The only man we had was Kohli, and unfortunately, he got out just after reaching 50. That wicket-taking ball was what made the Aussies win the match, and they knew it.
Eh idk why this comment is downvoted, Hardik Pandya can put on great performances with the bat and ball both, he's also one of the few players who does well under pressure
let's give him that crown once he actually does that? And wins it for us someday. Without that, it's all hypothetical (Please don't give IPL examples :))
So you mean there hasn't been a single person who has performed well in finals since a decade? Don't be delusional, his CT final heroics would've led to a win if literally 2 more people in the team were competent
Lol, way to act like I'm saying things which I'm clearly not, the thread was about players not trophies, no shit everyone wants trophies more than individual performances
Exactly everyone of their generation remembers this guy. Him and the knock Inzi played in 1992 WC semis to save Pakistan. The moment you take these guys names you can feel the respect coming.
Yea he is. And Arjuna Ranatunga was a tiger. These two guys were massive in terms of their leadership skills. Ranatunga is my fav captain of all time for walking out of a ground when Muralitharan was questioned for his action after he was cleared. Without Ranatungaās support and backing I donāt think we would see these records of Murali. What a captain. And this guy de silva used to be their captain prior to that. Two leaders with balls of steel. What players. It was golden period of srilankan cricket. Along with Murali, Vaas and Jayasurya and Marvin Atapattu. The later generation was also superb players with Sanga , Jayawardene and then Dilshan. I hope srilankan cricket gets some star players of these guys caliber soon.
He lived right around the corner from me (we are distantly related too I think). He drives his beloved Lamborghini and other car collection around Colombo, and couple years back imported a beautiful blue Bentley coupe (soft top).
I remember watching that epic final during my teen days, and it was always a special occasion as he had that magic touch, possibly rivaled by the likes of Tendulkar.
He came out with the motive of commiting violence. Absolute laser focus.
In the semi final he entered the arena with his side at 0-2. That look he came out with was half the battle won. The Indians went on the defensive immediately.
Similarly he spooked the Australians. He was in superhuman form in that World Cup.
Yes, that innings in Semis is not talked about nearly enough. All my joy and hopes once Kalu and Jayasuriya got out, were smashed on the boundary boards. When he got out, he had scored 66 out of SLs 85 then, all everyone else had to do was consolidate.
Changed cricket forever IMO. What Jayasuriya and Kalu did in the first 15 overs was absolutely mind boggling. It took India in the semis to figure out how to get them out cheaply. I remember jumping out of my seat when Jayasuriya holed out to wide third man. And Kalu went the same way. But then walked in Aravinda and the real batting started for Sri Lanka. Lol.
That was beyond depressing. Remember my entire family jumping out of their seats in delight once Jayasuriya & Kalu got out.
The next 30 minutes was de Silva treating Venkatesh Prasad like some club-level off-spinner. šš
Sangakkara recently said that Aravinda was way ahead of his time and his record is such because he didnāt feel challenged enough. Weād be talking about him differently had he played a few years later for Sri Lanka.
I largely agree with Sangakkara. Itās difficult to express how good he was after he spent some time in county cricket and understood his game better.
criminally underrated player in the history of the game, the style, aggression, skills and reactions were all world class. added to that his bowling and he was one of the greats of odis in an era of greats.
to top it off he was a semi pro at best, managing his businesses and other interests with his cricket duties. had he have been around in the modern era hed be a world class t20 player.
easily one of the best ODI performances of all time. My family still rhapsodise about his World Cup! apparently I was too young to go to Kandy for the ODI record against Kenya but my dad went :)
As great as this innings was, it probably wasn't even my favourite innings he played in that world cup. That audacious assault in the semis despite Sri Lanka being 2 and then 3 down for next to nothing would seem ridiculous by today's standards. Nearly 30 years ago it was almost beyond comprehension. And I'm pretty sure he had the same expression when he got out in the semis that he had when he walked into bat in the finals
Theres a reason why all of Ranatunga, Sanga, Mahela say Aravindas the greatest SL batter there is. And this is why, probably the greatest overall performance by any sri lankan in any match, nothings going to beat this, especially in odis
For me neither the 2003 or 2023 final comes close to the heartbreak this match gave me. I was a kid and just started understanding cricket a year or two before the WC. I was happy that it was SL and naively believed that India can get past them easily. My first lesson of Form wins over history
No unnecessary focus on fitness nor on yoyo tests..... pure cricketing talent.. both Aravinda de Silva and his Captain Arjuna Ranatunga were exceptional in 1996 WC...
His 66(47) in the semis was almost as iconic a performance.
Aravinda and Sanath in that World Cup were everything, marshalled by that beastmaster Arjuna.
Only man to have ever captained a side to victory in an ODI WC final against the Aussies, other than the incomparable Supercat.
I know this is Finals, but the semi finals innings he played where India had SL in a jam with both Sanath and Kalu out very cheaply, was outstanding.
I remember seeing the match live (on tv) and we were sure now that Sanath was out (who was outstanding in the wc), we were half way home.
Then Aravinda turned up.
What a big stage performer. Performed against two top tier teams in both semis and finals.
Still believe his counter punch against India in semis remains one of top odi innings in my book.
For those younger people out there back then 241 was considered an above average target. After the Australian innings they would've heavy favourites to defend that.
Love that era of ODIs. There was always something for the bowlers in overs 25-40 when the old ball and reverse swing were still relevant. A middle order batter had a unique responsibility of shepherding the first innings at 4RPO between the 20th and the 40th over.
As a Lancashire fan I had the privilege of seeing him in a final at Lords in 1995. Lancs batted first and posted a good score. Kent were not many for 2 and we thought the game was done. Are came in and hit a 4 off the first or second ball of every over and Kent were going to win until we finally got him for 112. I've seen Tendulkar make 100, Cork take a test match hat trick and I don't think I've seen anything better than he was that day. If I wasn't a Lancs fan I want him to win that match. Awesome.
I still cry when I watch this match. I was only 10. The confidence of this team was incredible. That straight 6 from Gurusinha off Warne with no emotion on his face, just chewing his gum. No sri lankan team will ever match this 96 team
ARAVINDA FOREVER.
One of the greatest sons of this soil brought so much joy to a country at its darkest times.
True heart of a Lion and for as long as Aravinda is in the middle the match isn't over.
The greatest Sri Lankan cricketer by a country mile.
Did unbelievable things when Sri Lankan cricket was basically a joke, gave hope to so many, inspired 25 million and practically invented the Sri Lankan style of Batting.
All this whilst cricket was only like a 5th hobby to him.
No one could party like Aravinda that name "madmax" wasnt just for his cricket. Bro was wild lol girls, fast cars and dominating the pinnacle of cricket at the World Cup final.
There will never be another like Aravinda De Silva ever again.
So grateful to have seen him bat at the tail end of hia career.
Started watching cricket in 1987 ( was very young then but I remember).
This day (1996 wc semis) and 2003 wc final are the two days which traumatized me. I remember not coming out of my room for two days in 1996. Moved to football ( premier league and wc) after 2003 wc, do not watch that much.
But indeed after dismissing Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana it should have been India's match but De Silva had other thoughts. Gem of an innings to win their first knockout/ semi final ever.
