South Africa

[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.

[Noble One]

The very nature of Twenty20 cricket makes it very hard to predict. Two or three bad overs can lose you a game.

Wide open competition ATM. Good team on paper means very little in this format, you need a couple of players to be in red hot form, and every team seems to have that.

[BoyBrumby]

Oz have the best team on paper, IMHO. SA don't have quite enough dashers in the top order for my liking. The Oz skipper the only real weak link in their chain.

[Jono]

Yeah exactly. Australia clearly the best team on paper. Fearsome bowling attack, brilliant top and middle order, and a dude with bleached hair and tattoos to do the interviews.

[Zinzan]

^ Agree

[tooextracool]

How is Australia the best team on paper? They dont have a half decent spinner or a slow bowler on their side. Australia has a good batting lineup and their fast bowling is good but not exceptional but if you ask me NZ have the best all round side this tournament.

[tooextracool]

And SA are an average team. Lets just get that straight. Im finding it hard to see how they have a remotely good side on paper,especially when you consider that they are playing in the Caribbean.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

How is Australia the best team on paper? They dont have a half decent spinner or a slow bowler on their side. Australia has a good batting lineup and their fast bowling is good but not exceptional but if you ask me NZ have the best all round side this tournament.

Smith & Hussey minor have gone ok and a pace attack with three genuinely brisk bowlers who all swing it is a frightening prospect.

Harris no slouch either.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Smith & Hussey minor have gone ok and a pace attack with three genuinely brisk bowlers who all swing it is a frightening prospect.

Harris no slouch either.

All fine and good but all their pace bowlers are 145k +. They're missing variety in their attack. They have a good attack playing in Australia, SA or maybe even England but in the WI when they come up with slower wickets they will be missing someone who can take the pace off the ball. They are a good side, no doubt about it, but they dont have the same all round balance that NZ does.

[BoyBrumby]

Watson? Johnson has a killer slower ball too.

& Can't see how Bond, Mills, Butler & Styris/Oram is in the same league as Nannes, Tait, Johnson & Watson. Speed isn't the only variable either, Oz have two leftie seamers for variety.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Watson? Johnson has a killer slower ball too.

& Can't see how Bond, Mills, Butler & Styris/Oram is in the same league as Nannes, Tait, Johnson & Watson. Speed isn't the only variable either, Oz have two leftie seamers for variety.

The world cup is in the WI, you need slower bowlers and the best bowlers this competition are spin bowlers. Australia have none, steve smith doesnt count. Its fine on the bouncier pitches in Barbados, but when they get to St Lucia it will be a bit different.

On NZ, Vettori has a better record than all of the above mentioned bowlers and Nathan McCullum has been brilliant all tournament. The point is that they have an attack for all seasons which Australia dont have.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

The world cup is in the WI, you need slower bowlers and the best bowlers this competition are spin bowlers. Australia have none, steve smith doesnt count. Its fine on the bouncier pitches in Barbados, but when they get to St Lucia it will be a bit different.

On NZ, Vettori has a better record than all of the above mentioned bowlers and Nathan McCullum has been brilliant all tournament. The point is that they have an attack for all seasons which Australia dont have.

Ok, even if, for the purposes of brevity, we allow that NZ's attack is better, a cricket team isn't just a bowling attack. Australia's batting much stronger than NZ's, which I took into account when I said they have the best team on paper.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Ok, even if, for the purposes of brevity, we allow that NZ's attack is better, a cricket team isn't just a bowling attack. Australia's batting much stronger than NZ's, which I took into account when I said they have the best team on paper.

Im not sure if I agree with that. NZ bats down all the way till 9. Australia really have 4 batsmen of note: Warner , Watson, Hussey and Hussey. Clarke and Haddin have dodgy records and White is in poor form.

Its t20 and NZ have players who can score rapidfire 30s and thats the need of the game.

[GraemeSmith]

Yeah I fail to see how Aus are the best team on paper. They did well in that one game because the pitch was tailor-made for their bowling attack combined by some pretty atrocious batting by the indians. Tait, Johnson, and Watson all have the potential to be absolutely DECIMATED on an unfavorable wicket in this format of the game. Nannes is the only bowler who can be expected to bowl with success consistently on typical West-Indian wickets. They are not a better side on paper than any of the other big teams.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by GraemeSmith

Yeah I fail to see how Aus are the best team on paper. They did well in that one game because the pitch was tailor-made for their bowling attack combined by some pretty atrocious batting by the indians. Tait, Johnson, and Watson all have the potential to be absolutely DECIMATED on an unfavorable wicket in this format of the game. Nannes is the only bowler who can be expected to bowl with success consistently on typical West-Indian wickets. They are not a better side on paper than any of the other big teams.

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