Aus-The Cricket Super Power.

[zen]

Finally, since 1 Jan 2007, after taking out BD, ZIM, NZ and WI as oppononents: LINK Wins>Losses Ind - 1.66 SA - 1.44 Wins = losses Aus, Eng and SL - 1.00 Losses>Wins Pak - 0.23

[Utalk]

Finally, since 1 Jan 2007, after taking out BD, ZIM, NZ and WI as oppononents: LINK Wins>Losses Ind - 1.66 SA - 1.44 Wins = losses Aus, Eng and SL - 1.00 Losses>Wins Pak - 0.23

Very impressive.

[ravishingravi]

I think those stats are somewhat deceptive although there is little doubt that they are super powers of cricket. They have the best domestic structure in the world and they will be back.

[Utalk]

Real shock for me was Windies.I thought they would be up there.

[ravishingravi]

^Not really. For the first 100 years of cricket Australia and England were the two prominent teams playing. The WI while having individual talent never did much in 50s and 60s. Pakistan is rightly at No. 3. They have been good in 70s, 80s and 90s although downhill since then. India's golden period has been this decade and maybe it ll continue in the next decade for few years. I would say this though. India over the last 4 years has been the only dominant team to come from sub continent. Teams have had much better quality than India in the past but not the consistency. Pakistan team should have dominated in 90s but they messed up

[BeautifulGame]

I dont think Aussies will care about these meaningless stats. They dont live on past glories like Pakistais

[Utalk]

Completely agree with you rav.We should have won more in 90s.

[BeautifulGame]

^Not really. For the first 100 years of cricket Australia and England were the two prominent teams playing. The WI while having individual talent never did much in 50s and 60s. Pakistan is rightly at No. 3. They have been good in 70s, 80s and 90s although downhill since then. India's golden period has been this decade and maybe it ll continue in the next decade for few years. I would say this though. India over the last 4 years has been the only dominant team to come from sub continent. Teams have had much better quality than India in the past but not the consistency. Pakistan team should have dominated in 90s but they messed up

Maybe they should have won more but saying should have dominated 90s is rubbish.Aussies were a far better side than Pak in 90s . Just having couple of great bowlers wont help u dominate a decade. How many Pak players of 90's would have gotten into that Aussie team. Only wasim waqar and possibly Anwar thats it . Aussies were on another level compares to Pakistan in 90's

[rkt.india]

@bg real oz domination era starts from 99-07.84-94 windies dominated with 72% wins. safrica was a good side. till 99 sa, aus, and pak all were pretty very good sides..aus got stronger with hayden-langer opening and brett lees emergence mcgrath got better

[BeautifulGame]

@bg real oz domination era starts from 99-07.84-94 windies dominated with 72% wins. safrica was a good side. till 99 sa' date=' aus, and pak all were pretty very good sides..aus got stronger with hayden-langer opening and brett lees emergence mcgrath got better[/quote'] I think u are confusing ODIs with tests. I agree their ODI dominance started after winning 99 world cup . But they announced their test dominance by winning the test series in west Indies in 1995. Remember West Indies were a very strong test in 90's with Ambrose Walsh Lara & co. Probably slightly better than Pakistan . Since then they were the best till 2008 I dont think Lee's emergence had done much to Aussie dominance much in tests . IIRC Lee wasnt even in their starting XI for some years when Kasprovic and Gillespe were bowling great

[ganeshran]

Change this stat for the last 20 years and see the difference. I think the motive of posting this stat was not to highlight Australia's super status, but rather to highlight the difference between India's win loss ratio and the padosi nation's ratio :giggle:

[Shane]

Who cares what happens in the 1930's and 1950's were you even born back then? The reign of India the cricketing super power has started since 2007 and will continue for some time to come. Heck even our 'A' team can beat the likes of New Zealand, West Indies and Pakistan.

[Utalk]

Change this stat for the last 20 years and see the difference. I think the motive of posting this stat was not to highlight Australia's super status, but rather to highlight the difference between India's win loss ratio and the padosi nation's ratio :giggle:

Everything doesn't revolve around India and Pakistan.Come out of this mindset. Every other team had their moments but Aus are the team of all seasons.

[ganeshran]

Everything doesn't revolve around India and Pakistan.Come out of this mindset. Every other team had their moments but Aus are the team of all seasons.

Aus and England played their cricket for far longer than when other countries were even competitive. The statistic is flawed because during the most part of the period, the other countries didnt have the basic systems in place to put together a competitive team. Most of the cricketers in other teams learnt their game in England.

[Utalk]

Good point this.I will be doing analysis based on last 50 years to get the clear picture.

[ravishingravi]

Maybe they should have won more but saying should have dominated 90s is rubbish.Aussies were a far better side than Pak in 90s . Just having couple of great bowlers wont help u dominate a decade. How many Pak players of 90's would have gotten into that Aussie team. Only wasim waqar and possibly Anwar thats it . Aussies were on another level compares to Pakistan in 90's

+Inzy, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Shoaib Akhtar. I am not saying all of them would have been in Aussie line up but they would have been pretty close. Australian team started to come together from 1997 onwards. Till then on paper Pakistan had the best team in the world but they really won nothing. Pakistan were content being "dangerous", "mercurial" side. You are right as a team Australia were probably superior. But when talking about raw potential that Pakistan era was best ever for them Hence I say that this Indian side is most dominant ever from sub continent even though it doesn't have the same resources.

[BeautifulGame]

+Inzy, Saqlain Mushtaq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Shoaib Akhtar. I am not saying all of them would have been in Aussie line up but they would have been pretty close. Australian team started to come together from 1997 onwards. Till then on paper Pakistan had the best team in the world but they really won nothing. Pakistan were content being "dangerous", "mercurial" side. You are right as a team Australia were probably superior. But when talking about raw potential that Pakistan era was best ever for them Hence I say that this Indian side is most dominant ever from sub continent even though it doesn't have the same resources.

If u combine Aus and Pak team bowling attcks it will be Macgrath Akram Waqar Warne Unless u believe Akthar is better than Macgrath or Saqulain / Mushtaq better than warne i cant see how they will be in the Aussie team.As for Inzy just check his records in Australia and South Africa . He cant play quality pace bowling. Waugh brothers and Ponting are far better middle order batsmen than him Even on paper Aussies are better than Pak . As i said only 3 Pak players would get into Aussie team . Pak just didnt have the batting lineup to challenge Aussies or even westIndies in 90s .

[Asoka]

Impressive stats for Pakistan. :hatsoff:

[youngindia]

you are repeating a myth . that pakistani batting lineup just didn't have enough ammunition to be the best in the world . their techniques were inferior and exposed by SA and aus bowling at will. also in fielding and other aspects like strategy,tactics and sports science they were no 3 at best both on paper and in reality. On paper, australia had the most talented team and that's why they were superior. end of story i saw both the 1992 series vs wi and 1995 vs australia.The difference in class was evident.

[Sir john]

I thought you supported Kenya?Steve Tikolo is not happy.

i support india too. :yay::yay: B->