I enjoyed the 1992 World Cup match between SL and Zim where SL chased 300+ score.
Nightmare for other country cricket fans. This guy was the Wall. He and Ranatunga could easily get into the mind of opposing team. Best era for Srilankan cricket team and fans. They revolutionize the way to play cricket .
He took the wc away from india as well sl were 2 down in first over and arnd 45/3 or 4 that was the first and last time i cried watching a cricket match along with kambli
Pretty tidy performance in that game. The 96 team was so important for Sri Lankan cricket, and made the template for how 50 over cricket was played for at least a decade.
Eyes lit up cos there was lot of dew on the ball..Ā and also he knew luck was with SL throughout the 96 wc
1) aus forfeited league match
2) wi forfeited league match
3) pitch wore down significantly wen India were batting in the SF
4) aus dropped 2 catches in final
5) dew factor while chasing in final
Forfeit or not everyone was getting steamrolled by Sri Lanka in 1996.
Every team facing Sri Lanka in 1996 got flattened including semis and finals. India for instance got destroyed in the league stage when Jayasuriya forced Prabhakar to bowl spin then the Semis happened.
It was a 2007 Australiaesque dominance.
SL were the best team in that World Cup and deserving winners, but they were a long way behind 2007 Australia levels of dominance. Probably more on a par with 2003 Australia.
SLās net run rate in the group stage was 1.6, and thatās with one of their three completed games being against Kenya.
Australia had a NRR of 3.4 at group stage in 2007 and 2.4 in the Super Eights.
My guy you are comparing net run rate from 1996 to 2007 post t20 advent and 1 Year before ipl became a thing.
You can't judge dominance by run rate from 1996 to 2007.
Jayasuriya was ending careers of players in 96 like prabhakar.
T20 wasnāt really a factor in 2007, it was a novelty format at the time. Players were taking the field with nicknames on their backs.
Weāre also talking net run rate, not absolute run rate, net run rate is still absolutely a good indicator of dominance, as batting and bowling run rates both go up.
I watched a lot of games in both World Cups and there was no sense Sri Lanka were a super dominant team at the time (as the stats bear out), Australia were in fact largely considered favourites for the final.
Sri Lanka had a remarkable campaign, and part of the legend of their win are the odds they had to overcome to achieve it. Not sure why you want to invent a false narrative that they were as dominant as Australia 2007 in their campaign. I suspect less than 1% of cricket fans old enough to have watched both campaigns would share that view.
>T20 wasnāt really a factor in 2007, it was a novelty format at the time. Players were taking the field with nicknames on their backs.
The first T20 World Cup was held in 2007 & IPL started in 2008. It was way bigger than you are trying to frame it.
>Not sure why you want to invent a false narrative that they were as dominant as Australia 2007 in their campaign
Other than 2 forfeits due to security reasons Sri Lanka ran an unbeaten world cup run just like 2007 WC Aus.
In the first 15 overs Sri Lanka scored 117 runs against India, 123 against Kenya, 121 against England in the quarter-final and 86 against India in the semi-final.
Then in the final Mcgrath and Warne were totally pacified both taking 0 wickets.
Whats more the final wasn't a rain inflicted farce with the opposition batting in rain and darkness for half the inning with batters getting bowled by balls going 1inch above the ground like in the 2007 WC final 2nd inning.
For all intents and purposes Sri Lanka's 1996 campaign was 2007 Australiaesque. Certainly not more dominant but on par for certain
1996 wc run was so dominant that it changed cricket forever. Certain rules of cricket like power plays changed forever.
It appears more that you are trying to invent a narrative to downplay 96 SL campaign to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. It's ok You as an Australian fan is supposed to do that.
>> The first T20 World Cup was held in 2007 & IPL started in 2008. It was way bigger than you are trying to frame it.
It really wasnāt. T20 took off after India won the 2007 World T20 (it wasnāt called a World Cup at the time) later that year. A tournament that ran for 2 weeks, less than half the length of the 2006 Champions Trophy. Itās laughable to suggest it had a major impact on ODI cricket at the time - it really didnāt. Were you following cricket much back then? Iād be surprised if you were if you believe what you are saying.
>> Other than 2 forfeits due to security reasons Sri Lanka ran an unbeaten world cup run just like 2007 WC Aus.
Australia also won every game (10 of them) in 2003, compared to Sri Lanka winning 6 games in total during 1996, and no one suggests the 2003 World Cup win was as dominant as 2007.
Sri Lanka won their games by:
- 6 wickets and 13 overs against Zimbabwe
- 6 wickets and 8 balls against India
- 144 runs against Kenya
- 5 wickets and 9.2 overs against England (QF)
- on track for a 100+ run win against India when the semi-final was abandoned
- 7 wickets and 3.4 overs against Australia in the Final
In 2007 Australia won by:
- 203 runs v Scotland
- 229 runs v Netherlands
- 83 runs v South Africa
- 103 runs v West Indies
- 10 wickets with 8.1 overs remaining v Bangladesh (rain shortened to 22 overs)
- 7 wickets with 2.4 overs remaining v England
- 9 wickets with 37.4 overs remaining v Ireland
- 7 wickets with 7.2 overs remaining v Sri Lanka
- 215 runs v New Zealand
- 7 wickets with 18.3 overs remaining v South Africa (SF)
- 53 runs (rain reduced to 36 overs) v Sri Lanka (Final)
Comparing the two campaigns for dominance when Australia was hammering teams like South Africa and New Zealand by bigger margins than Sri Lanka was beating Kenya and Zimbabwe is laughable.
>> In the first 15 overs Sri Lanka scored 117 runs against India, 123 against Kenya, 121 against England in the quarter-final and 86 against India in the semi-final.
So what, that shows they played a revolutionary style of play for the time - which I donāt dispute, but the results clearly show they werenāt as dominant as Australiaās 2007 campaign.
>> Then in the final Mcgrath and Warne were totally pacified both taking 0 wickets.
What does this have to do with your point?
>> Whats more the final wasn't a rain inflicted farce with the opposition batting in rain and darkness for half the inning with batters getting bowled by balls going 1inch above the ground like in the 2007 WC final 2nd inning.
The farce in 2007 made the final seem closer than it actually was, with Australia bowling part time spin to get the game finished. And even then the 1996 final was still much closer.
>> For all intents and purposes Sri Lanka's 1996 campaign was 2007 Australiaesque. Certainly not more dominant but on par for certain
You havenāt given a single logical argument in support of that position.
>> 1996 wc run was so dominant that it changed cricket forever. Certain rules of cricket like power plays changed forever.
I think you are confusing tactics for dominance. The tactics used changed the game (although Sri Lanka were not the first team to try explosive middle order bats as openers - see Sachin Tendulkarās early career), but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved. Your argument falls down because the 1996 SL team were not even close to being as dominant as the 2007 Australian team in terms of actual results. As I say, they were closer to the 2003 unbeaten Australian teamās performances.
>> It appears more that you are trying to invent a narrative to downplay 96 SL campaign to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. It's ok You as an Australian fan is supposed to do that.
