World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[sqwerty]

Can anyone seriously see any side getting close to Australia in the World Cup if they play anywhere near their ability in all games?
The only side that will beat Australia is Australia.

Obviously this is coming from a one eyed Australian but frankly I'm not bothered who wins it as I have no real interest in one day cricket.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

*wonders how much constructive conversation can come from this topic*

[Burpey]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

*wonders how much constructive conversation can come from this topic*

Not with that attitude.

[Tim]

Well if McGrath continues to slide & Gilchrist starts to lose his impact then thats alot of fire-power lost. I think Australia will win, but they're going to lose a few players after next year and that could be the end of their domination in ODI's.

[Deja moo]

They don'y make it look like they need McGrath in ODIs all that much though

[Tim]

South Africa & Sri Lanka aren't exactly making them work very hard though.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by burkey_1988

Not with that attitude.

Oh, now it's on.........

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Tim

South Africa & Sri Lanka aren't exactly making them work very hard though.

yeah, It'd be interesting to see who comes out on top in a few Aus-Pak ODIs in Carribean conditions. Do you think NZ have it in them to repeat their performances from the last Chappell-Hadlee series ?

[Tim]

I think so. But then again, NZ always seem to stuff up against Australia just when you think they can actually do it..so who knows.

I think NZ is one of the few other sides that can match Australia for it's all-round strength in ODI's (at the moment)

[Tim]

What helps NZ, is the fact that when have guys batting all the way to 11 who can hammer runs in the final overs. You look at a side like Sri Lanka, and really the buck stops at #7 or #8 for them so it's a big advantage to have a tail who can score quick runs.

Then you look at our bowling and 7 or 8 guys can do a job for us with the ball..and our fielding has always been pretty good so at the moment I think we've got a good ODI side. We've slowly been winning a few tri-series and tournaments over the last 5 or 6 years, so the players should be understanding what it takes to win the crunch matches now.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Tim

What helps NZ, is the fact that when have guys batting all the way to 11 who can hammer runs in the final overs. You look at a side like Sri Lanka, and really the buck stops at #7 or #8 for them so it's a big advantage to have a tail who can score quick runs.

Then you look at our bowling and 7 or 8 guys can do a job for us with the ball..and our fielding has always been pretty good so at the moment I think we've got a good ODI side. We've slowly been winning a few tri-series and tournaments over the last 5 or 6 years, so the players should be understanding what it takes to win the crunch matches now.

Yeah, Cairns will be tough to replace though. He did make a difference in that second One-dayer atleast.

[Tim]

Mentally for the players it was a big deal to have Cairns on the field. But I just wonder how much he contributed over the last year or two with bat or ball. He occassionally played a good quickfire innings or had a good bowling spell, but by in large I remember him for horrible short pitch bowling or getting a start of say 10 runs and then getting out.

It will be ok because we have a replacement in Jacob Oram, but he needs to get fit and I think with Cairns moving out, he'll have a lot more responsibility given to him which should lift his performances.

[Top_Cat]

South Africa & Sri Lanka aren't exactly making them work very hard though.

With the bat, indeed. With the ball, however, it's been a different story. Both SA and SL have had Australia on the ropes when they've batted in quite a few of the matches. The early overs by guys like Pollock, Hall, Vaas, etc. have been excellent. It's just the last 10 where SA and SL have both let Australia get a run on. Mind you, it's hard to hold-back thump merchants like Symonds and Hussey (never thought I'd refer to him THAT way!).

What helps NZ, is the fact that when have guys batting all the way to 11 who can hammer runs in the final overs. You look at a side like Sri Lanka, and really the buck stops at #7 or #8 for them so it's a big advantage to have a tail who can score quick runs.

Then you look at our bowling and 7 or 8 guys can do a job for us with the ball..and our fielding has always been pretty good so at the moment I think we've got a good ODI side. We've slowly been winning a few tri-series and tournaments over the last 5 or 6 years, so the players should be understanding what it takes to win the crunch matches now.

Heard it before, man. Right before the last four World Cups. The lack of specialisation gets NZ every time in the crunch matches. NZ have been amongst the best sides in every WC I've seen (1992, 1996, 1999, 2003) but then fallen-over in the semis with every commentator citing the lack of a really dominant player with bat or ball, just a team of 'contributors'.

That said, the next WC will, in my opinion, be won by the bats so NZ's late-order hitting will be pretty important. I think Lou Vincent will have a big tournament as will Danny Vettori.

Incidentally, I find myself having a chuckle at those who have been criticising Australia's rotation policy. It's quite funny, really, because it's nothing new. They had the same thing happening before the 1999 WC with the tri-series against SA and NZ and were criticised, almost losing the tri-series finals along the way. They then won the WC with everyone saying resting players in the lead-up tournaments was a master-stroke and that the only reason they were able to win so many games after such a poor start was that the players were still relatively fresh. The bit players who wouldn't have gotten a game otherwise did the job, Tom Moody's selection in particular paying some pretty rich dividends.

Fast-forward to 2003 and in the tri-series against SL and England, Australia agains copped a bollocking from the press and fans for resting players. They went through the 2003 WC undefeated, despite missing their star bowler and again, the rotation policy was lauded as a master-stroke and the reason why Australia had the legs to win every game with only a couple of close shaves against NZ (the 100 or so run win flattered Australia, really) and England. Another benefit of the rotation policy was that players who wouldn't have gotten a game if they did nothing but play their best side, already had international experience when called-upon to do the job, again because of the rotation policy. Be honest, who would have picked Andy Bichel as being Australia's second-best bowler for the tournament? Who would have even picked him in the team? Not me. Brad Hogg? Andy Symonds? Wouldn't have gotten a game had Australia's best side been on the park yet through injury and suspension, they were amongst the best players in the team for the tournament.

So again we see criticism of the rotation policy. Move along, nothing new to see here.

[Tim]

(touch wood) But I think this is probably one of the better all-round NZ sides in awhile.

[Tim]

I think because of the small grounds. Fielding is going to be extremely important. New Zealand's experience with smaller grounds back here might also benefit them.