Kohli's chances of beating SRT's 1998 record year

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 hours ago, BeautifulGame said:

 

 

Taking nothing away from Sachin, but Aussie side wasn't even the best odi then let alone the best cricket side world class even seen.

They didn't even have McGrath in that tournament iirc.

Back then South Africa were the best odi side .Aussies only had the best test team.

In was only in 99-2000 the Aussies starts to pull away from the rest . Particularly after Hayden Gilchrist and Lee came into their odi team.Lee and Gilchrist around 99 and Hayden in 2000.Moreso after Symonds replaced Waugh in middle order.

Calling that Aussie side that had Damien Fleming and Kasprovic as the greatest ever odi side is beyond laughable.

 

That Australian side had just beaten a full strength S.A. in a best of 3 finals before the Indian tour. That too without having McGrath or Gillespie in the side. Heck they even won the tri series in India after being dominated in the Tests. And they were on their way to winning the series in Sharjah before SRT won it single-handedly. So while not being the greatest side of all time, they were still a bloody good side. For the talk about the attack being weak, they still had 2 sub-25 bowlers in Warne and Fleming. I wonder if Kohli has ever scored an ODI 100 against an attack featuring 2 sub-25 bowlers .

[putrevus]

Kohli is a better odi player than Sachin, Sachin's downfall was sometimes himself, he would go all out attack and get carried away but Kohli remains even keel. It is no accident that this guy has scored 32 hundreds in 200 matches.If you  take out initial few matches for settling in, he is remarkably consistent.

[Trichromatic]

23 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Kohli is a better odi player than Sachin, Sachin's downfall was sometimes himself, he would go all out attack and get carried away but Kohli remains even keel. It is no accident that this guy has scored 32 hundreds in 200 matches.If you  take out initial few matches for settling in, he is remarkably consistent.

Sachin while being technically better had ego. He used to over attack pacers many times and lose wicket in that. On the hand Kohli always tries to bat smartly. You could sense arrogance in SRT's batting many times, that is missing from Kohli's batting. 

[putrevus]

54 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Sachin while being technically better had ego. He used to over attack pacers many times and lose wicket in that. On the hand Kohli always tries to bat smartly. You could sense arrogance in SRT's batting many times, that is missing from Kohli's batting. 

Arrogance doesn't win matches , sensible batting does win matches.I will Kohli over Sachin any day just for that reason. 

[BeautifulGame]

4 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

That Australian side had just beaten a full strength S.A. in a best of 3 finals before the Indian tour. That too without having McGrath or Gillespie in the side. Heck they even won the tri series in India after being dominated in the Tests. And they were on their way to winning the series in Sharjah before SRT won it single-handedly. So while not being the greatest side of all time, they were still a bloody good side. For the talk about the attack being weak, they still had 2 sub-25 bowlers in Warne and Fleming. I wonder if Kohli has ever scored an ODI 100 against an attack featuring 2 sub-25 bowlers .

Where did I say they were not a good side? There is a massive gulf between good odi team and being the best ever.

 

As for Aus vs SA ,South Africa owned Australia throughout the tri series but Aus pipped them in the final and that was in Australia lol .Their overall record speaks for itself between Australia and SA.South Africa utterly dominated Australia in odis between 96 and 99 world cups and were comfortably the best odi team in 98 or leading into the world cup for that matter.Its after the 99 WC Australia started to build a truly great odi team.

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=3;orderby=won;spanmax1=01+May+1999;spanmin1=01+May+1996;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=team

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

6 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

Where did I say they were not a good side? There is a massive gulf between good odi team and being the best ever.

 

As for Aus vs SA ,South Africa owned Australia throughout the tri series but Aus pipped them in the final and that was in Australia lol .Their overall record speaks for itself between Australia and SA.South Africa utterly dominated Australia in odis between 96 and 99 world cups and were comfortably the best odi team in 98 or leading into the world cup for that matter.Its after the 99 WC Australia started to build a truly great odi team.

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;filter=advanced;opposition=3;orderby=won;spanmax1=01+May+1999;spanmin1=01+May+1996;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=team

 

Australia also beat S.A. 4-3 in their backyard just a year earlier. So they beat them home and away. S.A. only dominated them in the Titan Cup only to lose the final to India LOL. 

[BeautifulGame]

Australia also beat S.A. 4-3 in their backyard just a year earlier. So they beat them home and away. S.A. only dominated them in the Titan Cup only to lose the final to India LOL. 

Won 11 lost 6

[Jimmy Cliff]

18 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Australia also beat S.A. 4-3 in their backyard just a year earlier. So they beat them home and away. S.A. only dominated them in the Titan Cup only to lose the final to India LOL. 

Won 11 lost 6

Lost the games that mattered. Australia won bilateral series away and the tri series at home.

[BeautifulGame]

Lost the games that mattered. Australia won bilateral series away and the tri series at home.

Yes Aussies were clutch and Saffers were chokers.

But