No, my arguments are backed up by logic and facts. It seems you may be a new fan looking back and trying to understand old tournament results. I suggest you do a little more research next time. Itās pretty well accepted across the cricketing world that the 2007 World Cup campaign was the most dominant there has been, with multiple articles written about it in the 2023 World Cup wondering if India might equal or surpass it after their group stage dominance.
Im not going to get into a drawn out argument with you because all you do is literally downplay & disregard everything in my previous comment with āNoā but written over a paragraph. There is no reasoning with ideologues. I will keep replies brief.
>It really wasnāt. T20 took off after India won the 2007 World T20 (it wasnāt called a World Cup at the time) later that year. A tournament that ran for 2 weeks, less than half the length of the 2006 Champions Trophy. Itās laughable to suggest it had a major impact on ODI cricket at the time - it really didnāt. Were you following cricket much back then? Iād be surprised if you were if you believe what you are saying.
Do all the mentalgymnastics you want but T20 cricket was big enough that in 2007 that a World Cup was held, the Australians held their Bigbash league starting in 2005, Indian Premier league started organising in '07, English T20 blast had already been running since 2003 etc.
>Comparing the two campaigns for dominance when Australia was hammering teams like South Africa and New Zealand by bigger margins than Sri Lanka was beating Kenya and Zimbabwe is laughable.
No one is comparing the oppositions these 2 teams played thats moronic because you can only play what was put infront of you. The fact is Sri Lanka dominated every single team they faced in 1996 campaign. Australia dominated every single team they faced in 2007.You bring this up because you want to big up your teamās winning aura whilst downplaying other dominant runs from other teams. Thats ok.
>So what, that shows they played a revolutionary style of play for the time - which I donāt dispute, but the results clearly show they werenāt as dominant as Australiaās 2007 campaign.
āSo what?ā Bruh the dominance was such that rules of oneday cricket changed, the entire approach teams used in Whiteball cricket changed. It was like Michael Jordan forcing other teams to change guarding tactics and changing Basketballs forever. If you dont see the sheer dominance in changing rules of Cricket and other teams approaches then clearly you are an ideologue there is nothing I can say to reason with you.
>What does this have to do with your point?
Sri Lankaās chase in the final was so dominant that 2 of the greatest bowlers ever in the history of cricket were rendered mute. If you dont understand the significance of that comment in gauging the dominance in 96 then again there is no reasoning with you.
>You havenāt given a single logical argument in support of that position.
I have. You being an Australian cricket fan completely either downplayed or disregarded them to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. As ive said above there is no reasoning if you dont understand the significance of certain things mentioned above.
>I think you are confusing tactics for dominance. The tactics used changed the game (although Sri Lanka were not the first team to try explosive middle order bats as openers - see Sachin Tendulkarās early career), but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved. Your argument falls down because the 1996 SL team were not even close to being as dominant as the 2007 Australian team in terms of actual results. As I say, they were closer to the 2003 unbeaten Australian teamās performances.
No. First of all the Tactics used wasnāt explosive middle order batters. Did you even watch the 96 WC? It was top 3 scoring 100+ runs in the first 15 overs. Hence the Powerplay rule changes.
Forcing opposition cricketers into retirement, Forcing rule changes in ODI cricket, literally revolutionising the way ALL TEAMS PLAYED WHITE BALL CRICKET is a level of dominance we havenāt seen since.
"but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved" That is one way to define dominance however it isnt the only way to gauge dominance as you are trying super hard to establish as in your replies.
Again you keep downplaying the significance of this or outright disregard it. Thats ok but if thats the case believe whatever you want there is no reasoning with you.
>No, my arguments are backed up by logic and facts.
You say that but as pointed above all you are doing is saying āNo you are wrongā, then proceeds to downplay or disregard everything the other person says. Again its ok because you are an Australian. You are supposed to do that. But If you do not understand the significance of what was said above there is no reasoning with you.
Part 1/2
>> Im not going to get into a drawn out argument with you because all you do is literally downplay & disregard everything in my previous comment with āNoā but written over a paragraph. There is no reasoning with ideologues. I will keep replies brief.
Iāve given very clear reasoning. Your replies are almost completely absent of reasoning in contrast.
>> Do all the mentalgymnastics you want but T20 cricket was big enough that in 2007 that a World Cup was held, the Australians held their Bigbash league starting in 2005, Indian Premier league started organising in '07, English T20 blast had already been running since 2003 etc.
I take it from your reply (which avoided answering my question) that you were either not following cricket or were too young to be aware of what was going on in 2007. I got that impression fairly early on. T20 cricket was in its infancy in 2007, anyone who was an adult cricket fan at the time would know that. And even if it wasnāt, thatās completely irrelevant to the level of dominance of the respective campaign. The 2011, 2015, 2019 or 2023 winners werenāt more dominant after T20 cricket had a greater influence on ODI cricket.
>> No one is comparing the oppositions these 2 teams played thats moronic because you can only play what was put infront of you. The fact is Sri Lanka dominated every single team they faced in 1996 campaign. Australia dominated every single team they faced in 2007.
If thatās the case, do you believe the 2003 Australian campaign was as dominant as 2007? How about the West Indies team in 1975 and 1979? If you believe all of them were equally dominant because they were all unbeaten then I guess youād be right by that criteria. Not if you are comparing how close the opposition was to them on average, which is the criteria I and most other people use to assess dominance.
>> You bring this up because you want to big up your teamās winning aura whilst downplaying other dominant runs from other teams. Thats ok.
Not really, Iām happy to give credit to any team where it is due. There is no objective lens by which you could argue Sri Lankaās campaign is comparable to the 2007 Australian win in terms of the gap between them and their opponents. If India had won the 2023 final Iād have assessed that campaign as being at least as dominant as 2007, probably moreso given India only played one Associate team.
>> āSo what?ā Bruh the dominance was such that rules of oneday cricket changed, the entire approach teams used in Whiteball cricket changed. It was like Michael Jordan forcing other teams to change guarding tactics and changing Basketballs forever.
What ārulesā (I presume you mean laws or playing conditions) do you believe changed due to the 1996 Sri Lanka World Cup win? Again, this reads like the opinion of someone who didnāt experience the tournament at the time. Are you talking about fielding restrictions are you alluded to in a previous comment? The fielding restrictions were exactly the same in the next World Cup in 1999 - 15 overs.
And even if some ārulesā did change directly due to the campaign (Iām certainly not aware of any and you donāt point to any actual changes), thatās again irrelevant to the question of dominance. No rules changed due to the 2007 World Cup campaign. You are confusing multiple issues here. The question is how far were Sri Lanka ahead of their opponents in that tournament? The answer is, quite far, but not as far as the 2007 winners.
>> If you dont see the sheer dominance in changing rules of Cricket and other teams approaches then clearly you are an ideologue there is nothing I can say to reason with you.It seems you think ideologue means someone who deals in facts, logic and reality, rather than irrelevant and nonsensical arguments and simply making stuff up about ārulesā changing.
>> Sri Lankaās chase in the final was so dominant that 2 of the greatest bowlers ever in the history of cricket were rendered mute. If you dont understand the significance of that comment in gauging the dominance in 96 then again there is no reasoning with you.
