Steve Waugh hits the nail on it's head.

[Norman]

35 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

Ok since you love to use my green card let me tell you the truth about my team. Your team was better than my team. Yes you herd it here. 

Not really an achievement to be better than "your team" and I don't want you to tell me that. Because everyone knows it. 

 

And you failed to answer my question. Let me ask you again. 

 

If you think India did not deserve winning this world cup , then who deserved it ? 

 

There has to be someone right ? Or are you just going to say

 

"No-one deserves to win this world cup. Every team has weaknesses. No team is flawless and invincible.  Just strip off this edition of the world cup and play it only when a team looks indomitable so that they really deserve winning this. " 

[Norman]

1 minute ago, Shaz1 said:

England deserves to win it cause they got the best team in these conditions. If you look at them 4 years back they changed as the team the most. They got a solid batting line up consisting of dangerous hitters. Even if there top order is down they can bat very fast. There bowling line up is not bad either. To me this team is the most balanced. 

 

I had to tell you that cause you kept saying I was biased due to me supporting the green team. Which was your way of deflating the main problem with your team.

 

I thought you'd say England. 

 

Don't they have any weaknesses ? Is their bowling good enough to win consistently against top teams. If you ask me , I'd say NO. India at their lethargic best still managed to score 310+ against their bowling on a two paced pitch that too while chasing. Tells you something's doesn't it ? 

 

I agree that indian middle order is weak but an all round bowling attack that we've got pretty much negates it. We have 3 weaknesses at positions 4,5 and 6. England's bowlers other than Archer are their weaknesses. It evens out. And on a wicket which is not a patta India would win 8/10 times against England. 

[Norman]

38 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

England does have a weakness. They got too many risk taking batsmen who could get out cheaply if the pitch does not suit them. There bowlers are not that great either. However I favor them of winning this tournament cause these conditions suit them very well. The team I predicted that would kick out India is them not New Zealand. I don’t care for past series I am strictly talking about this tournament.

 

Indians themselves would struggle if the pitch was not patta. Lets be for real for a sec, if Kohli and Rohit don’t fire the team is done. Thats a big weakness right there. I don’t see the balance your talking about. Cause that balance did not help you win against New Zealand even when the bowlers fired.

England are done if Roy and Root don't fire. You would have seen how they played against Sri Lanka and Australia without Roy.

 

Australia are done if Warner and smith don't fire.

 

New Zealand are done if Williamson alone doesn't fire.

 

The point is every team depends upon two or a max three batsmen to score the bulk of the runs.And the rest are just supporting or backup crew.

 

And the fact that we came quite close to beating New Zealand even after our top 3 combined scored 3 runs tells us that our middle is not as weak as you think it is. We Indian fans complain about our middle order because it can be even better with the resources and potential we have in our ranks ...but not because it is piss poor.It is average at the least and can be quite efficient in middling run chases.

 

 

 

[Norman]

13 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

No England are not done if they lose Roy. England loses a strong start if they lose Roy. They got the batsmen to up the tempo if needed. Aside from Root and Roy they got Bairstrow, Morgan, Butler, and Stokes. None of these batsmen are stooges with a bat. They bat deep till they reach Plunkett. 

 

You guys came close cause of a great performance by Jadeja who is not even a regular of your team. Otherwise you had lost when your top order fell quickly. Despite your middle order firing it never won you the game. Which further proves you struggle without Kohli and Virat firing.

And where was all this batting depth , when chasing against Pakistan and Sri Lanka of all teams , let alone Australia ?

 

And also what made you think that Rahul, Pant, Pandya , DK/Kedar and even a past it Dhoni are stooges with the bat.All of them combined have scored 5 fifties and 1 hundred between them in this world cup. Pandya and Pant have three 48s  between them.

 

My point is clear and simple. I agree that England has more batting pedigree than us . But we , having a well oiled and an all round bowling attack negates that. Cricket is  a game of three disciplines. Being ahead in just one does not make one a better team than the other. India and England are on par with each other and would have been the perfect finalists for this world cup but credit to New Zealand for using the toss advantage and the conditions well.

