the 1999 side had.

 

[St-KriS]

I think the side that went through a world cup undefeated, has to be considered the better side.

 

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by St-KriS
I think the side that went through a world cup undefeated, has to be considered the better side.

I agree.

Add to that the fact we were missing Shane Warne and Jason Gillespie from the side and you realise we are not only better now then in 1999 but have more depth as well.

 

[Kenny_01]

03 side, easily. Our side was undefeated this time around and a lot stronger on paper.

 

[rfctigerarmy]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
03 side, easily. Our side was undefeated this time around and a lot stronger on paper.

Gotta agree, 03 all the way!

 

[Bakes]

03 is the better, but my memories wont be as special as the 99 games against SA. I'n a nightclub in Bendigo (don't laugh) there were 200 houndred guys crowded around a couple of close tv's. It was nearing the end and a chick walked in and bagged cricket. It's the only time ive seen 200 or so guys tell a good looking chick to fcuk off.

 

[mel 40]

This years team.

 

[Destructive]

This years team, hands down.

 

[Nige_Bix]

I'll say this one - the way they found ways to win in tricky situations and turn the pressure around onto the opposition was great. They had all the other sides psyched out - basically in awe of them I felt - hence India's performances against them in both games!

It was being said in some quarters that they could be beaten given the unpredictaboity of ODI's - but ....
LOOK AT THE SCOREBOARD!