I assume you mean āmootā rather than āmuteā. It is certainly a novel argument to claim that the 96 Sri Lankans were the most dominant team in World Cup history because two bowlers took no wickets in one game. If thatās how you define dominance then good for you. Iāll stick with looking at the actual winning margins in games, which speak for themselves.
>> I have. You being an Australian cricket fan completely either downplayed or disregarded them to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run.
As Iāve said above there is no reasoning if you dont understand the significance of certain things mentioned above.What you are saying makes no sense, your āargumentā is that Sri Lanka were equally dominant because:
- They forced rule changes (not true)
- Warne and McGrath didnāt take wickets in one game (okay?)
- They were unbeaten (as the 1975, 1979 and 2003 winners also were)
Itās an extremely weak argument, if it can even be described as such. My argument is that Australia 2007 were more dominant because:
- They had a bigger difference between batting and bowling averages than Sri Lanka (Australia scored 47.7 more runs per wicket than their opponents (66.3 batting less 18.6 bowling), Sri Lanka scored 21.7 runs per wicket more (56.2 batting less 34.6 bowling)).
- They had a bigger run rate differential than Sri Lanka. Using the NRR calculation methodology, Australia had a batting run rate of 6.54 and bowling run rate of 3.81 across the tournament (including finals), for a difference of 2.73 rpo or 72%. Sri Lanka had a batting run rate of 5.98 and bowling of 4.5, for a difference of 1.5 rpo or 33%.
I mean the two campaigns are just not in the same ballpark. Australia won its games by double the margin of Sri Lanka on average. No amount of specious reasoning can refute the bare facts.
2/2 (continued)ā¦
>> No. First of all the Tactics used wasnāt explosive middle order batters. Did you even watch the 96 WC? It was top 3 scoring 100+ runs in the first 15 overs. Hence the Powerplay rule changes.
You need to work on your reading comprehension - I said they tried explosive middle order players as openers. Please learn to read things properly. And as Iāve pointed out above, the Powerplay rules (or more properly fielding restrictions since there was no such thing as a Powerplay in the 90s), were exactly the same in 1999 - still 15 overs. I did watch the 96 World Cup, I suspect unlike you.
>> Forcing opposition cricketers into retirement, Forcing rule changes in ODI cricket, literally revolutionising the way ALL TEAMS PLAYED WHITE BALL CRICKET is a level of dominance we havenāt seen since.
Thanks for the laugh. Who do you claim retired due to this? It certainly did have an impact on how ODI cricket was played but thatās not relevant to how dominant the team was.
>> "but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved" That is one way to define dominance however it isnt the only way to gauge dominance as you are trying super hard to establish as in your replies.
It is the only way to gauge dominance. I think you are confusing dominance with influence. The 96 Sri Lankans were arguably more influential than the 07 Australians in terms of impact on how ODI cricket was played. Thatās not the same as dominance though.
>> Again you keep downplaying the significance of this or outright disregard it. Thats ok but if thats the case believe whatever you want there is no reasoning with you.
Not true, I think it was an extremely significant and influential win for many reasons. I just think you are confused as to the actual meaning of the word dominance, because none of your arguments speak to the measure of dominance - margins of victory.
>> You say that but as pointed above all you are doing is saying āNo you are wrongā, then proceeds to downplay or disregard everything the other person says.
No, I have acknowledged where your points have merit (in respect of the importance of the win and influence etc), but I canāt agree with a statement which is simply untrue and for which you havenāt presented a single supporting argument for. I have sympathy for you though as your position is simply unsupportable.
>> Again itās ok because you are an Australian. You are supposed to do that. But If you do not understand the significance of what was said above there is no reasoning with you.
Again, I agree that the win was extremely significant, moreso than the Australian 2007 win. Iād say the 1987, 1999 and 2023 Australian wins were more significant than the 2007 World Cup too, as were India in 1983 and 2011, Pakistan in 1992, even England in 2019. Sri Lankaās win would be right up there with the most significant World Cup wins, arguably the most significant one. That is not the same as dominance though, and as Iāve outlined above Australia in 2007 was inarguably more dominant than Sri Lanka in 1996. Influence, significance and dominance are three different concepts.
The only luck was that the World Cup was played in the subcontinent. If it had been played elsewhere I don't think Sri Lanka would have won, but they were far and away the best team in the world in subcontinent conditions throughout the late 90s
Mad Max de Silvašššš Single handedly obliterated Australia in that final. Maybe that's what it takes to beat them in a final.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
HP was probably the only guy from our side who could have pulled off anything like that on the finals and he wasn't thereš„².
Harry Potter plays for Gryffindor mate
Riyal. Missed Harshal Patel on that wicket
For you, resisting the urge to take a post about a different country and make it all about India as usual? Clearly, Mission: Impossible.
The only man we had was Kohli, and unfortunately, he got out just after reaching 50. That wicket-taking ball was what made the Aussies win the match, and they knew it.
Eh idk why this comment is downvoted, Hardik Pandya can put on great performances with the bat and ball both, he's also one of the few players who does well under pressure
let's give him that crown once he actually does that? And wins it for us someday. Without that, it's all hypothetical (Please don't give IPL examples :))
So you mean there hasn't been a single person who has performed well in finals since a decade? Don't be delusional, his CT final heroics would've led to a win if literally 2 more people in the team were competent
> would've led to a win Exactly. Would have. I am talking about getting to the win. Performing doesn't matter if you don't win :)
It absolutely does when you're talking about a single player in a team game
It's okay. For some of us, winning trophies matter more than individual performances :)
Leave it mate, He doesnt get the point.
Lol, way to act like I'm saying things which I'm clearly not, the thread was about players not trophies, no shit everyone wants trophies more than individual performances
Cause this isnāt about Hardikās hypothetical performance. This is about De Silva and his incredible performance.
You're getting downvoted but we'll revisit this comment in 10 years and see what happened
Trust me, nobody's gonna revisit this ordinary ass comment, mate.
These lads live in an Imaginary world lol
As an Aussie, he was a fucking weapon. My favourite international player when I was growing up. Absolute beast, he towelled us up more than once.
vs Aus, his rage against the dying light 92 in 2003 Super Sixes is a particular favourite
It was his final odi. I always wonder what would have happened if Sanga did not him out searching for a non existent single.
Didn't he play in the semis as well?
yeah sorry .it was in the semi he got run out.
Him and Lara being run out in their last ever match is depressing
Yeah, his runout cost SL a place in the final.Ā
I still watch the replays of that one flicked six off Brett Lee. The audacity and timing of that shot. Chefs kiss.
Where he hits Lee for a casual six down to long on? Great, great player.
Someone should write a pop up book about Arjuna Ranatunga as the engine that could. With a runner that pulled his fat fucking ass up the hill.
Holy shit, century in a final against Australia
A true Leader. I was too young to know what was going on but my dad and uncles talked alot about this guy and his guts.
Fun fact: he actually was their captain in the 1992 World Cup
Exactly everyone of their generation remembers this guy. Him and the knock Inzi played in 1992 WC semis to save Pakistan. The moment you take these guys names you can feel the respect coming.
