• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
simmy said:
Pakistan look to have a good chance also...

Also England are effective in Windies conditions, although their batting could let them down.
* England WERE effective in West Indies conditions in 2004.

You can be sure as hell that they won't meet the same kind of pitches this time around. The conditions England met in 2004 are completely foreign to the West Indies, as evidenced by their disappearance in 2005.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
honestbharani said:
Waqar mentioned that both Afridi and Akhtar have captaincy aspirations themselves in one of the programmes on Ten Sports. Do you think either of them will make good captains?
No.

Akhtar has only just learned how to manage himself, and Afridi would serve Pakistan better in the role he's currently in.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
howardj said:
I think the conditions - small grounds; flat wickets - will be a real leveller. I certainly don't think that Australia are anything like a certainty.

Absolutely spot on.

Added to the chance that McGrath and Warne may not play, it's very open.
 

Slats4ever

International Vice-Captain
australia will win the world cup IF they bring their A game to the semi's and the grand final. With the way the world cup is set up it is highly conceivable that if Australia has an off day and comes up against a red hot opponent then they will get knocked out in the Semi/Final stage.

The teams who could knock them over in this period are;
India: if Shewag, Tendulkar or someone else goes nuts with the bat.
Pakistan: If their bowlers blitz our batters.
England: If they just fire full stop.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Slats4ever said:
australia will win the world cup IF they bring their A game to the semi's and the grand final. With the way the world cup is set up it is highly conceivable that if Australia has an off day and comes up against a red hot opponent then they will get knocked out in the Semi/Final stage.

The teams who could knock them over in this period are;
India: if Shewag, Tendulkar or someone else goes nuts with the bat.
Pakistan: If their bowlers blitz our batters.
England: If they just fire full stop.
Not a chance of England's ODI side IMO - too many holes in it (regardless of what happened in that CT game)
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
No.

Akhtar has only just learned how to manage himself, and Afridi would serve Pakistan better in the role he's currently in.
I reckon there's a future for Afridi as a groundsman.
 

nehrafan

Banned
Pakistan batting will sux on windies pitches, and their bowling is way over rated.I mean Razzak,Sami,Malik,Afridi,Danish and GUl all are expensive bowlers in ODI.Just Rana and Akhtar can't restrict the opoosition much if others fails in their jobs.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Slats4ever said:
australia will win the world cup IF they bring their A game to the semi's and the grand final. With the way the world cup is set up it is highly conceivable that if Australia has an off day and comes up against a red hot opponent then they will get knocked out in the Semi/Final stage.

The teams who could knock them over in this period are;
India: if Shewag, Tendulkar or someone else goes nuts with the bat.
Pakistan: If their bowlers blitz our batters.
England: If they just fire full stop.
Frankly, other than that CT and the Natwest final, Australia have only raised their game in knockout games over the years. If they maintain their form, I don't see anyone else posing a problem.
 

Dixie Flatline

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Take Lee out of Australia's bowling, and it's not that great. NZ was able to haul in some big totals partly because Australia's bowling in the Chappell-Hadlee wasn't good enough for international OD games. McGrath has bowled reasonably but without taking wickets and you now need to question whether he is motivated to go to the West Indies given the situation with his wife (Ashes, I'm sure is a different matter).

Brett Dorey has been given a good chance in the VB Series but I doubt whether he is of international quality at this stage in his career. Stuart Clark looks like a useful player. Andy Symonds' versatility, bowling mediums and off-spinners, plus his all-round talent will see him picked. Brad Hogg offers a different option for Ponting. Bracken has come on quite well and seems to bowl fairly tightly in most games but without really getting amongst the wickets. Mitchell Johnson, Mick Lewis and Cameron White have all disappeared back to domestic cricket and don't seem to be in the selectors' thoughts presently. Shaun Tait is recovering from his injury. Gillespie and Kaspa have been discarded.

For instance, on Sunday night, South Africa made 6/287 from 50 overs, chasing 344. South Africa's score, batting second under lights, is still a respectable total and would have given Australia the frights if Australia had made around 300 or even less.

Batting-wise, I think Australia is probably the most balanced side going around, although you can question whether Katich should keep his spot ahead of Jaques. If Gilchrist replicates his latter form in the World Cup, Australia could be 100/0 from 10-12 overs and that puts the opponent under pressure. But if opponents can target the weakness in Australia's bowling attack, I think it will be a lot tighter than some think.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Dixie Flatline said:
Take Lee out of Australia's bowling, and it's not that great. NZ was able to haul in some big totals partly because Australia's bowling in the Chappell-Hadlee wasn't good enough for international OD games. McGrath has bowled reasonably but without taking wickets and you now need to question whether he is motivated to go to the West Indies given the situation with his wife (Ashes, I'm sure is a different matter).
I'm fairly sure his wife's current battle will be well over by then.


Dixie Flatline said:
For instance, on Sunday night, South Africa made 6/287 from 50 overs, chasing 344. South Africa's score, batting second under lights, is still a respectable total and would have given Australia the frights if Australia had made around 300 or even less.
But how many would they have had they been chasing 280-290? There would automatically be a lot more pressure on the batsmen rather than the game being all but up and lower order players having a swing.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
I'm fairly sure his (McGrath) wife's current battle will be well over by then.
That doesn't sound good. Do they have any children? If so, he may not want to be away from them for long periods of time.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Gillespie will be in Australia's WC '07 squad. That's my limb prediction for the night.

i reakon he will definatley be if McGrath is not - if McGrath is there his selection really repends on how well Clark and Bracken go between now and the cup.
 

Matteh

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Deja moo said:
Frankly, other than that CT and the Natwest final, Australia have only raised their game in knockout games over the years. If they maintain their form, I don't see anyone else posing a problem.
Who lost to Bangladesh though?......
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Who lost to Bangladesh though?......
Short memory and irrelevant; England lost to a just-as-weak Zimbabwe in 1992 when they were also a very strong team the game before the WC finals (a tournament they should have won but for a rampant Team Pakistan). The point? The freak results do not speak to the strength of the team nor (as we all saw) subsequent results.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Australia can definately lose, as others have said. ODI cricket is a tough game to predict at the best of times, and you only need to look at the random results of the CT in recent years to see how easy it is for a team in a knockout competition to fluke a win on a few good performances.

Obviously the WC is longer and is designed to allow the better teams to slip up and still get through, but all it takes is one great innings or one great batting collapse and Australia could go down in the semi or the final.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Australia can definately lose, as others have said. ODI cricket is a tough game to predict at the best of times, and you only need to look at the random results of the CT in recent years to see how easy it is for a team in a knockout competition to fluke a win on a few good performances.

Obviously the WC is longer and is designed to allow the better teams to slip up and still get through, but all it takes is one great innings or one great batting collapse and Australia could go down in the semi or the final.

It can happen - I remember a very good SA side being Lara'd in 1996. But you have to ask how many sides have the necessary talent to have a really good day and beat Aus when it counts. I can see why people say Pakistan could do it, although they could also fail horribly.
 

Top