-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
In the late '90s/early 00s could Australia put out the best 2 XI's in world cricket?
- Thread starter mr_mister
- Start date
stephen
Well-known member
Ignoring the fact that we're now talking about ODIs when the topic was tests, it's a huge stretch to suggest that Sri Lanka were dominant in the late 90s. They were dominant at home in the mid 90s, but they didn't travel that well IMO.
Let's look at their record in the late 90s:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1996;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
Including their home world cup win in the stats and they had a win/loss ratio of 1.22. That's hardly great for a dominant side. Pakistan in the period had a ratio of 1.29, Australia had a ratio of 1.39. South Africa had a ratio of a whopping 3.67.
Drilling down into Sri Lanka's late 90s results specifically we get this:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1996;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
They were dominant in Asia, particularly at home in Sri Lanka. But even that is misleading.
Home record: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1996;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
As you say, they never hosted South Africa. In addition to that, they went 3-2 against Australia, which is hardly the mark of dominance - it's the sign of two well matched sides. They also went 8-3 against India (who were pretty rubbish in the 90s). The only other non minnows they faced were Pakistan once and New Zealand twice. Really all you can say from their home record at the time was that they were much stronger at home than India and minnows.
Going back to their overall record in the late 90s, Sri Lanka had a 0.94 win/loss ratio away from home and 0.85 at neutral venues. You can't be dominant if you lose more than you win away from home.
Looking at the country by country stats, Sri Lanka had positive win rates against Pakistan, India, Zimbabwe and New Zealand, were even against the West Indies and were negative against Australia, England and South Africa. Sri Lanka in the late 90s were decidedly middle of the pack.
On average, Sri Lanka were a much stronger side between 00 and 09 than they were between 96 and 99, despite not winning a cup during the era:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...2000;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team
Really, Sri Lanka got lucky in 96 and unlucky in 07. They were a side who excelled only in home conditions in 96, which is when the world cup happened to land on their doorstep and got a win over a side who they had been fairly evenly matched with to that point. They were a much better all conditions side in 07 who happened to run into the greatest ODI side ever assembled *and* got unlucky in the final.
mr_mister
Well-known member
by 1999 when I first got to witness SL they were already pretty useless. Pretty weak in the tri series that summer against England/Australia and then even weaker later that year in the world cup. They let a couple of Kenyan batsman put on a 150 run partnership against them and of course Ganguly/Dravid made their bowling look third-rate by putting on a stand of 300+
On top of that nobody for SL scored higher than 57 all tournament. Chaminda Vaas topped the team batting averages averaging 30. Neither Jayasuriya or De Silva could crack 100 runs for the tournament from 5 starts each
To say they could have won the world cup that year if it was played in Asia is a stretch and half miagra old boy! Conditions play are a part with cricket but they can't turn complete trash into gold
On top of that nobody for SL scored higher than 57 all tournament. Chaminda Vaas topped the team batting averages averaging 30. Neither Jayasuriya or De Silva could crack 100 runs for the tournament from 5 starts each
To say they could have won the world cup that year if it was played in Asia is a stretch and half miagra old boy! Conditions play are a part with cricket but they can't turn complete trash into gold
Last edited:
Dendarii
Well-known member
He missed South Africa's first home match: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16468/scorecard/63586/south-africa-vs-india-1st-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-1992-93
And then one against Pakistan, which Kirsten captained and is best remembered for Symcox's century: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15962/scorecard/63789/south-africa-vs-pakistan-1st-test-pakistan-tour-of-south-africa-1997-98
Dendarii
Well-known member
Looking at team sheets, it would have been dropped for the first one. The team got a big overhaul after losing to the West Indies in their first post-readmission test match and he was one of the ones to get the chop, having been out for single figures in both innings. He then came back into the team for the second match against India, replacing Omar Henry in what looks like a decision to go all-seam in Johannesburg, and kept his spot when Henry returned for the next match as the decision was made to axe Jimmy Cook.
The second one was in the middle of his captaincy, so must have been an injury.
The second one was in the middle of his captaincy, so must have been an injury.
This is not too surprising. Rsa had a great run from late 98 until playing aus in late 2001. Lost only 4 tests in 11 series.
Aus lost 5 in this period. They were ranked on top for most of the period because they steamrolled teams and drew very seldom, but they failed a lot. They won 6 series, lost 2 and drew 2.
Rsa were a lot more consistent- 10 series wins and 1 draw.
Whenever AUS slipped up in a series or two, RSA would go to number 1 until AUS resumed their whitewashing streak.
It would be a bit weird if RSA never made it to number one on these records, especially when you compare results for AUS failures- RSA played all of the same 4 under the same home/ away circumstances as AUS, and beat them all with the exception of a draw to Lanka, who AUS lost against.
Its not an issue with the rankings- its just that the extent of AUS dominance when they were on top makes us forget that RSA produced better results.
morgieb
Well-known member
Would any other A teams be genuinely competitive at international level?
I think West Indies A in the late 70's/early 80's would do OK purely because of their bowling attack, but I dunno how their batting would've fared. Current India A would be a solid side at home but likely get smashed away from it. I guess South Africa A of the late 90's/early 00's would probably be on a comparable level to the Zimbo's of the 90's? If you go super historically (like before the 1950's or whatever) England would probably have at least five sides better than the non-Australian international ones, and Australia A would probably beat most of the non-English international ones too. Hard to think of much else.
I think West Indies A in the late 70's/early 80's would do OK purely because of their bowling attack, but I dunno how their batting would've fared. Current India A would be a solid side at home but likely get smashed away from it. I guess South Africa A of the late 90's/early 00's would probably be on a comparable level to the Zimbo's of the 90's? If you go super historically (like before the 1950's or whatever) England would probably have at least five sides better than the non-Australian international ones, and Australia A would probably beat most of the non-English international ones too. Hard to think of much else.
That was a draw, and RSA won the odis. Their B team beat Aus in the packer era, but they were also fielding a B team. And lost to India at full strength.
I suspect that their B team would have been decent, but nothing special.
Na, it was 84. They were merely good by that stage. All the best players had retired/ were over the hill.
stephen
Well-known member
Didn't they spank the Australian side a couple of years after that?
The Aus teams were not full strength, and the tours happened at a time full strength Aus wasnt a great side.
84 was absolute peak WI- any other year would have been a weaker team.
I reckon heydays WI B would have been a competitive side, but nothing special. Not as much depth as peak AUS, although their quicks were leagues ahead.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
WI A of the 80s would have had a pretty poor batting line up I would have thought. The bowlers would need to be incredibly special to make up for that.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Well-known member
He is saying the WI A with that attack, will be as good as the real Windies attack of the 90s