**2007 World Cup**

[Tim]

err apart from series involving Australia...if you look at a number of tri-series NZ have participated in over the last 5 years you'll see they've won most of them.

We defeated Pakistan & Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka 3 years ago, defeated England & The West Indies 2 years ago, defeated India & Zimbabwe last year.

If NZ don't have to play Australia until the final then i'd back them to at least make the final.

 

[Scaly piscine]

err apart from series involving Australia...if you look at a number of tri-series NZ have participated in over the last 5 years you'll see they've won most of them.

We defeated Pakistan & Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka 3 years ago, defeated England & The West Indies 2 years ago, defeated India & Zimbabwe last year.

If NZ don't have to play Australia until the final then i'd back them to at least make the final.

As I said, they're yet to win anything of note over the past few years. Beating Australia to win a competition would be noteworthy , or winning the Champions Trophy, or winning the World Cup - because these don't happen very often.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

nah. just like SA home pressure will get to them.

I think at home is the place where pressure is least likely to affect the West Indies at a World Cup. We may be losing our touch at home of late, but we're still leagues better here than anywhere else.

 

[Natman20]

As I said, they're yet to win anything of note over the past few years. Beating Australia to win a competition would be noteworthy , or winning the Champions Trophy, or winning the World Cup - because these don't happen very often.

Actually we tied some series against them like chappell/hadlee in 2004 and almost beating their bowling 'B' team this year or last year wateva. The other series was a waste of time because we had to rely on backup 1st class players that wernt up to standard. NZ are going to be competitive in my opinion. But wasn't NZ trying to finish 2nd before pool anouncements so that they wouldn't meet Australia as early as we hoped?

 

[marc71178]

Actually we tied some series against them like chappell/hadlee in 2004 and almost beating their bowling 'B' team this year or last year wateva. The other series was a waste of time because we had to rely on backup 1st class players that wernt up to standard.

So funnily enough you can talk about NZ beating Aus when Aus had a bowling attack missing, but when it's the other way round that makes the games not worth talking about?

 

[Blaze]

So funnily enough you can talk about NZ beating Aus when Aus had a bowling attack missing, but when it's the other way round that makes the games not worth talking about?

Australia are supposed to have depth, it is a known fact that NZ doesn't.

 

[Autobahn]

The problem with many sides is that they simply lack a 5th gear so to say.

When you look at sides who have won in the past World Cups WI, Aussies, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, when they needed to they could summon a sort of red-hot fighting spirit that could get them out of sticky situations (i.e. Aus vs Eng in WC2003), encourage them to keep on going (India Vs Wi 1983) or just strike back with vigor (Pak Vs Eng 1992).

While most teams have it, the teams who won those battles where able to summon it when they needed it, whereas other teams peaked too early (Eng and NZ 1992 both are good examples) and they couldn't bring out their A game at the right time.

This skill is more important in the World Cup because it generally lasts longer than the CT where generally one peak will carry you through the games (althought it ran out just at the wrong time in England's case.)

And the best matches are when two teams are peaking at the same time (Aus vs SA 1999 Semi-final).

 

[aussie]

I think at home is the place where pressure is least likely to affect the West Indies at a World Cup. We may be losing our touch at home of late, but we're still leagues better here than anywhere else.

well maybe your right if i think other than Australia, home pressure doesn't really seem to get to WI. But for WI to get to the semi-final of the WC out of that potentially power-house super-eight tie will be some achievement for them IMO...

 

[Natman20]

So funnily enough you can talk about NZ beating Aus when Aus had a bowling attack missing, but when it's the other way round that makes the games not worth talking about?

Nz had key batsman missing as well not like Australia where they had just b bowling. Anyway we all know that Australia are a better side but I think NZ could do something out of the blue in the world cup.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well maybe your right if i think other than Australia, home pressure doesn't really seem to get to WI. But for WI to get to the semi-final of the WC out of that potentially power-house super-eight tie will be some achievement for them IMO...

They said it couldn't be done int the Champions Trophy. Anything is possible when the West Indies is involved. Unpredictable? As salt.