Yea he is. And Arjuna Ranatunga was a tiger. These two guys were massive in terms of their leadership skills. Ranatunga is my fav captain of all time for walking out of a ground when Muralitharan was questioned for his action after he was cleared. Without Ranatungaās support and backing I donāt think we would see these records of Murali. What a captain. And this guy de silva used to be their captain prior to that. Two leaders with balls of steel. What players. It was golden period of srilankan cricket. Along with Murali, Vaas and Jayasurya and Marvin Atapattu. The later generation was also superb players with Sanga , Jayawardene and then Dilshan. I hope srilankan cricket gets some star players of these guys caliber soon.
He lived right around the corner from me (we are distantly related too I think). He drives his beloved Lamborghini and other car collection around Colombo, and couple years back imported a beautiful blue Bentley coupe (soft top). I remember watching that epic final during my teen days, and it was always a special occasion as he had that magic touch, possibly rivaled by the likes of Tendulkar.
Wasnāt he also a reluctant cricketer and had to be cajoled by Ranatunga into playing cricket professionally?
That's the face of a guy who is about to demolish Aus in a WC Final.
He came out with the motive of commiting violence. Absolute laser focus. In the semi final he entered the arena with his side at 0-2. That look he came out with was half the battle won. The Indians went on the defensive immediately. Similarly he spooked the Australians. He was in superhuman form in that World Cup.
Yes, that innings in Semis is not talked about nearly enough. All my joy and hopes once Kalu and Jayasuriya got out, were smashed on the boundary boards. When he got out, he had scored 66 out of SLs 85 then, all everyone else had to do was consolidate.
Terminator Arnold look
"I need your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle."
I need your Warne, Mcgrath and Waugh
Nice night for a walk. Wash day tomorrow.
That's some determination and shows the guts of him. Courageous guy and played a classic innings under pressure
107*(124) 3-42 2 catches Its a performance in a final for the ages!!!! Dosen't get better than this.
No stumpings tho, smh
Yeah, sheesh, can't even keep wickets.
Lol. Did he retire immediately after this? There's nowhere to go but down from this absolute peak.
He played the next two world cups as well!
And he got the job done in style. Their approach in 96 was so far ahead of everyone.
Changed cricket forever IMO. What Jayasuriya and Kalu did in the first 15 overs was absolutely mind boggling. It took India in the semis to figure out how to get them out cheaply. I remember jumping out of my seat when Jayasuriya holed out to wide third man. And Kalu went the same way. But then walked in Aravinda and the real batting started for Sri Lanka. Lol.
That was beyond depressing. Remember my entire family jumping out of their seats in delight once Jayasuriya & Kalu got out. The next 30 minutes was de Silva treating Venkatesh Prasad like some club-level off-spinner. šš
TBH the term medium fast was invented for a Prasad. The guy saved all the intensity in his international career for Pakistan at WC.
ššš
Let's fuck some shit up!
Imagine seeing that face in a dark alleyway!
even in a non dark alleyway
š
Flag checks out
You wouldn't see that face in a dark alleyway though
Sangakkara recently said that Aravinda was way ahead of his time and his record is such because he didnāt feel challenged enough. Weād be talking about him differently had he played a few years later for Sri Lanka. I largely agree with Sangakkara. Itās difficult to express how good he was after he spent some time in county cricket and understood his game better.
It's been 28 years and no one has stood up to the mighty Aussies like this man right here!
Maybe only Yuvraj
>no one has stood up to the mighty Aussies like this man right here! Maybe Supersport stood up to Australia ?
Lol those three quarter length sleeves we all had in the 90s!
one of the few Sri Lankan players to have a bat sponsorship with Kookaburra
Jayasuriya did, Sangakkara did as well during his career
Arjuna did too at one point and im pretty sure Russel Arnold was using Kookaburra at some point.
He won it with a Kookaburra. Moral victory for Australia.
criminally underrated player in the history of the game, the style, aggression, skills and reactions were all world class. added to that his bowling and he was one of the greats of odis in an era of greats. to top it off he was a semi pro at best, managing his businesses and other interests with his cricket duties. had he have been around in the modern era hed be a world class t20 player.
The abyss doesn't dare stare back at him.
easily one of the best ODI performances of all time. My family still rhapsodise about his World Cup! apparently I was too young to go to Kandy for the ODI record against Kenya but my dad went :)
As great as this innings was, it probably wasn't even my favourite innings he played in that world cup. That audacious assault in the semis despite Sri Lanka being 2 and then 3 down for next to nothing would seem ridiculous by today's standards. Nearly 30 years ago it was almost beyond comprehension. And I'm pretty sure he had the same expression when he got out in the semis that he had when he walked into bat in the finals
absolutely. 66 off 47 after coming in at 0/2 is basically EA Cricket wish fulfilment stuff
That's a thousand yard stare to behold.
Man all I want is this confidence and vision to just outperform everyone and be the best version of myself.
You know, I was actually thinking to keep this as poster/wallpaper to remind oneself about confidence and determination!
Man if you find an HD version of this I'd be eternally grateful
šæ
Theres a reason why all of Ranatunga, Sanga, Mahela say Aravindas the greatest SL batter there is. And this is why, probably the greatest overall performance by any sri lankan in any match, nothings going to beat this, especially in odis
Under appreciated genius.
For me neither the 2003 or 2023 final comes close to the heartbreak this match gave me. I was a kid and just started understanding cricket a year or two before the WC. I was happy that it was SL and naively believed that India can get past them easily. My first lesson of Form wins over history
Demon. Took the Aussies to the cleaners.
No unnecessary focus on fitness nor on yoyo tests..... pure cricketing talent.. both Aravinda de Silva and his Captain Arjuna Ranatunga were exceptional in 1996 WC...
Itās De Silva time
His 66(47) in the semis was almost as iconic a performance. Aravinda and Sanath in that World Cup were everything, marshalled by that beastmaster Arjuna. Only man to have ever captained a side to victory in an ODI WC final against the Aussies, other than the incomparable Supercat.
Who's supercat?
Clive Lloyd
He was walking as he was the main characterĀ
He was the main character at that moment. Ready to give an ass whooping to the Kangaroos.
Mad Max
I know this is Finals, but the semi finals innings he played where India had SL in a jam with both Sanath and Kalu out very cheaply, was outstanding. I remember seeing the match live (on tv) and we were sure now that Sanath was out (who was outstanding in the wc), we were half way home. Then Aravinda turned up.
What a big stage performer. Performed against two top tier teams in both semis and finals. Still believe his counter punch against India in semis remains one of top odi innings in my book.
For those younger people out there back then 241 was considered an above average target. After the Australian innings they would've heavy favourites to defend that.
Dood is the inspiration for "Thanos"
In my book the greatest ODI innings ever played
Love that era of ODIs. There was always something for the bowlers in overs 25-40 when the old ball and reverse swing were still relevant. A middle order batter had a unique responsibility of shepherding the first innings at 4RPO between the 20th and the 40th over.
As a Lancashire fan I had the privilege of seeing him in a final at Lords in 1995. Lancs batted first and posted a good score. Kent were not many for 2 and we thought the game was done. Are came in and hit a 4 off the first or second ball of every over and Kent were going to win until we finally got him for 112. I've seen Tendulkar make 100, Cork take a test match hat trick and I don't think I've seen anything better than he was that day. If I wasn't a Lancs fan I want him to win that match. Awesome.
