Jump to content
maniac

Does winning ICC tournaments reflect how good a team is?

Recommended Posts

We keep saying how India hasn’t won an ICC tournament in a long time.

 

However looking at some of the recent champions, has winning these cups really meant anything for them?

 

WI won the last 2 WT20’s, look at their cricket in general, they also won a CT in 2004.

 

Pak won a CT and they are a bottom team in ODIs and won a WT20 in 2009

 

Srilanka won a WT20 in 2014

 

Australia and Nzl haven’t won a WT20 yet.

Nzl don’t have a WC and their CT win was 20 years back.

 

SA’s golden generation doesn’t have a single trophy and there were times in the 90’s and 2000’s when they were better or as good as the dominating Aussies.

 

India last won a WT20 in 2007

 

England won a WT20 in 2010 but they were a poor LoI team for the next 5 years and they barely limped their way to a WC win at home in a controversial game.

 

In 1983 India wasn’t even a top 4 team in ODis 

 

Pak had to show up for 2-3 games in 1992 and they were far from the best team and so was Aus in 1987 or even Srilanka in 1996 who needed some luck.

 

Does winning an ICC tournament really reflect how good a team is?

 

 

Link to post

It depends on the nature and the value/importance of the tournament.

 

As example, Champions Trophy is basically a cheap downgraded version of World Cup. When Australia were winning World Cup back to back from late 90s and 2000s, they failed to win the Champions Trophy and it was won by other teams mostly( SA, NZ and then shared by India/SL and I don't even remember who won the next). So, winning a Champions Trophy does not hold any major significance.

 

Next comes on line is World T20s. As the nature of the format is, on a given day any team can beat any team in this tournament and individual performances can often take the game away very easily in this format. It is the most volatile format of cricket, like how cryptocurrency and stock market is compared to mutual funds and other FDs. It is not a right format to assess the strength and quality of a team.

 

Finally comes the World Cup and World Test Championship. I must mention that World Test Championship will more often than not depict the quality of team. Test matches can't be fluked or won by individual performances. You gotta be really good to qualify to the finals and then win it. However, the first tournament was a bit farcical in terms of scheduling and favoured teams like New Zealand who don't play as many tests in a series and also COVID helped their case easier in the road to finals. But they deserve credit for win in Final as they are a better team than us in those conditions.

 

To conclude, in most general cases, ODI and Tests World tournament winners are deserved winners and it reflects how good those team are, disregarding a few exceptions obviously which will be there in any case.

 

 

Edited by Majestic
Link to post

Just answer this, if the ATG Aussie team had not won any world cups or the WI ATG team had not won a single world cup, would they still be considered ATG?

 

Also would those teams choke in WTC or CT finals?

 

You will get your answer

 

This is arguably indias ATG team. This is also at a time  when other all time stronger teams like australia, England and south africa are much weaker

 

Not winning and dominating at such a time is extremely disappointing and a definite under achievement 

 

Comparing this with south africa who were labeled chokers or our previous teams who perinally underachieved is being satisfied with mediocrity 

 

Today we have unlimited money and pool of talent coming in, way more than any other team. Winning is the only measure of success. There is no way we should compromise for mediocrity  or compare with our past teams or strong teams which underachieved in history 

Edited by New guy
Link to post
1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

No , SA n NZ have been good sides but not with much of silverware 

Tournaments just takes success to next level but lack of it doesnt make a team bad 

No one calls that SA team an all time great team, they are labeled chokers. NZ was indeed good but just that, nothing more

 

But with our money and pool of players why should we be content with merely being good? We should aim for ATG team like Aussies, not settle for just being good

Link to post

Let just say that if teams consider themselves as good, they would want to win the best tournaments. 

 

During any period of history, there would be teams playing good to great cricket. These teams would want to leverage on the form to win a major tournament to leave their footprints on history. 

 

SA too have wrestled the Test #1 ranking (the major crown in tests pre WTC) from Australia too. 

