![]() |
Comments on this story Comments have now been closed for this article
Posted by Bunny on February 05 2008, 21:06 PM GMT Eventhough this is a ODI series, KS like a true professional rated a team by their test status. ICC Test Rankings : Aus (1), Ind (2), SL (3). So he is right. 3 best sides in the world. Also, he said "perhaps the 3 best sides in the world". & yes, absolutely true. & there is a chance for every team to win. probably the most nail biting finals would be if SL & Ind play finals, if Aussies qualify, we all know who is going to win that. It is very sad that this is the last CB Series. Just to clear some air, yes SL & Ind are star strudded, Sanath & Sachin alone share 800+ ODI's and 30,000 runs between them. Posted by rohang on February 05 2008, 16:23 PM GMT Kumar Sangakkara is just giving his personal opinion when he states "This series features perhaps the three best teams in the world" Australia is the undisputed No1, Sri Lanka were the World Cup Finalist and India is a very fine team on par with South Africa and New Zealand I should think with players in the calibre of Tendulkar, Yuvraj, Kumble, Harbhajan, Zaheer, Sehwag(not to mention Dravid and Ganguly who are not playing in this tournament!). I dont understand what all this debate is about. If the strength of cricket teams are decided by rankings then we wouldnt need the world cup to crown the world chamipions! By the way, when have New Zealand or South Africa ever featured in a World cup final let alone win one!? Posted by nk83 on February 05 2008, 04:43 AM GMT And just to make something clear, South Africa didn't become 2nd and 3rd by JUST beating West Indies and Bangladesh; if you beat a team lower ranked than you it counts less, the more lower the more less it counts to your ranking. Posted by nk83 on February 05 2008, 04:39 AM GMT whits106, if India and Sri Lanka do have so many match winners, than how about they win some matches to really become the top 3. Posted by Amila on February 05 2008, 02:48 AM GMT I think Sanga is spot on,Even though Sri Lanka and India sitting below the three best teams according to the ICC rankings the other teams like South Africa,New Zealand and Pakisthan have had easy wins aginst slightly weeker oppositions.So I think thats a fair statement and most of us will wittness during in this tournament.I think people would be better of focusing on the amount of interest that this series has brought amoung the cricket world,these are the three teams that most of us would love to see in a triangular. Posted by BigRich on February 05 2008, 02:39 AM GMT Being from the currently ranked third best team in the world (NZ) I would like to elaborate on a few comments. I disagree with the ICC ratings of including NZ at third. Realistically you can't go past Aus, SA and SL as the best ODI teams in the world with consistency. Upset performances from other teams are mere 'flash in the pans', as was Banglesdesh beating India in the World Cup. NZ recently confirmed this was a real one off performance. I do agree that although an excellent test team that can rival Australia on its day, India with its new selection policy have a somewhat lesser ODI team now. It can't profess to being in the top three, like the test counterpart. I would also like to add comments to that presented by whits106 recently about NZ cricket. I attended a game last year where NZ achieved 350 to beat Australia. The second game in two where NZ posted 330+ to beat the Aussies and win the series 3-0, the first game by 10 wickets. NZ'ers had interest in those games all right! Posted by crazystu on February 05 2008, 02:23 AM GMT whits106 I'd like to argue that NZ deserve that number 3 ranking, of course me being a Kiwi but I somewhat think New Zealand will lose it pretty soon. They gained it from the Chappel-Hadlee series early 07, where we beat a slightly abnormal Australian side 3-0. Hey, we aren't a big nation and there aren't many of us that don't live in New Zealand so it should be expected we won't have many fans going to games outside of New Zealand. It is a shame Vettori is probably are last real world class player, seeing that Bond is now probably never going to play for NZ again. We do have some resonable bowlers, but our batsmen are pretty poor. We'd kill for a Hayden/Ponting/Hussey/Tendulkar/Dravid but we only have players like Stephen Flemming and Scott Styris. Posted by Rickz on February 05 2008, 02:19 AM GMT This tornament would have the "top 3 teamz"( Aus - SL - Ind ) even though they are spread apart in the ICC cricket rankingz. South Africa n New Zealand got beaten by India n Sri lanka in numerous accounts. Even though England bet we Lankans at home we have a better side than last time. It was good 2 see a lot of young guyz in the side like, Ishara Amerasinghe, Dilruwan Perera, Chanaka Welegedara, and Chamara Kapugedera but i would like to see Malinga Bandara in the side as a back up spinner in case Murali gets rested. Lets hope the Sri Lankanz get into the finl with india n beat Australia at their own game! Posted by drneilmukherjee on February 05 2008, 02:04 AM GMT while it may be the top 3 in the world as Kumar says, the rest of the teams put together would struggle to beat Aus. It's gonna be as exceiting a tournament as watching India, Zimb and Kenya play a series. The winner is predecided barring natural disasters and mass injury. If you're putting your cash on India or SL, I'd advise saving it for the casino. Posted by eyeopener on February 05 2008, 00:09 AM GMT Let's take a vote instead of squabbling. Assume Sri Lanka is playing Australia and assume S.Sfrica is playing Australia on the same day, same time. (virtually impossible). Which match would people prefer to watch live.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||
|