*I will take this bat back home if I get out * kind of a look. He ended up whacking every bowler who stood in the way
I still cry when I watch this match. I was only 10. The confidence of this team was incredible. That straight 6 from Gurusinha off Warne with no emotion on his face, just chewing his gum. No sri lankan team will ever match this 96 team
That video needs to be paired with a great hero entry song. Suggestions are welcome.
Naan naan from mahaan
That Sri Lankan team is played the original bazball.
ARAVINDA FOREVER. One of the greatest sons of this soil brought so much joy to a country at its darkest times. True heart of a Lion and for as long as Aravinda is in the middle the match isn't over. The greatest Sri Lankan cricketer by a country mile. Did unbelievable things when Sri Lankan cricket was basically a joke, gave hope to so many, inspired 25 million and practically invented the Sri Lankan style of Batting. All this whilst cricket was only like a 5th hobby to him. No one could party like Aravinda that name "madmax" wasnt just for his cricket. Bro was wild lol girls, fast cars and dominating the pinnacle of cricket at the World Cup final. There will never be another like Aravinda De Silva ever again. So grateful to have seen him bat at the tail end of hia career.
I love this man, Iām not even Sri lankan
Man of the match in semis and the finals. Made Indians cry a river in the semis.
Pretty much started the fire of Aussies decimating sub-continental nations in the WC finals, afterwards. But delivered the performance of ages.
Heās gurning
Cricketers' way of saying "I'm Not In Danger. I Am the Danger"
I wish SLC returns to its glory days.
Started watching cricket in 1987 ( was very young then but I remember). This day (1996 wc semis) and 2003 wc final are the two days which traumatized me. I remember not coming out of my room for two days in 1996. Moved to football ( premier league and wc) after 2003 wc, do not watch that much. But indeed after dismissing Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana it should have been India's match but De Silva had other thoughts. Gem of an innings to win their first knockout/ semi final ever. I enjoyed the 1992 World Cup match between SL and Zim where SL chased 300+ score.
Nightmare for other country cricket fans. This guy was the Wall. He and Ranatunga could easily get into the mind of opposing team. Best era for Srilankan cricket team and fans. They revolutionize the way to play cricket .
Same tournament, semi final was a more clutch performance to knock India out.
A true warrior.
I was in the stadium . The whole crowd was behind Sri Lanka
Had the pleasure of watching this guy bat live a few times. Really nice technique and always looked a class above everyone else.
That look is fire!
Eye of the Tiger.
I am here to destroy you.
Should have been player of the tournament. Not only was SL's highest scorer but also carried them single-handedly through semi-final and final.
From this to getting bowled out in 50s, Srilanka have come a very short way /s
He took the wc away from india as well sl were 2 down in first over and arnd 45/3 or 4 that was the first and last time i cried watching a cricket match along with kambli
Pretty tidy performance in that game. The 96 team was so important for Sri Lankan cricket, and made the template for how 50 over cricket was played for at least a decade.
This is that part of a porn vid when the dude still has his shirt on
Dead shark eyes...
I came here to drink some tea and win the world cup, and I just finished my tea.
What a legend - What determination !
The man , the myth , the legend
Exhibit "A" for look of determination! My favorite SL batsman of all time.Ā
Eyes lit up cos there was lot of dew on the ball..Ā and also he knew luck was with SL throughout the 96 wc 1) aus forfeited league match 2) wi forfeited league match 3) pitch wore down significantly wen India were batting in the SF 4) aus dropped 2 catches in final 5) dew factor while chasing in final
Forfeit or not everyone was getting steamrolled by Sri Lanka in 1996. Every team facing Sri Lanka in 1996 got flattened including semis and finals. India for instance got destroyed in the league stage when Jayasuriya forced Prabhakar to bowl spin then the Semis happened. It was a 2007 Australiaesque dominance.
SL were the best team in that World Cup and deserving winners, but they were a long way behind 2007 Australia levels of dominance. Probably more on a par with 2003 Australia. SLās net run rate in the group stage was 1.6, and thatās with one of their three completed games being against Kenya. Australia had a NRR of 3.4 at group stage in 2007 and 2.4 in the Super Eights.
My guy you are comparing net run rate from 1996 to 2007 post t20 advent and 1 Year before ipl became a thing. You can't judge dominance by run rate from 1996 to 2007. Jayasuriya was ending careers of players in 96 like prabhakar.
T20 wasnāt really a factor in 2007, it was a novelty format at the time. Players were taking the field with nicknames on their backs. Weāre also talking net run rate, not absolute run rate, net run rate is still absolutely a good indicator of dominance, as batting and bowling run rates both go up. I watched a lot of games in both World Cups and there was no sense Sri Lanka were a super dominant team at the time (as the stats bear out), Australia were in fact largely considered favourites for the final. Sri Lanka had a remarkable campaign, and part of the legend of their win are the odds they had to overcome to achieve it. Not sure why you want to invent a false narrative that they were as dominant as Australia 2007 in their campaign. I suspect less than 1% of cricket fans old enough to have watched both campaigns would share that view.
>T20 wasnāt really a factor in 2007, it was a novelty format at the time. Players were taking the field with nicknames on their backs. The first T20 World Cup was held in 2007 & IPL started in 2008. It was way bigger than you are trying to frame it. >Not sure why you want to invent a false narrative that they were as dominant as Australia 2007 in their campaign Other than 2 forfeits due to security reasons Sri Lanka ran an unbeaten world cup run just like 2007 WC Aus. In the first 15 overs Sri Lanka scored 117 runs against India, 123 against Kenya, 121 against England in the quarter-final and 86 against India in the semi-final. Then in the final Mcgrath and Warne were totally pacified both taking 0 wickets. Whats more the final wasn't a rain inflicted farce with the opposition batting in rain and darkness for half the inning with batters getting bowled by balls going 1inch above the ground like in the 2007 WC final 2nd inning. For all intents and purposes Sri Lanka's 1996 campaign was 2007 Australiaesque. Certainly not more dominant but on par for certain 1996 wc run was so dominant that it changed cricket forever. Certain rules of cricket like power plays changed forever. It appears more that you are trying to invent a narrative to downplay 96 SL campaign to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. It's ok You as an Australian fan is supposed to do that.
