Revisiting 2003 WC final

[Trichromatic]

Barring Gilchrist, Symonds and Bevan, most of the Aus batsmen were struggling in the WC.

 

Ponting had scored 135 runs in 6 matches of super six rounds. Then ended up scoring century v SL and v Ind in final.

[neel roy]

5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

147-3 in 23 overs and 187-4 in 31 overs scored by India meant that anything around 300 could have been chased

 

147/3 in 23 overs was great.. we needed only 213 in 27 overs ie in 162 balls. Even if we went run a ball till 40th over we would have had 110 in last 10 with sehwag in form.. in todays date with set batsmen this would have not been such a big task..

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, Norman said:

 

Yeah I saw bits of that podcast somewhere on reddit or YouTube. 

 

He also said that , after the toss was done and Ganguly was on his way to the dressing room , McGrath (who was practising on the ground) said something like "That's your first mistake of the day"..

 

MFs had that level of arrogance and confidence back then.. 

They had Mcgrath, the greatest match winnner in my book.He gets lost under the magic of Warne. This guy is the real reason for their dynasty.

 

He was a mean sob but I would love a Mcgrath in my team.

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Oval pitch is always bat first, India lost the finals by batting first.

 

In 2003 you had peak Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly along with Dravid, Kaif Yuvraj. If you are scared to bat first on flat wicket with this lineup .

 

They needed extra cushion of that useless Mongia shows how mentally weak they were that too when Kumble was being wasted on bench.

 

Sehwag , Sachin and Ganguly could bowl in that team.

 

I guess NZ series really scarred them. 

 

When they came out to bat v Netherlands in first game, everyone looks out of sorts. Next game v Aus just buried them. Only SRT managed to bat confidently in all games.

[Number]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

 

I doubt that team was inferior skill wise, rather very weak mentally. I always feel that Aus was slightly overrated.

Other than Sachin no one would have made it to Aussie XI of that time. Whereas 8-9 players of their first XI would have made it to our XI. We were a far inferior unit which played good cricket in the tournament.

2003 was actually their peak . In 1999 they were rising and 2007 they were in slight decline but they only had to beat mental midget Saffers.

[Trichromatic]

5 minutes ago, Number said:

Other than Sachin no one would have made it to Aussie XI of that time. Whereas 8-9 players of their first XI would have made it to our XI. We were a far inferior unit which played good cricket in the tournament.

2003 was actually their peak . In 1999 they were rising and 2007 they were in slight decline but they only had to beat mental midget Saffers.

 

They used to beat teams with Ian Harvey and Andrew Symonds bowling 15+ overs.

 

Ganguly and Dravid were as good as Hayden and Martyn in ODIs. 

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

I guess NZ series really scarred them. 

 

When they came out to bat v Netherlands in first game, everyone looks out of sorts. Next game v Aus just buried them. Only SRT managed to bat confidently in all games.

Yes it did plus that first match totally sapped any confidence they had in themselves.

 

SRT batted well against everyone but Australia.

[neel roy]

4 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

I guess NZ series really scarred them. 

 

When they came out to bat v Netherlands in first game, everyone looks out of sorts. Next game v Aus just buried them. Only SRT managed to bat confidently in all games.

Sehwag was immense in that NZ series.. we should have won the second test though.They successfully chased over 200.. the first test was madness.. in think india even had a lead after folding for 100 odd

[Trichromatic]

Whom did Mongia displace in 2003 WC team? He was very useless.

[neel roy]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

Whom did Mongia displace in 2003 WC team? He was very useless.

VVS.Poor guy still holds it against ganguly.. Laxman was then picked for the pak odi series scored 2 centuries if i  m not wrong and won the decider for india..

Edited November 17, 2023 by neel roy

[Trichromatic]

Just now, neel roy said:

VVS

 

In the hindsight it seems VVS would have been far better pick than Mongia on those pitches. Next year we had him scoring 3 centuries in a week in triangular ODI series in Aus.

 

Even Kaif was quite underwhelming in the WC.

[Number]

11 minutes ago, Norman said:

 

Yeah I saw bits of that podcast somewhere on reddit or YouTube. 

