Worst ODI team

Yerp, pretty sure he left cricket because his missus wanted to stay put in RSA... bloody women!!!

Johno was a very good ODI all rounder, didn't show his full talent in tests though. That 130 odd against McGrath, Warne and co at the 99 WC sticks to my memory.

Yerp, especially Pakistan crumbling to Warne in the final for 132

They had the best team back then, such a strong side. Wasim and Waqar opening the attack, Shoaib bowling at his fastest, Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed spinning. Ijaz, Inzamam and Saeed Anwar at the top of the order and Moin keeping wicket. And the 2 all rounders Azhar and Mahmood + Shahid Afridi.  Top team.

I reckon Sri Lanka were a pretty balanced team as well, they had a hell of a lot of success. South Africa were always neck to neck with Australia at the end of the 90s, and they were fantastic when they first got international status back as well, great fielding played a huge part in their success.
I dare say that Pakistan had a might well balanced side, good opener (e.g. Anwar), good middle order batsmen (e.g. Miandad til 96, Inzy), good keepers (Latif and Moin) and the best pace attack + throw in the spin combo of Saqlain and Mushtaq Ahmed.
Australia had a nice rounded side too, Mark Waugh (one of the best ODI openers), Michael Bevan, Stephen Waugh + a bowling attack of McGrath, Warne and Fleming. Not so shabby either!?
I miss those days, some fantastic players. I ask you guys to look up on youtube "Gilchrist getting out to Wasim" in the opening part of the 99 WC. That's what I call fast bowling.

Australia was never a top ODI til the end of the 90s, I'll definitely concede that fact. We were certainly beatable. Sri Lanka was very, very innovative and they had a lot of success and India played a hell of a lot of ODI cricket too, but without Sachin they were nothing.
SAF had about 4 or 5 all rounders in their side and batted til about 10 and had about 7 bowling options + brilliant fielders.
AUS had great balance, and it wasn't until they got rid of Taylor and Healy til they really blossomed.
PAK always had great balance, batting was not a massive strength but their bowling was out of this world.

Yer, you can't even compare stats from now with the 90s. Steve Waugh averaged 32 and made 3 tons in 300 odd games, but he was always considered good enough.
England was a bit of a sham in ODIs, although they won in 92.
NZ was always competitive, guys like Chris Harris, Chris Cairns, and the like always did well.
Zimbabwe was a very, very athletic side, with a great fielding unit and it made up for its somewhat average talent with effort and a strong lower order. Although they never once beat Australia in the 90s.
Windies weren't too flash either, probably in the same category as England.
The 90s were dominated by Pakistan, SAF, Aust, SL and India in ODIs... but Australia and Pakistan were always the best to watch in my opinion.

I guess, he is talking about few matches won Sledge.

Been in three finals matey ! '92 hurts because England were the best side by a country mile. Miandad's escape when plumb in front cost the match. Not to mention their "get-out-of-jail" when skittled for next to nothing against England in the round robin stage.  Bloody rain.....

    

Yes true that. England were the better side then. But I guess even then they lacked the spark. Miandad's wicket was crucial. Pakistan were on 5 points after 6 matches and certainly did not deserve to be in the finals, but that one point in the match against england where we were all out for 74, counted inthe end. Aussies also helped us a great deal by beating Windies.

Originally posted by milkman The rain didn't help the South Africans in that tournament either.

  No sympathy whatsoever for the South Africans in that semifinal. They only sent down 45 overs in their allotted time - Wessels had no answer to Hick and Fairbrother and just used the rules to suit his team. The rain was divine intervention !

Originally posted by milkman ODI cricket pretty much went down hill for England after that.

 Too true - they've been nowhere since. I don't count the win in Sharjah under Hollioake - mickey mouse competition!

But they had a genuine all-rounder Ian Botham in the 92 WC.

Ian Botham in 92 was just dragging himself. He was nowhere near his good days - forget the best. Imran was also in the same league, he just played that to lead the side. his bowling was quite average.

I guess Kapil went on to play a couple of more years just to chase some world record. He was completely useless in the 90s but just went on to play so many more test matches than he actually deserved to, just to get that record.

Pollock was a good all rounder, but nowhere near as good as Kallis. Kallis would have been a better all rounder had he played less cricket. Too much cricket takes a big toll on these all rounders.
Botham had something like 25 5-fors, Flintoff has about 3. Botham also scored about 14 or 15 tons, and Flintoff has about 3 or 4. I don't like to look into stats too much, but Botham was certainly more of a match-winner.

True.  What Freddie gives you is very good too.  Sheer consistancy with the ball so you know you have one bowler who will take his 3 odd wickets per game with good economy rate.  Pollock was fine player.  I remember him coming at 3 against Pakistan couple years ago and scoring 80 odd not out.  That innings had shots of a top class batsman.  Still, Kallis is the best of the lot for me.