Most likely source for an upset?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Since this is one of the most intriguing elements of each World Cup, I figured it deserved a thread of its own.

For me the most likely source is definately Bangladesh. They have a decent number of hit-or-miss yet dangerous ODI players like Mortaza, Ashraful, Aftab Ahmed and such, and in a group with Sri Lanka and India there's an outside chance that they will quality for the Super Eight round.

Kenya are generally a pretty decent ODI team, and that may continue into this World Cup, though I don't see that they've developed much in the intervening period since 2003. Ireland seem like a decent team as well, even if they are missing Ed Joyce now.

[Richard]

Kenya are nowhere near the team they were in 1996 and 2003. I'll be amazed if they even come close this time.
Even if miracles happen and Ashraful or Aftab Ahmed come-off, both India and Sri Lanka are more than capable of scoring 350 against Bangladesh's excuse for an attack.
This World Cup has been designed to minimise the possibility of an upset and it'll do grave damage if one still happens. The last one was bad enough - if the 2007 format doesn't work as designed, this one could be even worse.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

Kenya are nowhere near the team they were in 1996 and 2003. I'll be amazed if they even come close this time.
Even if miracles happen and Ashraful or Aftab Ahmed come-off, both India and Sri Lanka are more than capable of scoring 350 against Bangladesh's excuse for an attack.
This World Cup has been designed to minimise the possibility of an upset and it'll do grave damage if one still happens. The last one was bad enough - if the 2007 format doesn't work as designed, this one could be even worse.

What do you mean by 'grave damage'? It's certainly not going to damage the viewership or the public enjoyment of the competition if a shock happens - in fact the impact will be the opposite.

With flat pitches and small grounds in the West Indies, I'd say the chance of an upset would be higher at this World Cup than in somewhere like England or Australia. All it takes is one or two good innings and an average side can post a good score and then put pressure on with the ball, or vice-versa. Obviously you'd back the better sides, but I wouldn't say an upset is out of the question at all.

[Dizzy #4]

Group D, anyone can make it

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

What do you mean by 'grave damage'? It's certainly not going to damage the viewership or the public enjoyment of the competition if a shock happens - in fact the impact will be the opposite.

It will - because, as in 2003, it will distort the whole tournament and make it much less interesting.
The whole thing has quite palpably been designed to try to simulate 1992 - pretty much universally recognised as the best format yet used (no coincidence that it's also either the best or 2nd-best [after 1999] tournament ever) - with a preliminary round.
If the Super Eight contains anything other than the top 8 teams, it'll ruin what will otherwise be a very interesting prospect.

With flat pitches and small grounds in the West Indies, I'd say the chance of an upset would be higher at this World Cup than in somewhere like England or Australia. All it takes is one or two good innings and an average side can post a good score and then put pressure on with the ball, or vice-versa. Obviously you'd back the better sides, but I wouldn't say an upset is out of the question at all.

People make too much of the small grounds. They don't change poor batsmen\bowlers into good ones or vice-versa. West Indian pitches maybe generally flat but they're certainly far from good for batting of times - often very slow.

[steds]

Originally Posted by Dizzy #4

Group D, anyone can make it

I doubt it. Zimbabwe's a mess and Ireland is pretty poor.

[adharcric]

Bangladesh (Sri Lanka), Ireland (West Indies) and Canada (England)

[Dizzy #4]

Originally Posted by steds

I doubt it. Zimbabwe's a mess and Ireland is pretty poor.

West Indies are shambles as well, hence making a 3 way fight for 2nd between them.

[sirjeremy11]

Originally Posted by Dizzy #4

West Indies are shambles as well, hence making a 3 way fight for 2nd between them.

Can't see it at home, and when WI play Zim in 7 ODI's in WI next month, I imagine we will see just how bad the situation is in Zim cricket.

[Perm]

Bangladesh to give India or Sri Lanka a run for their money. Kenya could give England or even New Zealand a fright.

[vic_orthdox]

I guess the thing is, if these sides were to be playing each other over 3, or 5, games, then they might be able to give them a fright in one of them. However, in a "one off", I think it's pretty unlikely...

[aussie]

Bangladesh are to most likely team to cause an upset this time around. But hopefully that doesn't happen & all the major teams are in the super-reight stage.

[sirjeremy11]

Originally Posted by Perm

Kenya could give England or even New Zealand a fright.

I doubt it VERY much.

[DanielFullard]

Zimbabwe putting it together and ousting the Indies?

[Chubb]

Unlikely. Although the ODI side gave India and NZ a run for their money on a couple of occasions last year, that was with Streak and Blignaut. The ODI series coming up will give us a better idea how Terry Duffin's side are going in relation to the major nations, but this team is sub-Tatenda's in performance, ability and experience, especially without him in the order, so unless some major changes happen in Zimbabwe, which will now more or less mean the ousting of Mugabe, the board becoming independent again and re-signing guys like Blignaut, Vermeulen and Ebrahim. I doubt Zim will be able to accomplish much at the World Cup. Wish it could be different, but there you go.

The Kenya series isn't really representative- I don't think it was a bad result, you have to have different expectations now. Two of the best bowlers, Panyangara and Hondo, were missing due to injury, along with Gavin Ewing, a very fine offspinning allrounder, one of the best players left.