 

 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, New guy said:

No one calls that SA team an all time great team, they are labeled chokers. NZ was indeed good but just that, nothing more

 

But with our money and pool of players why should we be content with merely being good? We should aim for ATG team like Aussies, not settle for just being good

 

tittle says good, SA may be chokers but they were a good team 

Link to post

When India won the 1983 World Cup, it was an amazing achievement. But it does not take away from the fact that West Indies were the dominant team of that time. In fact that was what made it great. We won a tournament that had stronger teams in it. But we did not become the best in the world because of it. Before and after that tournament we played Pakistan and West Indies in bilateral series and they cleaned our clocks. Now, we are in a bit of an opposite situation. We have a team that, overall, wins more often than it loses, typically gets to a semi final point in ICC tournaments but doesn’t take home the big prize. As a fan, I prefer to follow this team over the team we had in 1983. I like it that this team that goes into every series with a reasonable chance to win. So, while it would have been better if we also won ICC tournaments, in an imperfect world I will go for a team that generally does well year in year out over a team that wakes up once in a while to produce that miracle tournament win.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

tittle says good, SA may be chokers but they were a good team 

I thought "how good" means degree of goodness on a scale, not just good or bad. Anyways thats a more interesting topic too. 

 

No one would deny india is a good team but so are england, Australia, new zealand. So yeah out of 8 main teams arguably 4-5 are good

Link to post
9 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

When India won the 1983 World Cup, it was an amazing achievement. But it does not take away from the fact that West Indies were the dominant team of that time. In fact that was what made it great. We won a tournament that had stronger teams in it. But we did not become the best in the world because of it. Before and after that tournament we played Pakistan and West Indies in bilateral series and they cleaned our clocks. Now, we are in a bit of an opposite situation. We have a team that, overall, wins more often than it loses, typically gets to a semi final point in ICC tournaments but doesn’t take home the big prize. As a fan, I prefer to follow this team over the team we had in 1983. I like it that this team that goes into every series with a reasonable chance to win. So, while it would have been better if we also won ICC tournaments, in an imperfect world I will go for a team that generally does well year in year out over a team that wakes up once in a while to produce that miracle tournament win.

But if west indies had lost 2 the two world cups before that would they still be great?

 

Yes occasionally david slays goliath but overall goliath will still wins more wars while david wins the occasional battle

 

The fallacy is assuming the choice is only between the 83 team and the current team choking everywhere 

 

This team can still be called underachievers and chokers despite doing much better than the 83 team. The comparison should be with potential achieved rather than across  eras

 

The 83 team didnt win anything as they were weak and rose to one occasion. This team has no excuses, they have talent, pool, variety and are losing only because of their own mistskes. Massively underachieving compared to their true potential 

Edited by New guy
Link to post

@New guy

I agree with most of your points but you are selling the South African team short. 

They were definitely a great team, not an ATG one but then there's only been two ATG teams since 70s.

When you remember that team you definitely get the legendary vibe, Kallis, Smith, Pollock,Steyn,Gibbs, Amla, Devilliers, Prince, Boucher, Ntinj, Morkel were all world class players. 

 

We don't have equally talented players in our team, I am quite sure about that. 

Link to post

Rahul dravid never won an Icc trophy, same goes with devilliers, Amla and various other players I don't think it takes away anything from their resume. 

But yes as a captain it definitely affects your standing. 

Kohli will always be called a failed loi captain if he wins no silverware but that takes nothing away from his resume as one of the best players. 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Adamant said:

@New guy

I agree with most of your points but you are selling the South African team short. 

They were definitely a great team, not an ATG one but then there's only been two ATG teams since 70s.

When you remember that team you definitely get the legendary vibe, Kallis, Smith, Pollock,Steyn,Gibbs, Amla, Devilliers, Prince, Boucher, Ntinj, Morkel were all world class players. 

 

We don't have equally talented players in our team, I am quite sure about that. 

 

you might be talking about Test team. Prince?

