The reason lots of finals in the past 20 years have been so one sided is because Australia have won most of them.

Have to agree with that. We see teams like eng priories tests and teams like india priotise ODIs but you have to give it to Australia here. No matter what tournament they play, whether tests or tri series or a worldcup they always play to win.

The reason lots of finals in the past 20 years have been so one sided is because Australia have won most of them.
______________________

Have to agree with that. Aussies have set the benchmark over that period.

Don't get me wrong, Australia are a fantastic side and deserve to win the most World Cups, but they also tend to mop up the trophies when the rest of the world is mediocre. To be honest, SA should mop up half of these trophies, but they are just so amateur when it comes to knockout games.

Surely, this article needs to be updated.

Most run, wickets, results.

Kav, I know you are a quality poster, but you can't start a thread and forget about it.

JT got a vested interest?

Kav lost interest when Pakistan were knocked out.

I've been ridiculously busy with a new job so that does excuse me a little i shall finish it tonight.

"Don't get me wrong, Australia are a fantastic side and deserve to win the most World Cups, but they also tend to mop up the trophies when the rest of the world is mediocre."

I would say you have got this back to front. In the last 20 years, other teams only win the World Cup when Australia have been mediocre. It doesn't matter how good or bad the opposition was, I'd argue that the Australia team that played between 99 and 07 was the finest ODI side cricket has ever seen.

"To be honest, SA should mop up half of these trophies, but they are just so amateur when it comes to knockout games."

To be honest Aus were better than SA in all of these tournaments, the only one that SA were close to being as good as Aus was 1999.

In 1999 Australia were jammy. They could have gone out in the group stage. Then super six match against SA Gibbs dropped Steve Wagh. If he caught him out most likely would have been game over and Australia would have been out. Then let's just not get started on the semi final!

Racist ICC doesn't included any black or Caribbean player in their World Cup team. 9 players from the finalists.

No Irish either.

Racist ICC doesn't included any black or Caribbean player in their World Cup team. 9 players from the finalists.

No Irish either.
___________________

Racist? Or were they simply just shhhhttt??

that was a joke mate

"In 1999 Australia were jammy. They could have gone out in the group stage. Then super six match against SA Gibbs dropped Steve Wagh. If he caught him out most likely would have been game over and Australia would have been out."

Herschelle Gibbs being unable to hold on to a catch is not luck, it is bad fielding.

"Then let's just not get started on the semi final!"

While we are on the subject of dropped catches if Paul Reiffel had not dropped Klusener over the rope for 6 then Australia would have won that game outright (No probably as this was actually the last wicket) and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

All we know is this; both teams dropped catches at crucial moments, but one team capitalised and the other did not. The supposedly better team played Australia twice and did not win either match.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/coarse-tongues-leave-stain-on-the-cup-20150330-1mb9q3.html

I could not have worded an article on Australia's world cup triumph any better. I completely concur with Baum in pretty much everything he says.

"Australia deserved to bask in the glory of being the best one-day cricket team in the world, he said. And they are, and they bask on. But there is a difference between best and champion."

comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 5th UK Snooker Title) (U13155)
posted 5 hours, 17 minutes ago
Surely, this article needs to be updated.

Most run, wickets, results.

Kav, I know you are a quality poster, but you can't start a thread and forget about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way JT, its done

South Africa were in a good position in that semi final though with 4 wickets in hand. If they held the nerve was game over so yes Australia were very very jammy that year. There's simply no question about it.

comment by Kav H (U19426)
posted 2 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by JustTrue - (Ronnie wins his 5th UK Snooker Title) (U13155)
posted 5 hours, 17 minutes ago
Surely, this article needs to be updated.

Most run, wickets, results.

Kav, I know you are a quality poster, but you can't start a thread and forget about it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way JT, its done
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It still.has India has defending world champions

For this world cup they were, any more accuracies you would like to report Kash?

Well done Kav. Thanks.

1999 was a great World Cup. Australia had some luck, but most teams that win do have some along the way.

My point is 2003, 2007 and 2015 I would argue that the side of 1999 was better than any of these sides, yet won the World Cup more comfortably in these 3 years. 2007 in particular was a really poor year. No team other than Australia seemed to have any credentials or belief that they could even challenge for the World Cup.

This is not a criticism of Australia, more a criticism of other nations that don't step up and make Australia win the World Cup. In years like 2007, it was virtually handed to them.

The only thing that concerns me is England and India who are rich and have larger pools to select from still struggle to produce quality cricketers on a consistent basis.

England's bowling stock is empty and india never had one. Whereas you look at Australia they probably have atleast 10 genuine fast bowlers and all of them can be pretty good.

JT, can't agree I'm afrad, I don't think there is much of a difference between the 99 team and the other two.

I'd argue that Hayden instead of M Waugh is an improvement. As well as Lee in for Reiffel. Lehmann and Bevan played in 2003 and Gilly, Punter and McGrath played all 3. Warne is certainly better than Hogg, but apart from that I don't really see 99 as a better side than the other two.

I will concede that the quality of teams such as WI and Pakistan was much higher during the 90s.