England Will Win

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

Haddock, Spam Fritters and reprocessed Bolognese Sauce.

Well, all right, I was only joking about the post in this thread.
I wouldn't have been too unhappy had England been beaten by Sri Lanka.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Except this was made after considering recent performances and the odds available.

Hmm... it was still a long shot.

[Neil Pickup]

West Indies to the final was never that long a shot.

1) Their QF was against South Africa, who were (are) horrifically out of form - 50/50.
2) Their SF would be against either Pakistan or India, who are both incredibly inconsistent - 50/50.

Giving at worst a chance of 1 in 4 of making the final - i.e. 3/1, with bookies offering 20+ on them (1/2 E/W), it wasn't at all a bad call.

[Richard]

Regardless of South Africa's horrible form as a team, the fact remains that they are infinately stronger man-for-man than West Indies, and personally I was not merely disappointed but surprised when they beat them - as at WC2003.
India and Pakistan - both stronger, both better suited to the conditions (pace and spin over batting - West Indies have one of each - Bradshaw and Gayle).
IMO it was a long-shot.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Richard

Regardless of South Africa's horrible form as a team, the fact remains that they are infinately stronger man-for-man than West Indies

The batting...

Gayle > Smith in ODI cricket.
Wavell Hinds < Gibbs.
Sarwan = Kallis
Lara > Rudolph
Chanderpaul > van Jaarsveld
Browne < Boucher
I'd say Powell and Klusener are level given Klusener's batting of late.

The bowling...

Bradshaw < Pollock
Collymore > Langeveldt
Ryan Hinds < Boje but Gayle > Boje
Bravo = Klusener (perhaps a controversial statement)
Bradshaw = Ntini
Collymore < Ntini

No real match for Kallis for a bowling comparison.

Overall I won't say which team is better man for man, but South Africa is certainly not "infinitely" better.

[Richard]

Guess I should have added an IMO to that...
True, you have some good players - but personally I'd say SA are much stronger.
And I'd also argue with this:

Bravo = Klusener

As far as the ODI-game is concerned, Klusener is still very much superior. I do believe Bravo will come quite close as his career pans-out. In the Test-game, I'd say Bravo is already well on the way to being better than Klusener has been at any time from his 1998 ankle-injury onwards - yes, after just one series.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Richard

As far as the ODI-game is concerned, Klusener is still very much superior. I do believe Bravo will come quite close as his career pans-out. In the Test-game, I'd say Bravo is already well on the way to being better than Klusener has been at any time from his 1998 ankle-injury onwards - yes, after just one series.

It was in reference purely to batting. You'd admit that Klusener's batting is not anywhere near what it used to be? In his last 19 matches he's failed to cross 50 and has crossed 15 just 3 times. That's 13 innings. Take away the not outs and in 9 innings he's crossed 15 twice.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

I wouldn't have been too unhappy had England been beaten by Sri Lanka.

Why on Earth not?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

IMO it was a long-shot.

Which makes my picking it all the better then...

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

True, you have some good players - but personally I'd say SA are much stronger.

As shown by their fantastic run of recent results

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

It was in reference purely to batting. You'd admit that Klusener's batting is not anywhere near what it used to be? In his last 19 matches he's failed to cross 50 and has crossed 15 just 3 times. That's 13 innings. Take away the not outs and in 9 innings he's crossed 15 twice.

Klusener has indeed been disappointing of late. He's not, however, I don't think, had quite the opportunity for devestation that he had in his glory days of 1998-2000.
I still hope he can return to his swashbuckling best.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Why on Earth not?

Because it wouldn't have done too much long-term harm - you yourself have said that losing one ODI doesn't matter all that much.
Had England lost to Sri Lanka Vikram mightn't have got the stay-of-execution (and the chance to invert his appalling record v Zimbabwe) that he has. And there are others.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

As shown by their fantastic run of recent results

Vs. WI it's still 3-3 in the last 7 games - plus one washout that SA were on track to win.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Which makes my picking it all the better then...

It was you? Oh, right - good guess, then!
I was presuming it was patriotic optimism on Liam's part.

[marc71178]

It wasn't a guess, I actually analysed it and explained why.

I also did it before the event, rather than posting with the benefit of hindsight...