Viewing 10 comments - 1 through 10 (of 56 total)
1 2 … 6

  • Just 4 wickets.
    While Murali
    Just 4 wickets.
    While Murali has performed admirably in the last two, it wasn’t enough for us to win those WCs. Plus, I dont remember single game he turned on its head while Warne singlehandedly won the 96 semi final and did perhaps the most to win the 99 semi final. In between there were some good performance too.
    I’d still go for Warne.

  • Hilal, as I’ve said on the
    Hilal, as I’ve said on the article itself, this list was comprised taking into account “ONLY” the World Cup performance, nothing else. It is irrelavant what they’ve done in Tests or even other ODIs. In World Cups, later I felt that Warne has more crucial and match turning performance than Murali has, though Murali has the numbers.

  • By the way, after some
    By the way, after some discussion with people in SLCricket, I might change my spinner from Murali to Warne. I feel he’s done better in crucial games and had helped Aussies achieve more, more than what Murali has helped us achieve, in World Cups, despite him having stats in his favor.

  • @Hilal
    For the life of me,
    @Hilal
    For the life of me, mate, I can’t figure out how you can categorize Hayden as “one of the most destructive openers” over Sanath. I’d say he was steady, but destructive?

    I personally wouldn’t pick Sanga or Pollock neither of whom hasn’t done anything remarkable in World Cups.

  • @Stormy
    Fair enough, but I
    @Stormy
    Fair enough, but I though Vaasy’s longevity, his brilliant record should earn him a place. Ambrose, while being a brilliant bowler hasn’t done much in World Cups which was one of the base criteria. Kapil won a WC, but I have my all rounder and I’d prefer Vaasy over him. Just my opinion.

    And so true about the fanatics, I wonder if they even read the article. Funny, though.

Viewing 10 comments - 1 through 10 (of 56 total)
1 2 … 6