South Africa

[flibbertyjibber]

I think England have a better allround team than Australia at present.Just my opinion and i will probably be disagreed with but there you go.

[superkingdave]

Nah we have a ****house pace attack and we've been lucky in some of our batting so far

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by slippy

Will they be disappointed if they dont win the 2010 icc world twenty20, they have the best team on paper. They have not won a major international tournament and are always known as chokers, will there luck change this tournament.

Struggling to see how South Africa can be the best team on paper when their batting is crap.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Yeah but the thing is, they are better on paper than the others, and are surely favourites now

Did you watch the game against Bangladesh? Not to mention they lost to Zimbabwe in the warm ups. They have done well against 2 teams so far who were largely out of depth against the faster bowlers and lets face it its not the first time we've seen India bat like muppets against 145+ bowlers that dug the ball into their body.

[fishyguy]

The way pietersen and kieswetter played today SA should feel more positive about their chance.... oh wait that was England

[thierry henry]

tbh I don't think it'd be too much of an outrageous claim to suggest that Mills/Bond>Nannes/Tait. I appreciate that Tait and Nannes are T20 specialists but I just think it's so early in the history of international T20 that I'm still not quite comfortable with saying that certain players who are comparatively crap in other forms are guns at T20 or vice versa- obviously there are players who are more or less suited to T20, I just find it difficult to identify them with any certainty just yet. I mean, if we were discussing ODIs I think Mills/Bond>>>>>>Nannes/Tait, and I'm not totally convinced that their respective T20 abilities are so different to their ODI abilities.

tbf we don't really have a settled third seamer in T20 yet, but Vettori is really our 3rd bowler, and better than Johnson for sure, and I don't think there's that much between the support bowling of the two sides.

NZ's T20 batting also looks like it should be good on paper, but the performances are not quite there yet....which is kinda like our batting in all forms I guess. Guptill basically sucks of late unfortunately, and Taylor just hasn't quite got it going in T20Is yet.

[Briony]

Australia has the most explosive team on paper with its batting and bowling firepower but England is slightly better balanced with a couple of spinners in Yardy and Swann who can skilfully take pace off the ball and support their seamers who bowl with better variety and line and length than the Aussie or SA ones.

Pakistan looks ordinary with poor fielding to back it up while NZ lacks class and India continues to struggle if the pitches are bouncy.

SA's team looks average with a top order not up to the class of other lineups in this format. Smith and Kallis are simply too slow. Their fielding has been more sloppy than is customary and they are poorly led with their captain lacking the thinking powers to be flexible when required. At least Clarke is a good captain in the field even if his batting is too slow for this form of the game. Smith's is too but he fails to recognise this.

[pasag]

Aus are the best team, imho simply because everyone else has been so disappointing. But we're not perfect by any means (although a different team selection would make us even better) though.

[Briony]

Originally Posted by pasag

Aus are the best team, imho simply because everyone else has been so disappointing. But we're not perfect by any means (although a different team selection would make us even better) though.

Like Bollinger for instance, and not including Clarke.

Australia just has so much depth compared with everyone else.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by pasag

Aus are the best team, imho simply because everyone else has been so disappointing. But we're not perfect by any means (although a different team selection would make us even better) though.

Bit harsh on us, tbh. I'm an eternal pessimist, admittedly, but given the cattle at our disposal I think we've at least matched expectations. Bowling's been decent in both of the completed games and batting has only really been poor v Ireland.

[0RI0N]

Originally Posted by slippy

Will they be disappointed if they dont win the 2010 icc world twenty20, they have the best team on paper. They have not won a major international tournament and are always known as chokers, will there luck change this tournament.

Really?
You sure?
Your cricketing knowledge is lacking.
First Champions Trophy winners in 98.
Inb4 that wasn't a major trophy.
Oh and Australia has the best bowling attack atm.
Captain needs to up his SR of 108.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by 0RI0N

Really?
You sure?
Your cricketing knowledge is lacking.
First Champions Trophy winners in 98.
Inb4 that wasn't a major trophy.
Oh and Australia has the best bowling attack atm.
Captain needs to up his SR of 108.

TBH If the W's keep playing the way they are and Clarke keeps with his current logic, hopefully he won't need to (or get a chance to, more to the point).

[andyc]

Originally Posted by fishyguy

The way pietersen and kieswetter played today SA should feel more positive about their chance.... oh wait that was England

While you may only be trying to have a laugh, posts like this are only going to rile up other posters and divert the thread down a route that's been seen far too many times already.

[Arjun]

Originally Posted by Briony

India continues to struggle if the pitches are bouncy.

More like they're not really T20-ready, their selections are often misfit for T20 and their players don't have as much experience as, say, Graham Napier. And all their weaknesses get shown up under extreme pressure.

[Migara]

Aussies are the most balanced team, because there are no passengers, perhaps except their captain, in the team. Everybody is in reasonable form. I cannot see how they are going to lose the tournament.