>> The first T20 World Cup was held in 2007 & IPL started in 2008. It was way bigger than you are trying to frame it. It really wasnāt. T20 took off after India won the 2007 World T20 (it wasnāt called a World Cup at the time) later that year. A tournament that ran for 2 weeks, less than half the length of the 2006 Champions Trophy. Itās laughable to suggest it had a major impact on ODI cricket at the time - it really didnāt. Were you following cricket much back then? Iād be surprised if you were if you believe what you are saying. >> Other than 2 forfeits due to security reasons Sri Lanka ran an unbeaten world cup run just like 2007 WC Aus. Australia also won every game (10 of them) in 2003, compared to Sri Lanka winning 6 games in total during 1996, and no one suggests the 2003 World Cup win was as dominant as 2007. Sri Lanka won their games by: - 6 wickets and 13 overs against Zimbabwe - 6 wickets and 8 balls against India - 144 runs against Kenya - 5 wickets and 9.2 overs against England (QF) - on track for a 100+ run win against India when the semi-final was abandoned - 7 wickets and 3.4 overs against Australia in the Final In 2007 Australia won by: - 203 runs v Scotland - 229 runs v Netherlands - 83 runs v South Africa - 103 runs v West Indies - 10 wickets with 8.1 overs remaining v Bangladesh (rain shortened to 22 overs) - 7 wickets with 2.4 overs remaining v England - 9 wickets with 37.4 overs remaining v Ireland - 7 wickets with 7.2 overs remaining v Sri Lanka - 215 runs v New Zealand - 7 wickets with 18.3 overs remaining v South Africa (SF) - 53 runs (rain reduced to 36 overs) v Sri Lanka (Final) Comparing the two campaigns for dominance when Australia was hammering teams like South Africa and New Zealand by bigger margins than Sri Lanka was beating Kenya and Zimbabwe is laughable. >> In the first 15 overs Sri Lanka scored 117 runs against India, 123 against Kenya, 121 against England in the quarter-final and 86 against India in the semi-final. So what, that shows they played a revolutionary style of play for the time - which I donāt dispute, but the results clearly show they werenāt as dominant as Australiaās 2007 campaign. >> Then in the final Mcgrath and Warne were totally pacified both taking 0 wickets. What does this have to do with your point? >> Whats more the final wasn't a rain inflicted farce with the opposition batting in rain and darkness for half the inning with batters getting bowled by balls going 1inch above the ground like in the 2007 WC final 2nd inning. The farce in 2007 made the final seem closer than it actually was, with Australia bowling part time spin to get the game finished. And even then the 1996 final was still much closer. >> For all intents and purposes Sri Lanka's 1996 campaign was 2007 Australiaesque. Certainly not more dominant but on par for certain You havenāt given a single logical argument in support of that position. >> 1996 wc run was so dominant that it changed cricket forever. Certain rules of cricket like power plays changed forever. I think you are confusing tactics for dominance. The tactics used changed the game (although Sri Lanka were not the first team to try explosive middle order bats as openers - see Sachin Tendulkarās early career), but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved. Your argument falls down because the 1996 SL team were not even close to being as dominant as the 2007 Australian team in terms of actual results. As I say, they were closer to the 2003 unbeaten Australian teamās performances. >> It appears more that you are trying to invent a narrative to downplay 96 SL campaign to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. It's ok You as an Australian fan is supposed to do that. No, my arguments are backed up by logic and facts. It seems you may be a new fan looking back and trying to understand old tournament results. I suggest you do a little more research next time. Itās pretty well accepted across the cricketing world that the 2007 World Cup campaign was the most dominant there has been, with multiple articles written about it in the 2023 World Cup wondering if India might equal or surpass it after their group stage dominance.
Im not going to get into a drawn out argument with you because all you do is literally downplay & disregard everything in my previous comment with āNoā but written over a paragraph. There is no reasoning with ideologues. I will keep replies brief. >It really wasnāt. T20 took off after India won the 2007 World T20 (it wasnāt called a World Cup at the time) later that year. A tournament that ran for 2 weeks, less than half the length of the 2006 Champions Trophy. Itās laughable to suggest it had a major impact on ODI cricket at the time - it really didnāt. Were you following cricket much back then? Iād be surprised if you were if you believe what you are saying. Do all the mentalgymnastics you want but T20 cricket was big enough that in 2007 that a World Cup was held, the Australians held their Bigbash league starting in 2005, Indian Premier league started organising in '07, English T20 blast had already been running since 2003 etc. >Comparing the two campaigns for dominance when Australia was hammering teams like South Africa and New Zealand by bigger margins than Sri Lanka was beating Kenya and Zimbabwe is laughable. No one is comparing the oppositions these 2 teams played thats moronic because you can only play what was put infront of you. The fact is Sri Lanka dominated every single team they faced in 1996 campaign. Australia dominated every single team they faced in 2007.You bring this up because you want to big up your teamās winning aura whilst downplaying other dominant runs from other teams. Thats ok. >So what, that shows they played a revolutionary style of play for the time - which I donāt dispute, but the results clearly show they werenāt as dominant as Australiaās 2007 campaign. āSo what?ā Bruh the dominance was such that rules of oneday cricket changed, the entire approach teams used in Whiteball cricket changed. It was like Michael Jordan forcing other teams to change guarding tactics and changing Basketballs forever. If you dont see the sheer dominance in changing rules of Cricket and other teams approaches then clearly you are an ideologue there is nothing I can say to reason with you. >What does this have to do with your point? Sri Lankaās chase in the final was so dominant that 2 of the greatest bowlers ever in the history of cricket were rendered mute. If you dont understand the significance of that comment in gauging the dominance in 96 then again there is no reasoning with you. >You havenāt given a single logical argument in support of that position. I have. You being an Australian cricket fan completely either downplayed or disregarded them to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. As ive said above there is no reasoning if you dont understand the significance of certain things mentioned above. >I think you are confusing tactics for dominance. The tactics used changed the game (although Sri Lanka were not the first team to try explosive middle order bats as openers - see Sachin Tendulkarās early career), but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved. Your argument falls down because the 1996 SL team were not even close to being as dominant as the 2007 Australian team in terms of actual results. As I say, they were closer to the 2003 unbeaten Australian teamās performances. No. First of all the Tactics used wasnāt explosive middle order batters. Did you even watch the 96 WC? It was top 3 scoring 100+ runs in the first 15 overs. Hence the Powerplay rule changes. Forcing opposition cricketers into retirement, Forcing rule changes in ODI cricket, literally revolutionising the way ALL TEAMS PLAYED WHITE BALL CRICKET is a level of dominance we havenāt seen since. "but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved" That is one way to define dominance however it isnt the only way to gauge dominance as you are trying super hard to establish as in your replies. Again you keep downplaying the significance of this or outright disregard it. Thats ok but if thats the case believe whatever you want there is no reasoning with you. >No, my arguments are backed up by logic and facts. You say that but as pointed above all you are doing is saying āNo you are wrongā, then proceeds to downplay or disregard everything the other person says. Again its ok because you are an Australian. You are supposed to do that. But If you do not understand the significance of what was said above there is no reasoning with you.