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, New guy said:

But if west indies had lost 2 the two world cups before that would they still be great?

 

Yes occasionally david slays goliath but overall goliath will still wins more wars while david wins the occasional battle

 

The fallacy is assuming the choice is only between the 83 team and the current team choking everywhere 

 

This team can still be called underachievers and chokers despite doing much better than the 83 team. The comparison should be with potential achieved rather than across  eras

 

The 83 team didnt win anything as they were weak and rose to one occasion. This team has no excuses, they have talent, pool, variety and are losing only because of their own mistskes. Massively underachieving compared to their true potential 

You are right. Those are not the only 2 choices. My only point is that both teams had their successes and failures, and on balance it is easier for me to be a fan of this team, than the 83 squad. Also, I don’t subscribe to the theory that only ICC wins matter. As far as potential goes, that is a tricky one. This team has better pace bowling resources than any we have had in the past. Batting wise, I don’t think so. The 2004 combo of Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly was considerably stronger. Heck, as far as batting line up goes, the 1983 line up was pretty good and because they had decent utility all rounders, went deep too. Fielding wise, ground fielding we are good, but close in catching, we have had better in the past. So this team comes with its own pluses and minuses. But in their favor, they have figured out how to play consistently enough to win more often than lose.They are also pretty durable in that they play all year and switch between formats. I don’t think this team chokes a lot. The standout possible choke game was the Champions trophy game vs Pakistan, in that the stronger team on paper lost. By contrast, they lost to good teams that also played better on the day in the 2015 and 2019 World Cup knock out games. I think this current team is a very good team, but not yet a ATG caliber team. This team also has plenty of fight within. These last 2 series in Australia and England have shown that. So, no, in my mind they are not underachievers or chokers.  But I am with you in that this team can aspire to be better than they are now. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, kirkutfan said:

You are right. Those are not the only 2 choices. My only point is that both teams had their successes and failures, and on balance it is easier for me to be a fan of this team, than the 83 squad. Also, I don’t subscribe to the theory that only ICC wins matter. As far as potential goes, that is a tricky one. This team has better pace bowling resources than any we have had in the past. Batting wise, I don’t think so. The 2004 combo of Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly was considerably stronger. Heck, as far as batting line up goes, the 1983 line up was pretty good and because they had decent utility all rounders, went deep too. Fielding wise, ground fielding we are good, but close in catching, we have had better in the past. So this team comes with its own pluses and minuses. But in their favor, they have figured out how to play consistently enough to win more often than lose.They are also pretty durable in that they play all year and switch between formats. I don’t think this team chokes a lot. The standout possible choke game was the Champions trophy game vs Pakistan, in that the stronger team on paper lost. By contrast, they lost to good teams that also played better on the day in the 2015 and 2019 World Cup knock out games. I think this current team is a very good team, but not yet a ATG caliber team. This team also has plenty of fight within. These last 2 series in Australia and England have shown that. So, no, in my mind they are not underachievers or chokers.  But I am with you in that this team can aspire to be better than they are now. 

This team is literally one series win away from reaching AtG Level. They need to win in south africa. If they win in n.z as well then I would put them on par with Aussies of 2000. 

 

If not they will be around the same level as smith's saffers. 

 

Remember this team has a much higher workload than any of those past sides as they play 3 different formats plus ipl. 

Link to post
5 hours ago, Adamant said:

@New guy

I agree with most of your points but you are selling the South African team short. 

They were definitely a great team, not an ATG one but then there's only been two ATG teams since 70s.

When you remember that team you definitely get the legendary vibe, Kallis, Smith, Pollock,Steyn,Gibbs, Amla, Devilliers, Prince, Boucher, Ntinj, Morkel were all world class players. 

 

We don't have equally talented players in our team, I am quite sure about that. 

 

Waughs Aus Lloyd's WI Ponting Aus smiths SA Kohlis Ind Cooks Eng Gangulys Ind Imrans Pak in that order so far I guess? 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...