2 Champions Trophies vs World Cup

[honestbharani]

Does this count as Pratters owning BW?

 

[S.Kennedy]

I never watch the Champions Trophy beyond highlights but always watch the Cricket World Cup.

 

[srbhkshk]

I never watch the Champions Trophy beyond highlights but always watch the Cricket World Cup.

You should, some of the games are really good and the teams try hard.

 

[S.Kennedy]

You should, some of the games are really good and the teams try hard.

I'm certain you are right but there is a lot of cricket on and If I sat and watched cricket all day on the box I'd never do anything! The scheduling here actually conflicts with the county championship and I tend to be watching or listening to that.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Does this count as Pratters owning BW?

Pratters expressing his ignorance should be an own goal right? Since when is ignorance and being ill informed a sign of pride?

 

[honestbharani]

And I thought u used to get sarcasm.. or at least the tongue smiley..

 

[Pratters]

Pratters expressing his ignorance should be an own goal right? Since when is ignorance and being ill informed a sign of pride?

There is also the Tamil Nadu Premier league (new season starting later this month) which HonestBharani would go gaga over I am sure. Doesn't mean it's good.

 

[srbhkshk]

I love the Gold - Silver medal analogy here. No amounts of CTs will compare to a world cup but it is a very important tournament in it's own right.

 

[honestbharani]

There is also the Tamil Nadu Premier league (new season starting later this month) which HonestBharani would go gaga over I am sure. Doesn't mean it's good.

 

[Agar]

The only purpose of the Champions Trophy is to serve as a confirmation factor after a World Cup.

Win both and you're a deserving nation (India '83-85, Australia '07-09, India '11-13).

Goes to show what a fluke the Australia-New Zealand final was in 2015.

 

[honestbharani]

I would add Australia 2003-2006 there as well.

 

[Agar]

I would add Australia 2003-2006 there as well.

They lost the 2004 edition. They were just lucky they got another go at the trophy before 2007.

 

[honestbharani]

No but they were clearly the dominant ODI side across conditions then.

 

[Agar]

No but they were clearly the dominant ODI side across conditions then.

They needed two attempts at the CT to complete the double. They can occupy tier 2 below India'83, Australia'07 and India'11.

 

[honestbharani]

Sure but you gotta add Windies 75-79 there too at the top tier, I think.

 

[vcs]

Lol Australia of 2003-06 were a couple of notches above India 2011. Stop making up arbitrary criteria like "needed two attempts to win the Champions Trophy".

 

[honestbharani]

I dont think or at least I hope, that Agar is making the point that it was sort of double that Australia did not achieve than any real reasoning that Australia were not the best ODI team between 2003 and 2006 or whatever it was.

And FWIW, I feel that Australia 2007 were easily better than most of the other great ODI sides, including the Aussies of the 2003 class themselves.

 

[Agar]

Lol Australia of 2003-06 were a couple of notches above India 2011. Stop making up arbitrary criteria like "needed two attempts to win the Champions Trophy".

They did need two attempts to win the Champions Trophy during their WC reign. That's just a plain fact.

Look, there's no denying that they were the dominant team in 2003, but the team that wins the two in a row gets bragging rights over the team that doesn't win the two in a row.

 

[morgieb]

Lol Australia of 2003-06 were a couple of notches above India 2011. Stop making up arbitrary criteria like "needed two attempts to win the Champions Trophy".

I'm about 90% convinced it's a fail attempt at baiting.

 

[Spark]

They did need two attempts to win the Champions Trophy during their WC reign. That's just a plain fact.

Look, there's no denying that they were the dominant team in 2003, but the team that wins the two in a row gets bragging rights over the team that doesn't win the two in a row.

Sure they do.