 

[aussie]

They said it couldn't be done int the Champions Trophy. Anything is possible when the West Indies is involved. Unpredictable? As salt.

well the champions trophy isn't nearly as though as what they may encounter at the WC so well see...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well the champions trophy isn't nearly as though as what they may encounter at the WC so well see...

Did anyone honestly expect the West Indies to play like they did though? The West Indies didn't just win the Champions Trophy. They won it playing the kind of cricket that could take the region back to the top of the sport. It was gutsy, passionate and purely entertaining cricket. It gave everyone belief that cricket is not dead in the region. Unofortunately, money and captaincy issues quick stole that thunder.

Perhaps we need another massive natural disaster... *knock on wood*

 

[aussie]

Did anyone honestly expect the West Indies to play like they did though? The West Indies didn't just win the Champions Trophy. They won it playing the kind of cricket that could take the region back to the top of the sport. It was gutsy, passionate and purely entertaining cricket. It gave everyone belief that cricket is not dead in the region. Unofortunately, money and captaincy issues quick stole that thunder.

Perhaps we need another massive natural disaster... *knock on wood*

well yea they did play very well in that tournament, similarly to what they will need to win the WC at home. But even if that were to happen (even though unlikely) dont think they will make as far as the semis..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

well yea they did play very well in that tournament, similarly to what they will need to win the WC at home. But even if that were to happen (even though unlikely) dont think they will make as far as the semis..

If the West Indies play like they did in the CT, they will not only make the semis but win the whole thing. I'll bet your teeth on it.

 

[aussie]

If the West Indies play like they did in the CT, they will not only make the semis but win the whole thing. I'll bet your teeth on it.

haha. i like that positive attitude

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

haha. i like that positive attitude

I like your teeth.

 

[luckyeddie]

I like your teeth.

Be very afraid....

Liam's talkin' de voodoo here.

Aussie goin' to be de zombie in 5....4....tree....

 

[meatspx]

Quick clarification....I can't find these rules.

Do teams carry over points from pool play to the Super 8 stage?

And what happens at the end of the Super 8 if teams have the same amount of ponts? Who goes through to the next round is decided on a "who bet who basis" or run-rate basis first?

 

[aussie]

Predicated 15-man squads

A lot of cricket is going to be planned between now & the world cup but for the top 8 sides if they have all fit, this is what i think there sides will look like, but i could be wrong in the end:

AUSTRALIA:

1.Ponting
2.Gilchrist
3.Haddin
4.Jaques
5.Martyn
6.Symonds
7.Hussey
8.Clarke
9.Watson
10.Hogg
11.Cullen
12.Lee
13.Bracken
14.McGrath
15.Clark

ENGLAND:

1.Strauss
2.Read
3.Trescothick
4.Bell
5.Pietersen
6.Collingwood
7.Joyce
8.Flintoff
9.Dalrymple
10.Blackwell
11.Giles
12.Gough
13.Harmison
14.Anderson
15.Broad


SOUTH AFRICA:

1.Smith
2.Boucher
3.Dippenaar
4.Gibbs
5.Kallis
6.De Villiers
7.Prince
8.Kemp
9.Pollock
10.Van der Wath
11.Ntini
12.Nel
13.Langeveldt
14.Boje
15.Botha


PAKISTAN:

1.Inzamam
2.Akmal
3.Malik
4.Hafeez
5.Younis
6.Yousuf
7.Iqbal
8.Afridi
9.Razzaq
10.Arafat
11.Akhtar
12.Asif
13.Naved
14.Gul
15.Kaneria


INDIA:

1.Dravid
2.Dhoni
3.Tendulkar
4.Sehwag
5.Yuvraj
6.Kaif
7.Raina
8.Mongia
9.Powar
10.Harbhajan
11.Pathan
12.Agarkar
13.Patel
14.Sreesanth
15.Khan


NEW ZEALAND:

1.Fleming
2.McCullum
3.Vincent
4.Astle
5.Styris
6.Marshall
7.Fulton
8.Taylor
9.Oram
10.Adams
11.Franklyn
12.Mills
13.Bond
14.Vettori
15.Patel


SRI LANKA:

1.M Jayawardene
2.Sangakkara
3.P Jayawardene
4.Jayasuriya
5.Thangara
6.Attapatu
7.Dilshan
8.Kapugadera
9.Maharoof
10.Vaas
11.Malinga
12.Fernando
13.Perera
14.Muralitharan
15.Bandara


WEST INDIES:

1.Lara
2.Baugh
3.Gayle
4.Hinds
5.Morton
6.Sarwan
7.Chanderpaul
8.Samuels
9.Bravo
10.Smith
11.Bradshaw
12.Edwards
13.Taylor
14.Collymore
15.Collins.

