Teams that will do well at World Cup 2007

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

So that explains why Australia keep beating you then, even with weakened sides - think it is now 2 wins out of the last 18 against them now for you lot and one of those wins involved one of the worst Australian sides for a decade or so (the other was a dead rubber).

Then add in NZ's inability to raise their game whenever it means something, such as in a World Cup. They've no realistic chance of winning the World Cup and no realistic chance of beating a high strength Australia when they're up for it.

Might i ask, when was the last time a fully fit NZ side played Australia before the ICC trophy? If you include Vaughan and Simon Jones as being part of a fully fit England side, then one must also consider that Oram and Bond have barely ever played against the Australian side in the last 2 years, and Styris and Fleming missed a bunch of those games as well. Instead of talking rubbish for once, you might actually want to try and watch some cricket instead off relying on cricinfo scoreboards.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

So that explains why Australia keep beating you then, even with weakened sides - think it is now 2 wins out of the last 18 against them now for you lot and one of those wins involved one of the worst Australian sides for a decade or so (the other was a dead rubber).

How come you don't take into account the weak Australian line ups that played England in 2005 then?

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by marc71178

How come you don't take into account the weak Australian line ups that played England in 2005 then?

Because they weren't weak, they were full strength. The team beaten in the CT will have been high strength/full strength as well.

[_Ed_]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

So that explains why Australia keep beating you then, even with weakened sides - think it is now 2 wins out of the last 18 against them now for you lot and one of those wins involved one of the worst Australian sides for a decade or so (the other was a dead rubber).

I see. So our bowling attack in some of these games, like one made up of Tama Canning, Jeff Wilson and Lance Hamilton, was full-strength?

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by _Ed_

I see. So our bowling attack in some of these games, like one made up of Tama Canning, Jeff Wilson and Lance Hamilton, was full-strength?

Nearly as under-strength as the Australia side you beat recently then. This run of games spans over 4 years so you're bound to have the odd game where you're under strength, but there'll be plenty where you're near or at full strength.

[_Ed_]

I'm assuming you're referring to the Christchurch win as the under-strength one, so interesting that you consider the other a 'dead rubber'. First time I've heard the first match of a series described as such.

http://www3.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/...05DEC2004.html

[Scaly piscine]

I meant as well as being a dead rubber.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

Because they weren't weak, they were full strength. The team beaten in the CT will have been high strength/full strength as well.

Well, the two games that England won in the NatWest series included one where Symonds and Lee were both missing. That left an attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Hogg and Watson, and Gillespie and Kasprowicz were obviously woefully out of form or past it or whatever. Certianly not comparable to the strength of the Australian bowling attacks that NZ has usually faced in ODIs, excluding last year with Lewis, White etc.

Anyway, if England aren't at full strength because they don't have Jones or Trescothick, surely Australia missing Symonds and Lee is equivalent given that they are much, much better ODI players, even leaving aside form issues.

I'd offer more examples, but you're really basing your entire argument off 2 or 3 matches, so there's not so many examples to work with. Suffice to say that aside from that one tour there's no evidence that England handle playing Australia in ODIs any better than anyone else. England lost a match last world cup from a winning position against Australia, and until that CT game they'd lost 12 ODIs in a row or something against Australia. Since then they've won 2 games and lost 3 in a home series and been comfortably beaten in a match last week. That record isn't any better than New Zealand's over the same time frame.

edit: Just checked. Since that 01/02 VB Series that New Zealand did well in, Australia and England have played 16 times in ODIs, for 11 wins for Australia, 3 wins for England, a tie and a no-result. That includes 6 consecutive wins for Australia in the 02/03 VB Series, one World Cup match, the CT semi-final which England won, the Natwest Trophy and Challenge in England last year, and the CT group match last week.

[Scaly piscine]

England have come on massively overall since 2002/2003, NZ haven't. So it is pointless going back that far for England. Also I'm not interested in Kasper or Gillespie being out of form, someone is bound to be out of form it's just tough luck. It's not like they had been rubbish for years against other sides and that bowling attack most certainly compares with anything NZ have faced except possibly their last game in the CT.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Id love to hear your argument as to how Kyle Mills is a better bowler than Flintoff. Actually whether Kyle Mills is a better bowler than Jon Lewis is debateable.