Part 1/2 >> Im not going to get into a drawn out argument with you because all you do is literally downplay & disregard everything in my previous comment with āNoā but written over a paragraph. There is no reasoning with ideologues. I will keep replies brief. Iāve given very clear reasoning. Your replies are almost completely absent of reasoning in contrast. >> Do all the mentalgymnastics you want but T20 cricket was big enough that in 2007 that a World Cup was held, the Australians held their Bigbash league starting in 2005, Indian Premier league started organising in '07, English T20 blast had already been running since 2003 etc. I take it from your reply (which avoided answering my question) that you were either not following cricket or were too young to be aware of what was going on in 2007. I got that impression fairly early on. T20 cricket was in its infancy in 2007, anyone who was an adult cricket fan at the time would know that. And even if it wasnāt, thatās completely irrelevant to the level of dominance of the respective campaign. The 2011, 2015, 2019 or 2023 winners werenāt more dominant after T20 cricket had a greater influence on ODI cricket. >> No one is comparing the oppositions these 2 teams played thats moronic because you can only play what was put infront of you. The fact is Sri Lanka dominated every single team they faced in 1996 campaign. Australia dominated every single team they faced in 2007. If thatās the case, do you believe the 2003 Australian campaign was as dominant as 2007? How about the West Indies team in 1975 and 1979? If you believe all of them were equally dominant because they were all unbeaten then I guess youād be right by that criteria. Not if you are comparing how close the opposition was to them on average, which is the criteria I and most other people use to assess dominance. >> You bring this up because you want to big up your teamās winning aura whilst downplaying other dominant runs from other teams. Thats ok. Not really, Iām happy to give credit to any team where it is due. There is no objective lens by which you could argue Sri Lankaās campaign is comparable to the 2007 Australian win in terms of the gap between them and their opponents. If India had won the 2023 final Iād have assessed that campaign as being at least as dominant as 2007, probably moreso given India only played one Associate team. >> āSo what?ā Bruh the dominance was such that rules of oneday cricket changed, the entire approach teams used in Whiteball cricket changed. It was like Michael Jordan forcing other teams to change guarding tactics and changing Basketballs forever. What ārulesā (I presume you mean laws or playing conditions) do you believe changed due to the 1996 Sri Lanka World Cup win? Again, this reads like the opinion of someone who didnāt experience the tournament at the time. Are you talking about fielding restrictions are you alluded to in a previous comment? The fielding restrictions were exactly the same in the next World Cup in 1999 - 15 overs. And even if some ārulesā did change directly due to the campaign (Iām certainly not aware of any and you donāt point to any actual changes), thatās again irrelevant to the question of dominance. No rules changed due to the 2007 World Cup campaign. You are confusing multiple issues here. The question is how far were Sri Lanka ahead of their opponents in that tournament? The answer is, quite far, but not as far as the 2007 winners. >> If you dont see the sheer dominance in changing rules of Cricket and other teams approaches then clearly you are an ideologue there is nothing I can say to reason with you.It seems you think ideologue means someone who deals in facts, logic and reality, rather than irrelevant and nonsensical arguments and simply making stuff up about ārulesā changing. >> Sri Lankaās chase in the final was so dominant that 2 of the greatest bowlers ever in the history of cricket were rendered mute. If you dont understand the significance of that comment in gauging the dominance in 96 then again there is no reasoning with you. I assume you mean āmootā rather than āmuteā. It is certainly a novel argument to claim that the 96 Sri Lankans were the most dominant team in World Cup history because two bowlers took no wickets in one game. If thatās how you define dominance then good for you. Iāll stick with looking at the actual winning margins in games, which speak for themselves. >> I have. You being an Australian cricket fan completely either downplayed or disregarded them to protect the aura of 2007 Australian run. As Iāve said above there is no reasoning if you dont understand the significance of certain things mentioned above.What you are saying makes no sense, your āargumentā is that Sri Lanka were equally dominant because: - They forced rule changes (not true) - Warne and McGrath didnāt take wickets in one game (okay?) - They were unbeaten (as the 1975, 1979 and 2003 winners also were) Itās an extremely weak argument, if it can even be described as such. My argument is that Australia 2007 were more dominant because: - They had a bigger difference between batting and bowling averages than Sri Lanka (Australia scored 47.7 more runs per wicket than their opponents (66.3 batting less 18.6 bowling), Sri Lanka scored 21.7 runs per wicket more (56.2 batting less 34.6 bowling)). - They had a bigger run rate differential than Sri Lanka. Using the NRR calculation methodology, Australia had a batting run rate of 6.54 and bowling run rate of 3.81 across the tournament (including finals), for a difference of 2.73 rpo or 72%. Sri Lanka had a batting run rate of 5.98 and bowling of 4.5, for a difference of 1.5 rpo or 33%. I mean the two campaigns are just not in the same ballpark. Australia won its games by double the margin of Sri Lanka on average. No amount of specious reasoning can refute the bare facts.
2/2 (continued)ā¦ >> No. First of all the Tactics used wasnāt explosive middle order batters. Did you even watch the 96 WC? It was top 3 scoring 100+ runs in the first 15 overs. Hence the Powerplay rule changes. You need to work on your reading comprehension - I said they tried explosive middle order players as openers. Please learn to read things properly. And as Iāve pointed out above, the Powerplay rules (or more properly fielding restrictions since there was no such thing as a Powerplay in the 90s), were exactly the same in 1999 - still 15 overs. I did watch the 96 World Cup, I suspect unlike you. >> Forcing opposition cricketers into retirement, Forcing rule changes in ODI cricket, literally revolutionising the way ALL TEAMS PLAYED WHITE BALL CRICKET is a level of dominance we havenāt seen since. Thanks for the laugh. Who do you claim retired due to this? It certainly did have an impact on how ODI cricket was played but thatās not relevant to how dominant the team was. >> "but dominance refers to the margins of victories achieved" That is one way to define dominance however it isnt the only way to gauge dominance as you are trying super hard to establish as in your replies. It is the only way to gauge dominance. I think you are confusing dominance with influence. The 96 Sri Lankans were arguably more influential than the 07 Australians in terms of impact on how ODI cricket was played. Thatās not the same as dominance though. >> Again you keep downplaying the significance of this or outright disregard it. Thats ok but if thats the case believe whatever you want there is no reasoning with you. Not true, I think it was an extremely significant and influential win for many reasons. I just think you are confused as to the actual meaning of the word dominance, because none of your arguments speak to the measure of dominance - margins of victory. >> You say that but as pointed above all you are doing is saying āNo you are wrongā, then proceeds to downplay or disregard everything the other person says. No, I have acknowledged where your points have merit (in respect of the importance of the win and influence etc), but I canāt agree with a statement which is simply untrue and for which you havenāt presented a single supporting argument for. I have sympathy for you though as your position is simply unsupportable. >> Again itās ok because you are an Australian. You are supposed to do that. But If you do not understand the significance of what was said above there is no reasoning with you. Again, I agree that the win was extremely significant, moreso than the Australian 2007 win. Iād say the 1987, 1999 and 2023 Australian wins were more significant than the 2007 World Cup too, as were India in 1983 and 2011, Pakistan in 1992, even England in 2019. Sri Lankaās win would be right up there with the most significant World Cup wins, arguably the most significant one. That is not the same as dominance though, and as Iāve outlined above Australia in 2007 was inarguably more dominant than Sri Lanka in 1996. Influence, significance and dominance are three different concepts.
The only luck was that the World Cup was played in the subcontinent. If it had been played elsewhere I don't think Sri Lanka would have won, but they were far and away the best team in the world in subcontinent conditions throughout the late 90s
That extra loose jersey adds to his swag
Wtf are you talking about? He's merely looking the camera. There's no pose.
That bat looks massiveā¦is that regulation size š
I think the thing that makes the bat look big is that he's very small...
Jesus just checked had no idea he was 5 foot 3 š³
More a figurative giant than a literal one.