 

[adharcric]

AUSTRALIA:

1.Ponting
2.Gilchrist
3.Haddin
4.Jaques
5.Martyn
6.Symonds
7.Hussey
8.Clarke
9.Watson
10.Hogg
11.Cullen
12.Lee
13.Bracken
14.McGrath
15.Clark

Australia will have three openers in the squad, so that means two out of Katich, Jaques and Hayden. Since Australia wouldn't suffer too much if they had to go with an all-pace attack, I'd retain Haddin for insurance and remove the luxury of the reserve spinner, Cullen. Of course, if Watson fails in Malaysia, India and back home against England, that decision might not come up at all.

ENGLAND:

1.Strauss
2.Read
3.Trescothick
4.Bell
5.Pietersen
6.Collingwood
7.Joyce
8.Flintoff
9.Dalrymple
10.Blackwell
11.Giles
12.Gough
13.Harmison
14.Anderson
15.Broad

The top nine are perfect and it looks as if Strauss will end up opening with Trescothick. Having two spinners in addition to Dalrymple is a strange idea because England are unlikely to play more than one spinner (including Dalrymple) in a match. Either Blackwell or Giles makes the cut, but not both. I haven't watched Gough bowl recently, but his figures don't reflect too well so I'm not sure if he'll really last till the World Cup. Plunkett or Mahmood are more likely, probably the former because of his 'batting potential'.

SOUTH AFRICA:

1.Smith
2.Boucher
3.Dippenaar
4.Gibbs
5.Kallis
6.De Villiers
7.Prince
8.Kemp
9.Pollock
10.Van der Wath
11.Ntini
12.Nel
13.Langeveldt
14.Boje
15.Botha

Replace Botha with Hall and it looks about right. Not sure about Boje either, perhaps Robin Petersen or Thandi Tshabalala.

PAKISTAN:

1.Inzamam
2.Akmal
3.Malik
4.Hafeez
5.Younis
6.Yousuf
7.Iqbal
8.Afridi
9.Razzaq
10.Arafat
11.Akhtar
12.Asif
13.Naved
14.Gul
15.Kaneria

Take out Arafat and put Farhat, Butt or Hameed in there. I'd also prefer Bazid Khan to Faisal Iqbal, but I haven't seen much of Iqbal.

INDIA:

1.Dravid
2.Dhoni
3.Tendulkar
4.Sehwag
5.Yuvraj
6.Kaif
7.Raina
8.Mongia
9.Powar
10.Harbhajan
11.Pathan
12.Agarkar
13.Patel
14.Sreesanth
15.Khan

Kumble could find a spot in place of Powar and I'm not very confident about Zaheer Khan making a one-day comeback. RP Singh is a better bet as of now but let's wait and see.

NEW ZEALAND:

1.Fleming
2.McCullum
3.Vincent
4.Astle
5.Styris
6.Marshall
7.Fulton
8.Taylor
9.Oram
10.Adams
11.Franklyn
12.Mills
13.Bond
14.Vettori
15.Patel

Does Gillespie have a chance of replacing Adams or Franklin? What about Jesse Ryder?

SRI LANKA:

1.M Jayawardene
2.Sangakkara
3.P Jayawardene
4.Jayasuriya
5.Thangara
6.Attapatu
7.Dilshan
8.Kapugadera
9.Maharoof
10.Vaas
11.Malinga
12.Fernando
13.Perera
14.Muralitharan
15.Bandara

WEST INDIES:

1.Lara
2.Baugh
3.Gayle
4.Hinds
5.Morton
6.Sarwan
7.Chanderpaul
8.Samuels
9.Bravo
10.Smith
11.Bradshaw
12.Edwards
13.Taylor
14.Collymore
15.Collins.

I'd consider Andrew Richardson over Collins.