 

[sandeep]

8 hours ago, Norman said:

 

I don't think anyone's glorifying them here. And yes...even if they do glorify , there's not much wrong with it given their achievements. 

 

8 hours ago, Pollack said:

What over-glorification? Aussies are 5 times World Cup champions. Dominated an entire decade with "no unfortunate" or "not meant to be " attitude. If anything they are under glorified since Australia in this decade has been melted down a lot. Still managed to grab one World Cup.

 

Steve Waugh is a hypocrite who tried to extend his own career when he was well past it.  Thats the point.  Aussies have won a lot over the late 90s and early 2000s.  And credit to them for that.  But this guy is over-hyped and deifyed - he was a white boi Robin Singh for a whole bunch of years in the 1st half of his career - and then later on he was able to kick on as a batsman.  All credit to him for a successful career and captaincy.  But he was a big fat huge hypocrite who typified the syndrome of one "line" for me, and another for thee.  

[cricketfan28]

28 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

 

Steve Waugh is a hypocrite who tried to extend his own career when he was well past it.  Thats the point.  Aussies have won a lot over the late 90s and early 2000s.  And credit to them for that.  But this guy is over-hyped and deifyed - he was a white boi Robin Singh for a whole bunch of years in the 1st half of his career - and then later on he was able to kick on as a batsman.  All credit to him for a successful career and captaincy.  But he was a big fat huge hypocrite who typified the syndrome of one "line" for me, and another for thee.  

LMAFO..

[Dil Dil India]

18 hours ago, Shaz1 said:

He is right. Our Hafeez is a zero and we still keep him because he’s a Legendary batsmen in our dressing room. He’s got these unrealistic stats that the team follows. Age does not matter as long as you love the cricket ball.

Or just ball in case of lala

[rkt.india]

17 hours ago, jf1gp_1 said:

Semi final you needed a Rahane kind of batsman. During league matches we had 4-5 low scoring games and it was more than evident we needed a solid no 4. Look at how most will jump as soon as you mention rahane in ODIs team. With pant and pandya in XI we could definitely afford a rahane in place of DK.

 

Rahane being solid is just pure imagination. He averages 32 after 70+ ODIs.

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, sandeep said:

 

 

Steve Waugh is a hypocrite who tried to extend his own career when he was well past it.  Thats the point.  Aussies have won a lot over the late 90s and early 2000s.  And credit to them for that.  But this guy is over-hyped and deifyed - he was a white boi Robin Singh for a whole bunch of years in the 1st half of his career - and then later on he was able to kick on as a batsman.  All credit to him for a successful career and captaincy.  But he was a big fat huge hypocrite who typified the syndrome of one "line" for me, and another for thee.  

At the age of 23, Waugh scored 865 runs in 11 tests at 86.

[Vijy]

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

 

 

Steve Waugh is a hypocrite who tried to extend his own career when he was well past it.  Thats the point.  Aussies have won a lot over the late 90s and early 2000s.  And credit to them for that.  But this guy is over-hyped and deifyed - he was a white boi Robin Singh for a whole bunch of years in the 1st half of his career - and then later on he was able to kick on as a batsman.  All credit to him for a successful career and captaincy.  But he was a big fat huge hypocrite who typified the syndrome of one "line" for me, and another for thee.  

Steve "Tugga" Waugh is hyped in the Big 3 nations. Oz because of home country, Eng because he did very well against them, and Ind because of colonial mentality + some "charity" stuff he did. As a result, I agree that he is overhyped to some extent.... and like many (but not all) Ozzies, he condoned double standards.

 

With this said, he was a very good Test player within his limitations - he was the true inheritor of Border (not same caliber though) since neither of them "looked" like Test players who could avg > 40 but ended up avg > 50. In particular, he well against the Windies, whose bowling was still very strong up to the mid- and late-1990s. I have much respect for Waugh the batsman, and less so for him as a captain/statesman. Even in the early part of his career, he was much better than Robin IMO.

[jf1gp_1]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Rahane being solid is just pure imagination. He averages 32 after 70+ ODIs.

Could have done with 32 in semis