Best teams to win cricket world cup

[Marut]

Marut' date='Viv Richards was marginally a better batsmen in 1979 than in 83 while Roberts and Holding were quicker and more devastating in 1979.Alvin Kalicharn too was an asset in 1979.Garner was better in 1979-Tht is why 79 team is placed ahead.[/quote'] And the greatest of them all, Marshall was not there in 1979. Marshall had a bowling average of 15 during WC 83 and was a terror to all teams. Holding was better in 1979, but Roberts and Garner were equally effective during WC 83 - averaging nearly the same across the two WC. Kallicharan was an asset in 1975 - not 1979 when he scored just 54 runs in 4 games at an average of 18. Richards was a better batsman in 1979, but there were a number of weak teams in 1979 - Canada, Srilanka and even India. In 1983, Zimbabwe, Srilanka and India were much better teams compared to 1979, which made the competition much tougher compared to 79.

[putrevus]

I'd be backing Australia's 03 team over any of the the windies teams, Windies were a great side but they had weaknesses, their wkt keeper wasn't fit to lick Gilchrists bootlaces as a batsman and they had chinks in their batting armoury IMO, Apart from Their openers and Viv and Lloyd their batting wasn't great, Gus Logie getting a game proves that. Bowling was a strengh but no specialist spinner goes against them, and they would really struggle with over rates, I feel Australia's bowling depth would give them the edge. Fielding was on par with the Australians.

Other than WK and Faoud Bacchus spots there is no other spot WI was anyway inferior to 2003 Aussie team. And while it comes to bowling all WI bowlers would be preferred over any bowler in that 2003 team including Mcgrath. There is no way in hell Gilly or anybody in that Aussies side would be scoring huge runs against those WI bowlers. 1975 Aussie team had a better bowling attack than 2003 Aussie team.

[Number]

Come on Brett Lee and Glenn McGeath are no 1 and no. 2 ODI bowlers of all time.

[MCGGG]

Other than WK and Faoud Bacchus spots there is no other spot WI was anyway inferior to 2003 Aussie team. And while it comes to bowling all WI bowlers would be preferred over any bowler in that 2003 team including Mcgrath. There is no way in hell Gilly or anybody in that Aussies side would be scoring huge runs against those WI bowlers. 1975 Aussie team had a better bowling attack than 2003 Aussie team.

Lol, the Australians seemed handle Donald alright, and McGrath wouldn't get a game for West Indies? Get off the gear bro.

[MK55]

2003 Australian side was the best IMO. Even the bowling was strong. I still remember the 160k Brett lee delivery that got Atapattu bowled in the semi final when Australia were only defending a target around 200. Cant comment on the earlier sides as the game has changed substantially. That 2003 side will be a match winning side even in 2015.

[Marut]

I'd be backing Australia's 03 team over any of the the windies teams, Windies were a great side but they had weaknesses, their wkt keeper wasn't fit to lick Gilchrists bootlaces as a batsman and they had chinks in their batting armoury IMO, Apart from Their openers and Viv and Lloyd their batting wasn't great, Gus Logie getting a game proves that. Bowling was a strengh but no specialist spinner goes against them, and they would really struggle with over rates, I feel Australia's bowling depth would give them the edge. Fielding was on par with the Australians.

WI team did not need an all rounder, they were that good. WI bowling was super strong - Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner - my god, this was a batsman's nightmare. Gilchrist mostly feasted on weak bowling attacks like India and SL and would have been no match for the WIndian quicks. WI batting was one of the best for its time - Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd - four world class batsmen. WI bowling depth would give them a definite edge. They never needed spinners, their bowlers were capable of extracting wickets on nearly every kind of wicket. Four fast bowlers with bowling average of low 20s in both tests and ODIs - now that is a monstrous bowling unit. Australia did not have something even remotely close to it in bowling at any given point of time, and the WI bowlers were good even in the SC. The prowess of WI bowling can be appreciated from the fact that, in their prime year between 1977-1986, WI bowlers allowed the opposition to cross 200 in only 35% of ODI innings. Getting 180 against the WI bowling was considered a good achievement!

[Dark Warrior]

West Indies 1979 looks like a beast team. My ranking WI 1979 Aus 2003 Aus 2007 India 2011 WI 1975 Aus 1999 India 1983 Pak 1992 Lanka 1996 Aus 1987

+1

[MCGGG]

WI team did not need an all rounder, they were that good. WI bowling was super strong - Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner - my god, this was a batsman's nightmare. Gilchrist mostly feasted on weak bowling attacks like India and SL and would have been no match for the WIndian quicks. WI batting was one of the best for its time - Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd - four world class batsmen. WI bowling depth would give them a definite edge. They never needed spinners, their bowlers were capable of extracting wickets on nearly every kind of wicket. Four fast bowlers with bowling average of low 20s in both tests and ODIs - now that is a monstrous bowling unit. Australia did not have something even remotely close to it in bowling at any given point of time, and the WI bowlers were good even in the SC. The prowess of WI bowling can be appreciated from the fact that, in their prime year between 1977-1986, WI bowlers allowed the opposition to cross 200 in only 35% of ODI innings. Getting 180 against the WI bowling was considered a good achievement!

200 was almost a par score from 1977-86, and if the WI were really that good why didn't they win 3 WCs in a row? Money talks and bullshit walks.

[putrevus]

Lol' date=' the Australians seemed handle Donald alright, and McGrath wouldn't get a game for West Indies? Get off the gear bro.[/quote'] Who would Mcgrath replace and Mcgrath is one of my favorite bowlers. It is not handling one bowler, every team would have handled them if that WI team had one or two bowlers.We saw teams handle Ambrose / Walsh and have success. They both are not considered better than those four bowlers. What made that WI team so tough and menacing was they had four bowlers who were mean and fast .There was no respite for the batsmen all of them were deadly accurate and were relentless. Read accounts of Greg Chappell on facing WI bowlers who would be best batsman on this 2003 team. So handling Donald means nothing.Teams prepared total spinning wickets to negate their effect and put in bouncer rules. Remember what Shane Bond did to Aussies in 2003 world cup and you are saying those Aussies would have handled four Shane bonds get a grip mate. RnepnNAHiPw

[putrevus]

200 was almost a par score from 1977-86' date=' and if the WI were really that good why didn't they win 3 WCs in a row? Money talks and bullshit walks.[/quote'] Who said 200 was par score then if 200 was par score why was 183 scored in 1983 world cup finals considered very below par score. WI lost two matches in 3 world cups which is same as Australia in three world cups.Australia just got lucky they did not lose them in finals.

[jonas10]

Safe to say Pakistan is the worst world cup winner. Losing or NR half their games in the round robin and then beating 2 teams in the knock out that never won a world cup. Not very champion like to say the least.

[Marut]

200 was almost a par score from 1977-86' date=' and if the WI were really that good why didn't they win 3 WCs in a row? Money talks and bullshit walks.[/quote'] Par score in the 80s was 230, which is roughly equal to 270 today. For 60 over matches, the par score was 270 in the 80s (do you know there were a lot of 300+ scores in the 60 over world cups?), but against WI the 60 over par score was just 235. Against WI, the par score for 50 over games was a mere 205. WI bowlers on the average conceded only 87% runs compared to other non minnow teams, and that is a huge factor in ODI games.