 

He also said that , after the toss was done and Ganguly was on his way to the dressing room , McGrath (who was practising on the ground) said something like "That's your first mistake of the day"..

 

MFs had that level of arrogance and confidence back then.. 

 

Yes. They were masters of mind games but had the game to back it up.

I think our team didn't understand much English so we beat them in 2001 and had a drawn series in 2004 (although McWarne didn't play in it) so we sort of had wood over them. But can't imagine what English or Saffers would have faced from them. Nonstop sledging barrage. 

[nevada]

Please send this painful thread to the archives where it belongs!

[Sean Bradley]

Different era, different cricket, different cricketers. That was the biggest hurt for me in terms a cricket match. We were playing so well till the final match. 

 

Time for redemption. 

[R!TTER]

18 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Ganguly and Dravid were as good as Hayden and Martyn in ODIs. 

No 

 

First of all Hayden opened at the time, Ganguly was at 3 & Martyn was at 3(4?) ^ Dravid came in at 5/6 at times. You also probably conveniently forgot the two tri series in India 2003 & then straight after that in 2004 in Oz - we were destroyed both times there. Ganguly was in terminal decline at the time & Dravid was hit & miss in LO.

[Ranvir]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

They had Mcgrath, the greatest match winnner in my book.He gets lost under the magic of Warne. This guy is the real reason for their dynasty.

 

He was a mean sob but I would love a Mcgrath in my team.

Exactly. England finally won the ashes in 2005, the two matches they won were when he was out injured. The greatest fast bowler of all time. 

[R!TTER]

Not their greatest match winner in ODI's not even close, Warne/Gilly/Bevan & Symonds were all above him!

[Trichromatic]

4 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

Exactly. England finally won the ashes in 2005, the two matches they won were when he was out injured. The greatest fast bowler of all time. 

 

McGrath was greatest match winner in tests for Aus.

 

But his abilities in ODIs are overvalued. He was still great ODI bowler, but Aus didn't have good 4th and 5th bowlers many times.

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

This was first WC which I watched closely. I had watched 1999 WC also, but I only had very few memories of those.

 

Ganguly won the toss and I bet 9 out of 10 captains would have opted to bat first.

 

“Sourav you’ve won the toss. What will you be doing?" boomed Michael Holding in his Jamaican accent.

Fans could barely hear “We’ll have a bowl" in the midst of the din, already having assumed that the result of winning the toss was a foregone conclusion. Wait, what did he just say?

“Why is that?" asked Holding, thrusting the microphone towards Ganguly.

“Because it’s, it’s a bit damp… Uhhh, it’s because of the rain in the morning. We’ll have a go at this first."

This was like turkeys voting for Christmas, so to speak. Was the earlier result playing on his mind?

“So, you’re hoping that your fast bowlers will get a bit of purchase on this surface and you’ll get a couple of early wickets?"

“I definitely think so if they can put the ball in the right place the way they’ve bowled…we’ll definitely get some purchase".

Why did he have to think? All he had to say was “Bat". One syllable. Was it so difficult to say?

“Ricky, would you have done anything different?" asked Holding of the Australian captain, who was barely able to conceal his delight.

“No, would’ve had a bat, actually. It’s always nice to bat in big games in finals; I think so we would’ve had a bat."

See! He was thinking straight. Why couldn’t Ganguly think more like him?

https://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/4V5GYZgqJJioqFKXSfYFJI/2003-World-Cup-final-If-only-India-had-chosen-to-bat-first.html

 

Turkeys for Christmas?  Huh?  Turkeys are for Thanksgiving, it's ham or lamb for Christmas.

[AKane]

2 hours ago, neel roy said:

Go back to  indias group league match and see how mercilessly Aus thrashed india.. that played in his mind.. and  in the first match the pitch was damp as well.. india were 80/7.. gillespie 3/13.. and yes India had won the toss and elected to Bat..

Go back to the group league match between SA and Aus this year and see how mercilessly SA had thrashed Aus. The final was a different result.

 

Go back to the 1975 group league match between WI and Aus and see how mercilessly WI had thrashed Aus. The final was a 17 run decision and very close influenced by 4 runouts.

 

Don't read too much between group level matches and finals.