I was talking of the specialists actually. And Kyle Mills is, in my mind, better than Jon Lewis until Jon Lewis shows that he can consistenly take wickets at international level... by actually doing so. I rate Lewis, but that doesn't mean he escapes actually having to perform to be considered good.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Well, the two games that England won in the NatWest series included one where Symonds and Lee were both missing. That left an attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Hogg and Watson, and Gillespie and Kasprowicz were obviously woefully out of form or past it or whatever. Certianly not comparable to the strength of the Australian bowling attacks that NZ has usually faced in ODIs, excluding last year with Lewis, White etc.

Anyway, if England aren't at full strength because they don't have Jones or Trescothick, surely Australia missing Symonds and Lee is equivalent given that they are much, much better ODI players, even leaving aside form issues.

I'd offer more examples, but you're really basing your entire argument off 2 or 3 matches, so there's not so many examples to work with. Suffice to say that aside from that one tour there's no evidence that England handle playing Australia in ODIs any better than anyone else. England lost a match last world cup from a winning position against Australia, and until that CT game they'd lost 12 ODIs in a row or something against Australia. Since then they've won 2 games and lost 3 in a home series and been comfortably beaten in a match last week. That record isn't any better than New Zealand's over the same time frame.

edit: Just checked. Since that 01/02 VB Series that New Zealand did well in, Australia and England have played 16 times in ODIs, for 11 wins for Australia, 3 wins for England, a tie and a no-result. That includes 6 consecutive wins for Australia in the 02/03 VB Series, one World Cup match, the CT semi-final which England won, the Natwest Trophy and Challenge in England last year, and the CT group match last week.

Quality post. But I'd question whether Symonds is really a better ODI player than Trescothick.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Quality post. But I'd question whether Symonds is really a better ODI player than Trescothick.

Well, aside from the fact that his career record is better, Symonds averages 45.60 with the bat since the last World Cup compared to Trescothick's 37.54. He's also taken 75 wickets in that period and is one of the best fielders in the world. Symonds would push fairly hard for selection in an ODI world XI, and if he didn't make it he'd be a pushover for the second XI. Trescothick is a good ODI player, but he's not world class.

Either way I think we can agree that Symonds and Lee are a pretty decent pair of ODI players to have missing from your side.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Well, aside from the fact that his career record is better, Symonds averages 45.60 with the bat since the last World Cup compared to Trescothick's 37.54. He's also taken 75 wickets in that period and is one of the best fielders in the world. Symonds would push fairly hard for selection in an ODI world XI, and if he didn't make it he'd be a pushover for the second XI. Trescothick is a good ODI player, but he's not world class.

Either way I think we can agree that Symonds and Lee are a pretty decent pair of ODI players to have missing from your side.

I'll debate this point in more detail when to I have more time, but for now I'll mention that Symonds doesn't face the new ball every day... or ever.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Quality post. But I'd question whether Symonds is really a better ODI player than Trescothick.

Player?

Bowls, and is one of the best fielders in the world. On top of that he's absolutely devastating with the bat at times, and since the WC has been brilliant.

He's the better player alright.

Its closer if you count just batting, but even so, I reckon most teams would rather Symonds than Trescothick. Even if he doesn't face the new ball. Otherwise you could use that argument for every good but not great opener against great middle order batsmen.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I'll debate this point in more detail when to I have more time, but for now I'll mention that Symonds doesn't face the new ball every day... or ever.

We're talking about ODIs here. Facing the new ball in 90% of matches means 4 or 5 of swing and 20 overs with the field up. You certainly don't need a particularly good technique against pace bowling to succeed as an ODI opener - look at Chris Gayle for instance.

Anyway, I don't really see how it's even close between these players, but as Jono said if you think Trescothick is as good as Symonds just because he faces the new ball, then surely that argument would mean that every half-decent opener is better than a great middle order batsman.