Are England really favourites for CT17?

[91Jmay]

Impressive, he's been better than I thought. I would like to attempt to discredit him by saying he did it against crap opposition but tbf I've got no idea what I'm talking about. All I remember is him going for nearly a hundred against India.

Yeah, he isn't a quality ODI bowler but he is for sure a solid player. Especially as he is a good fielder with a ridiculous arm, and almost ideal number 9 (if that exists) because he can come in and hit sixes from the off. Think he did it when we first scored 400 off his first or 2nd ball.

 

[akilana]

Morkel doesn't take too many 4-ers or 5-ers in any format. Which is why even though his numbers are comparable to someone like Broad in Tests, he's nowhere near as effective as an actual match-winner. He can't step up and lead the attack effectively in the absence of Steyn or Philander.

But his short of a length accurate style of bowling is well-suited for ODIs.

Doesn't help when you play with Steyn-Vern. The few times they werent in the side he might not have taken enough wickets but that's too small of a sample size to make any conclusions. if he isn't taking 5ers as often as broad but he has similar wicket per match and comparable average, it shows that Morkel is more consistent bowler than broad.

 

[akilana]

Just asking, but are England still "favourites" even if they lose this game?

They are favourites until they are knockout of CT. After that England has always been mediocre in ODIs. Lets focus on ashes because that's what matters.

 

[Burgey]

Correct.

 

[Black_Warrior]

4fers and 5fers are not that common in ODI cricket anymore and it necessarily the measure for assessing LO bowlers.

 

[Howsie]

**** no.

1. South Africa
2. India
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia

If Australia are going to continue playing just two batsman in there XI they aren't going anywhere fast.

 

[Scaly piscine]

**** no.

1. South Africa
2. India
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia

If Australia are going to continue playing just two batsman in there XI they aren't going anywhere fast.

Err no. South Africa have a long tradition of choking and were just comfortably beaten by England.
India are away from home. So no.
New Zealand are past their peak and are New Zealand. Great at losing semi finals.

 

[91Jmay]

New Zealand way to high on that list. **** batting order.

I'd had Australia as de facto number one but actually looking at their squad they have far more spuds than I assumed.

Englands bowling is weak.

Saffers have big balance issues

India might be my pick as most complete team now I really think about it.

 

[Black_Warrior]

India are away from home. So no.
.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yea I heard India won a Test away from the subcontinent once as well, doesn't mean they're favourites next time they tour.

 

[Black_Warrior]

They may or may not be favourites according to you. But the reason provided "India playing away from home" is not backed up by evidence.

Try another one

 

[Furball]

**** no.

1. South Africa
2. India
3. New Zealand
4. England
5. Australia

If Australia are going to continue playing just two batsman in there XI they aren't going anywhere fast.

 

[Howsie]

Err no. South Africa have a long tradition of choking and were just comfortably beaten by England.
India are away from home. So no.
New Zealand are past their peak and are New Zealand. Great at losing semi finals.

Hmmm, so why not just say "I think England will win"?

They won't, not with that joke of a bowling line up but you never know.......

 

[Scaly piscine]

They may or may not be favourites according to you. But the reason provided "India playing away from home" is not backed up by evidence.

Try another one

Home advantage is quite clearly backed up by evidence. If the tournament was in India then India would be favourites. If it was in Australia then Australia would be favourites. As it is in England then England are favourites.

 

[Black_Warrior]

ICC Champions Trophy

1998: South Africa (Bangladesh)
2000: New Zealand (Kenya)
2002 India/Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka)
2004 West Indies (England)
2006 Australia (India)
2009 Australia (South Africa)
2013 India (England)


There is no evidence to suggest that home advantage plays a major role in ODI tournaments.

Even in World Cups, only 2 out of 11 World Cups have been won by the home team.


Lastly, this is not test cricket. LO pitches around the world kind of follow the same template these days.

 

[Scaly piscine]

ICC Champions Trophy

1998: South Africa (Bangladesh)
2000: New Zealand (Kenya)
2002 India/Sri Lanka (Sri Lanka)
2004 West Indies (England)
2006 Australia (India)
2009 Australia (South Africa)
2013 India (England)


There is no evidence to suggest that home advantage plays a major role in ODI tournaments.

Even in World Cups, only 2 out of 11 World Cups have been won by the home team.


Lastly, this is not test cricket. LO pitches around the world kind of follow the same template these days.

England famously ****ed up their two home finals. Bangladesh and Kenya were obviously not going to win their home tournament.

To suggest it's not a home advantage based on that list versus the entirely history of ODI cricket and common sense, as well as the last two ODI World Cups being won by the host, is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Adders]

hmmm, so why not just say "i think england will win"?

they won't, not with that joke of a bowling line up but you never know.......

ok.

 

[Daemon]

1. South Africa
2. India
3. New Zealand
4. Australia

Top 4 teams imo.hopefully the same few bite

 

[Howsie]

Home advantage is quite clearly backed up by evidence. If the tournament was in India then India would be favourites. If it was in Australia then Australia would be favourites. As it is in England then England are favourites.

Hmmmmm, so if this was being held in Sri Lanka they would be favourites? I don't think so

These conditions are no different to the conditions you'll find in Australia or New Zealand, South Africa won't be too fussed by them either. The only advantage England will have over those three teams is the home crowd, which is pretty minimal in cricket. All four of those teams plus India have the ability to score 300 plus, so it'll come down to bowling on these pitches and England probably have the worst of that lot.

 

[akilana]

England famously ****ed up their two home finals. Bangladesh and Kenya were obviously not going to win their home tournament.

To suggest it's not a home advantage based on that list versus the entirely history of ODI cricket and common sense, as well as the last two ODI World Cups being won by the host, is a bit of a stretch.

Not ****ed up but choked in 2 finals. They were in comfortable positions in both finals but..