rangeelaraja Posted Wednesday at 03:49 PM Posted Wednesday at 03:49 PM 1 hour ago, Gollum said: I don't agree here. They were 80-90% as good as Aussies, but with two exceptions who swung the edge in favor of Aussies drastically. Warne and Gilchrist, they often would be the difference between the 2 sides. Warne vs Boje/Adams/Symcox, Gilchrist vs Richardson/Boucher. Huge difference in ability/mindset there, and if you notice their rivalry back then, these two Aussies were often the difference. Gilchrist in a series in RSA in 99 or 00, the way he used to kill them coming at 5 down. Warne throughout his career, Saffers had no answer. India fared much better because of the way we used to handle Warne. In ODIs, there is also the choking factor, which continues to this day. Maybe things would have been different if Cronje had remained honest, who knows? South Africa were a much stronger team in the 90s man for man - they had the best W/L record. 2-3 World class allrounders and peak Allan Donald, along with a very long batting line up. They had huge mental issues against Aus. They were not 80 % - 90 % as good as Aussies -they were better than Aussies. Yes, Warne was the difference - but that does not make Aus of the 90s a better than than South Africa. If we extrapolate your logic - India was a better than Aus in the 90s in ODIs because of Tendulkar ( just like you are saying Aus was better than SA due to warn ) Just like Warne gave Aus the edge and dominated SA ( a better team than Aus ) ...likewise... Tendulkar in 96-98 gave India the edge and dominated Australia ( a better than India ).
Gollum Posted Wednesday at 03:53 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 03:53 PM 13 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: Anand won the candidates in 2014 after losing to Carlsen in 2013, only to lose to him again in a one-sided match in 2014. He had chances in 2014, game 6 will haunt Anand fans forever, that was the chance to take the lead, and he missed a knight move. 13 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: He had won the candidates in 2014 with a +1 in a very strong pool that included - Kramnik, Topalov ( both siginificantly younger than him ) and also Levon Aronian. +3. And he drew from winning positions a couple of time, one I remember well against Andrekein.
rangeelaraja Posted Wednesday at 03:59 PM Posted Wednesday at 03:59 PM 4 minutes ago, Gollum said: He had chances in 2014, game 6 will haunt Anand fans forever, that was the chance to take the lead, and he missed a knight move. +3. And he drew from winning positions a couple of time, one I remember well against Andrekein. What i meant was +1 in the leaderboard. He won with 8.5, no.2 was 7.5.
Gollum Posted Wednesday at 04:00 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 04:00 PM 4 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: South Africa were a much stronger team in the 90s man for man - they had the best W/L record. 2-3 World class allrounders and peak Allan Donald, along with a very long batting line up. They had huge mental issues against Aus. They were not 80 % - 90 % as good as Aussies -they were better than Aussies. Yes, Warne was the difference - but that does not make Aus of the 90s a better than than South Africa. If we extrapolate your logic - India was a better than Aus in the 90s in ODIs because of Tendulkar ( just like you are saying Aus was better than SA due to warn ) Just like Warne gave Aus the edge and dominated SA ( a better team than Aus ) ...likewise... Tendulkar in 96-98 gave India the edge and dominated Australia ( a better than India ). I don't agree. Overall W/L anyway doesn't mean much because Aus often experimented in bilaterals. They were probably the only side who used to use bilaterals even in 90s and 00s to build their bench strength. Anyway I was talking about test cricket, in ODIs RSA anyway had choking problem, futile to discuss them. Not just Warne, Gilchrist....Aussies had Waugh bros, McGrath, Bevan and rising talent like Ponting. very strong bench with guys like Symonds, Hayden, Hussey unable to break in. Your India example is wrong. We had Sachin, then Ganguly, Kumble, Srinath and rest were duds/fixers. Aus had a very strong group of players. I remember a VB tri-series that time where Aus fielded 2 teams and final was contested between Aus and Aus-A.
Gollum Posted Wednesday at 04:04 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 04:04 PM Why aren't we discussing the women's event? Both Divya and Vaishali have chances to win the whole thing. Pity Humpy isn't playing.
rangeelaraja Posted Wednesday at 04:05 PM Posted Wednesday at 04:05 PM 2 minutes ago, Gollum said: I don't agree. Overall W/L anyway doesn't mean much because Aus often experimented in bilaterals. They were probably the only side who used to use bilaterals even in 90s and 00s to build their bench strength. Anyway I was talking about test cricket, in ODIs RSA anyway had choking problem, futile to discuss them. Not just Warne, Gilchrist....Aussies had Waugh bros, McGrath, Bevan and rising talent like Ponting. very strong bench with guys like Symonds, Hayden, Hussey unable to break in. Your India example is wrong. We had Sachin, then Ganguly, Kumble, Srinath and rest were duds/fixers. Aus had a very strong group of players. I remember a VB tri-series that time where Aus fielded 2 teams and final was contested between Aus and Aus-A. During the peak of their rivalry in the mid-to-late 90s, South Africa's numbers significantly outpaced Australia's. Win-Loss Ratio: Between 1995 and 1999, South Africa had a win-loss ratio of 3.56, winning 82 games and losing only 23. Australian Comparison: In the same period, Australia’s win-loss ratio was 1.36 (68 wins, 50 losses). This difference is too big to call it not meaningful. SA winning record from mid to late 90s was more than 2.5x Aus They had peak Klusener, Pollock and Kallis.
Gollum Posted Wednesday at 04:11 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 04:11 PM (edited) 15 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said: During the peak of their rivalry in the mid-to-late 90s, South Africa's numbers significantly outpaced Australia's. Win-Loss Ratio: Between 1995 and 1999, South Africa had a win-loss ratio of 3.56, winning 82 games and losing only 23. Australian Comparison: In the same period, Australia’s win-loss ratio was 1.36 (68 wins, 50 losses). This difference is too big to call it not meaningful. SA winning record from mid to late 90s was more than 2.5x Aus They had peak Klusener, Pollock and Kallis. I was talking mainly about test cricket. Rivalry exists in that format for a purist, not white ball. RSA was a beast unit in ODIs in 90s (still are if you look at the stats). Fair point. But to me, Aus was a side which reserved its best only in big events. The ODIs they played against us for instance, I remember meme bowlers like Adam Dale and Reiffel sharing the new ball...later some guy called Brad Williams. The Sharjah tournament (desert storm), ODI series in 98 India, tri series with Ind/Zim, 98 mini WC, McGrath was rested, and that guy was their biggest weapon against us. Edited Wednesday at 04:20 PM by Gollum
Gollum Posted Wednesday at 04:16 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 04:16 PM Sindarov after a winning position from opening, now looks like draw.
randomGuy Posted yesterday at 01:36 AM Posted yesterday at 01:36 AM 9 hours ago, Gollum said: Sindarov after a winning position from opening, now looks like draw. Anish 5.5/9 having a very good candidates also. 1.5 points behind the leader with 5 games to go. Gollum 1
Recommended Posts