• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Teams that will do well at World Cup 2007

tooextracool

International Coach
Scaly piscine said:
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

Eyes not spreadsheets
Scaly piscine said:
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
marc71178 said:
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_

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Scaly piscine said:
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
_Ed_ said:
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.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Scaly piscine said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
tooextracool said:
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
FaaipDeOiad said:
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

Hall of Fame Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
FaaipDeOiad said:
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

Virat Kohli (c)
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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.
 
Last edited:

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Scaly piscine said:
England have come on massively overall since 2002/2003, NZ haven't.
Thats quite amusing. I think anyone would rather have Andrew Caddick, Nick Knight, Alec Stewart and Craig white over some of the clowns that we have today.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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.
Because Mills has shown that he can consistently take wickets at the international level? 2006 is Mills' first good year, hes been largely quite poor before that, and hes only played some 7 games this year. One would think that is comparable to the number of games that Jon Lewis has played in his career and come out with a much more superior record.
Im not saying Lewis is a better bowler, i just think they are quite similar, and theres no way anyone can claim that Mills is a better one than Lewis.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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.
And as we all know there are so many players in world cricket averaging over 40 down the order in international cricket. While almost every half decent player batting in the top 3 in the world is averaging at or around 40.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Scaly piscine said:
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.
The relevance of them being out of form is that it seriously weakens the strength of that Australian side. The team that England played in the CT last week was clearly a hell of a lot better and in much better touch than the one they played in the NWS.

And seriously, what are you talking about regarding England's improvement compared to New Zealands? It's blatantly obvious that New Zealand have come miles since the last World Cup. They have a fairly similar bunch of players, but most of them have improved a long way (look at Styris, Oram and McCullum for instance), and they gel much better as a side and their results are hugely improved.

England on the other hand have four players in common with the side they played at the last WC, in Flintoff, Trescothick, Collingwood and Anderson, while the rest of the team is pretty much universally filled with poorer players than before. You think England wouldn't jump at the chance to have Nick Knight, Alec Stewart of Andy Caddick in the ODI side now compared to what they've got? Adding one good player in Pietersen and an improved Flintoff doesn't make up for the rest of the team.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
tooextracool said:
Because Mills has shown that he can consistently take wickets at the international level? 2006 is Mills' first good year
As opposed to how many good years from Lewis? Righto.
 

Top