World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[marc71178]

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.

I meant that she'd win it.

 

[wpdavid]

I meant that she'd win it.

Ah, now I understand.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Well, just look at Australia in 2003.

They were clearly the best side by a long way, and yet they almost lost to both New Zealand and England. Anything can happen in a World Cup.

 

[Langeveldt]

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

Probably quite a bit actually...

No I don't see anyone coming close, Australia to win it at a canter for me..

 

[Blaze]

No I don't see anyone coming close, Australia to win it at a canter for me..

I reckon someone will get close to them in at least one game. England have a good chance of beating them IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Australia will not win the 2007 World Cup. There ya go. Another limb statement.

 

[Blaze]

Australia will not win the 2007 World Cup. There ya go. Another limb statement.

I will second that.

 

[Natman20]

Go Ireland!

 

[wpdavid]

I reckon someone will get close to them in at least one game. England have a good chance of beating them IMO.

Funny ODI side, England. On paper, their best XI looks a match for anyone. Then you look at how most of them have performed over the last couple of years.

 

[sqwerty]

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.

Bit of an understatement isn't it?

I'd say he's the most valuable one day player in the world - Flintoff, Afridi etc included.

Batting and bowling aside, you can't underestimate the value of his presence in the infield

 

[luckyeddie]

Bit of an understatement isn't it?

I'd say he's the most valuable one day player in the world - Flintoff, Afridi etc included.

Batting and bowling aside, you can't underestimate the value of his presence in the infield

I'll totally agree - he can (and often does) have a huge influence on a game.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'll totally agree - he can (and often does) have a huge influence on a game.

He doesn't mind a beer or two every now and then either

 

[SquidAU]

Well, just look at Australia in 2003.

They were clearly the best side by a long way, and yet they almost lost to both New Zealand and England. Anything can happen in a World Cup.

Not to mention nearly blown away in the first game till Symonds decided to use his bat more often.

Considering all the hooplah about Warne that morning, I was surprised we actually won that game.

 

[Jono]

Yeah Akram came out of the blocks that match in fine fashion. I thought it was going to be HIS tournament when I saw that. He was bowling beautifully, and Pakistan were my punt team of that tournament. I can't remember how much I put on them, but after the first 15 overs of that match I felt pretty good about that bet. Didn't for the rest of the tournament

Pakistan won't really be a punt bet at the next WC, but I'll definitely put some money on them.

 

[SquidAU]

Pakistan won't really be a punt bet at the next WC, but I'll definitely put some money on them.

The Pakistanis will definately put the wind up a few teams...

I'll bet that they'll reach the semis....

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I'm fairly sure his wife's current battle will be well over by then.




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.

I have to admit, I didn't watch the Chappell-Hadlee series because I don't have pay-tv, though I listened to it on the radio. It seemed to me that the New Zealanders adopted the same approach in the two games where they were chasing over 300, ie. the swing freely approach, and it came off, because Australia's bowlers didn't really know where to bowl the ball to limit the damage. McGrath would have been able to do it, but he didn't play.

Cancer is an insidious disease. At this early stage, nobody could predict how long Mrs McGrath's battle will go for.

 

[sqwerty]

Yesterday's effort was why the title of this thread is what it is.

I can't think of many teams who would have played that way after being 3-10.

Like I said - the batting firepower this current Australian side has is unbelievable.
You can have your so-called deep batting lineups like New Zealand or South Africa but unless you've got firepower like the Aussies in the top order, the batting depth is irrelevant.

You'd take the Aussie top 7 (except Katich) and throw in 4 batting spastics (not that 8 and 9 for Australia are that bad) anyday before you'd go for 10 decent bats like the two nations mentioned above.

 

[Richard]

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'.

1999 and 2003 hardly comparable.
NZ's side was inestimatebly better in 1999 than 2003 and quite how they managed to make the Super Six in 2003 was quite a question.

 

[Richard]

I think Oz are rightly warm favourites, but personally I think Pakistan might emerge from the pack to become their nearest challengers. Razzaq & Afridi are all-rounders who would grace any ODI team & their batting looks to have an ominous depth to it.

If they can find another opener & maybe get a little more out of their second-string seamers I think they could go close.

Part 1 answers part 2!
Afridi is an opener!

 

[Richard]

Nope.

No team can maintain a peak throughout a tournament - even last time out (WC2003) they came perilously close to being done over by England, although of course that was in the early stages and only really had significance for England.

Australia are still the ones to beat, although an hour of Afridi can do an awful lot of damage.

No ODI between England and Australia ever has significance for 1 team only.