• 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.

Worst World Cup "on paper"

pup11

International Coach
Ok, so everyone knows that Australia aren't as good "on paper" as they have been for quite some time.

However, having watched a number of the other major countries over the past few months, the standard of the other teams in this WC really appears to be relatively poor as well

SA are representative of most teams in that they have an excellent core group of players but have precious little to back it up

SL have some high quality batsmen but will only field a couple of decent bowlers

Ditto India

Ditto NZ but with only one bowler

Pakistan are anyone's guess

WI are no hope

Only England look balanced but they lack players of the highest quality

I'd go as far to say that every major nation, bar possibly England, could point to virtually any team that they have fielded in the past 15-20 years and declare them better "on paper"

Dont get me wrong, I'm expecting an exciting contest as there is no longer a dominant team, but the overall standard simply doesnt appear to be there IMO
Don't know what you are taking about mate, Sri Lanka probably has the best LO bowling attack in the world atm, an attack consisting of Murali, Mendis, Malinga, Kulasekara, Matthews, Perara gives them great variety and penetration.
Indian batting line-up probably looks the strongest one world cricket has seen in a while, whereas the English side looks a good all-round unit that isn't really particularly dependent on one or two blokes to win them games and in Strauss, KP, Swann and Morgan they have got quality players as well.
Its really Australia and South Africa that have come back to the pack in the last 12 months or so, also Pakistan would have been one of the firm favourites had Butt, Aamir and Asif been in the mix.
Which finally leaves us with New Zealand, they are the one team that have never really looked that threatening on paper but they still pretty consistently make it into the last stages of an ICC tournament, in McCullum, Vettori, Styris Mills, Ryder, Taylor they have enough firepower to give the other fancied sides a good run for their money, and lets not forget that the format of the tournament is such that after the group stages you just need to win three games to lift the trophy and this might throw up a few surprises.
So put it in a nut shell what teams look like on paper ain't going to mean much once the tournament starts, its how you gel together and gather momentum as a unit during the course of the tournament that is what's really gonna matter.
 

smalishah84

The Tiger King
Don't know what you are taking about mate, Sri Lanka probably has the best LO bowling attack in the world atm, an attack consisting of Murali, Mendis, Malinga, Kulasekara, Matthews, Perara gives them great variety and penetration.
Indian batting line-up probably looks the strongest one world cricket has seen in a while, whereas the English side looks a good all-round unit that isn't really particularly dependent on one or two blokes to win them games and in Strauss, KP, Swann and Morgan they have got quality players as well.
Its really Australia and South Africa that have come back to the pack in the last 12 months or so, also Pakistan would have been one of the firm favourites had Butt, Aamir and Asif been in the mix.
Which finally leaves us with New Zealand, they are the one team that have never really looked that threatening on paper but they still pretty consistently make it into the last stages of an ICC tournament, in McCullum, Vettori, Styris Mills, Ryder, Taylor they have enough firepower to give the other fancied sides a good run for their money, and lets not forget that the format of the tournament is such that after the group stages you just need to win three games to lift the trophy and this might throw up a few surprises.
So put it in a nut shell what teams look like on paper ain't going to mean much once the tournament starts, its how you gel together and gather momentum as a unit during the course of the tournament that is what's really gonna matter.
Interesting observation but I think what you point out is that teams are probably evenly matched rather than being inherently strong.
 

pup11

International Coach
Interesting observation but I think what you point out is that teams are probably evenly matched rather than being inherently strong.
Yeah... my point is that I don't agree with social that teams like India, England, Sri Lanka are weaker when compared to their squads from the last worldcup.
Australia and South Africa were the two most dominant sides for the last two decades and they seem to have lost that advantage coming into this worldcup, and maybe that's making social believe that the overall standard of all the other teams have eroded as well which isn't true.
For me on paper India and Sri Lanka go into this worldcup as very firm favourites on the back of their respective batting and bowling line-ups, having said that certain teams that are looking weak on 'paper' might surprise a few people because of the format of tournament.
 

smalishah84

The Tiger King
but Pakistan, australia, south africa, ZIm, NZ and even SL probably had stronger teams in the last 4 wcs than in this this cup. Only India and England might be the exceptions to this. Take this Pak team and compare it to any Pak team after the 1983 WC and see the difference in strength.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Analysing teams's strengths on paper is a pretty meaningless exercise for an ODI knockout tournament. WC '83 is the biggest example of that.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
also Pakistan would have been one of the firm favourites had Butt, Aamir and Asif been in the mix.
I don't think Pakistan's ODI team has been weakened all that much. Mohammad Asif doesn't usually have a place in Pakistan's first ODI XI, and I would say Mohammad Hafeez is at least comparable to Salman Butt as an ODI batsman; Mohammad Aamer is a big loss though.
 

pup11

International Coach
I don't think Pakistan's ODI team has been weakened all that much. Mohammad Asif doesn't usually have a place in Pakistan's first ODI XI, and I would say Mohammad Hafeez is at least comparable to Salman Butt as an ODI batsman; Mohammad Aamer is a big loss though.
Nah, Asif, Aamir and Gul would have been the most likely fast bowling combination, as its pretty difficult to imagine Akthar lasting through the tournament.
Butt too was coming of age as a batsman so their absence has been a big blow, but despite the setbacks Pakistan still seem to be in better shape than what they were in during the last worldcup.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Yeah, but we suck hard in typical subcontinental conditions so it'll probably result in ongoing mockery or, if people really want to annoy me, patronising comments about how hard we were trying while losing by 370 runs.

Looking forward to it soo much regardless... so this is what it was like to be an England fan in the build up to every Ashes between '89 and '05.
Pssht, you think it's bad now. Wait until you get test status and are treated to it week after week.
 

Top