Final.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Benny2k1

Jayasuria (
Murali
Vaas
Malinga
Sangakkara

I wish we (England) were that bad

England are much, much worse actually. No hiding that fact. As much as I don't rate Sri Lanka very highly at the moment - I really don't rate anyone very highly at the moment, in comparison to say.. four years ago.

[Johnners]

Gilly!! What a star, once again he produces when it matter most, and people begin to question his place in the team. I'm saddened by the fact that i somehow managed to fall asleep about half an hour before play eventually started, and only woke-up to see the last few balls of his innings before he was dismissed

It was great to see McGrath doing out a deserved winner, and the fact that he managed to take out the Man of the Series award, in a tournament that imo was batsmen dominant, is quite simply amazing, and it examplifies just how brilliant he has been during his entire career.

It will take some performance if this Australian teams domination of a World Cup is ever matched, or bettered, and i honestly can't see it happening for a long, long, long time.

CARN AUSTRALIA!!!!!!!!!!!

[chaminda_00]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

England are much, much worse actually. No hiding that fact. As much as I don't rate Sri Lanka very highly at the moment - I really don't rate anyone very highly at the moment, in comparison to say.. four years ago.

Were they really that great four years, that Indian side was nothing special. Sri Lanka and Kenya were the other teams to make the semi finals. If you were talking about 99 when the South African gave it a big push and Pakistan had a brillant bowling attack, you might have a point.

[Beleg]

Congragulations to the Australians on winning the world cup.

Too bad the rain spoiled what was blossoming to be an extremely interesting game.

Just cannot agree with this in the slightest. As far as I can tell, the top 4 teams in ODI cricket at the moment is about as strong as it has ever been, and its fair to say that Sri lanka are second of those 4...and I would also say that Sri lanka this time round are probably tha most other teams that have ever got to the final...including the SL team that won it in 96

I would pretty much agree with this.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

Were they really that great four years, that Indian side was nothing special. Sri Lanka and Kenya were the other teams to make the semi finals. If you were talking about 99 when the South African gave it a big push and Pakistan had a brillant bowling attack, you might have a point.

I wasn't talking about World Cup performances - I was talking about how good sides were in general. Four years ago, Pakistan were most certainly declining, so I might stretch it to 6 or 7 (although I was hesistant to put a number like that in because I was only a casual follower of cricket until about 2002 or 2003.)

I may be wrong really, but I generally think teams are a significantly worse now than they were a few years back. I don't really think Sri Lanka have a side that should have resulted in a WC final appearance (don't get me wrong - their performances in the tournament most certainly made them worthy of it - I just don't think their team overall is THAT good) and when a team with a player pool as low as New Zealand and a team in the dire, dire form South Africa showed make the semi finals, I think we have problems. England, West Indies, India and Pakistan basically put up no competition whatsoever which is perhaps where my gripe lies. I'd love to see, for example, a team play as well as Sri Lanka did and finish fourth - having the final we saw as the semi-final. Whether that standard of cricket actually ever happened or I'm just looking to the immediate past with rose-coloured glasses is definitely up for debate - but in reality I think I'm just disappointed at what England, Pakistan and India offered up.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Jamee999

Malinga out!

Nobody cares!

Nobody can see!

This is ****ing stupid!

Hahaha. Best post.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by andyc

Hahaha. Best post.

Yeah I watched the game for a second time on the highlights today with the hindsight of what was going on. On the one hand it was really comical but on the other hand it was one of the most absurd and ridiculous things in sport, perhaps with the exception of Sirengate and Ovalgate, I've ever seen. And that's on a repeat viewing.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, love Jamee's post too. Cracker.

Totally disagree with EWS too. The current SL side is comfortably better than the '96 team, and probably better than India in 2003 as well. Obviously miles and miles ahead in the bowling department, though behind in the batting.

A quality team even in historical terms IMO, as are South Africa and probably New Zealand too at the moment. It's a strong period for ODI cricket, but there are a number of pretty disappointing ODI teams at the moment, and obviously Australia are in a different league.

[James]

NZ a quality team currently? I read somewhere that Fleming rated the 2003 and 1999 WC teams as stronger teams but the 2007 version a more prepared team.

Australia are just awsome at the moment, they really are so far in front. Congrats on a Champs Trophy, Ashes and WC win!

[chaminda_00]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I wasn't talking about World Cup performances - I was talking about how good sides were in general. Four years ago, Pakistan were most certainly declining, so I might stretch it to 6 or 7 (although I was hesistant to put a number like that in because I was only a casual follower of cricket until about 2002 or 2003.)

I may be wrong really, but I generally think teams are a significantly worse now than they were a few years back. I don't really think Sri Lanka have a side that should have resulted in a WC final appearance (don't get me wrong - their performances in the tournament most certainly made them worthy of it - I just don't think their team overall is THAT good) and when a team with a player pool as low as New Zealand and a team in the dire, dire form South Africa showed make the semi finals, I think we have problems. England, West Indies, India and Pakistan basically put up no competition whatsoever which is perhaps where my gripe lies. I'd love to see, for example, a team play as well as Sri Lanka did and finish fourth - having the final we saw as the semi-final. Whether that standard of cricket actually ever happened or I'm just looking to the immediate past with rose-coloured glasses is definitely up for debate - but in reality I think I'm just disappointed at what England, Pakistan and India offered up.

2003 was a while ago, but from memory most of sides were probably worse then what the sides were in this tournment. Sri Lanka played worse then what they did in '99 but made the semis, they were far better in this World Cup. NZ seemed far more consistant in this World Cup then in '03. Boycott played a big part but Pakistan, South Africa, England and West Indies all failed to make the Super Six. Really the teams were worse in standard in the last World Cup then this one. The difference was Australia wasn't as diminate so they look as bad.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by James

NZ a quality team currently? I read somewhere that Fleming rated the 2003 and 1999 WC teams as stronger teams but the 2007 version a more prepared team.

Australia are just awsome at the moment, they really are so far in front. Congrats on a Champs Trophy, Ashes and WC win!

Yeah, NZ are pretty good IMO. Though I suppose they aren't a particularly good team by historical standards, no. They certainly aren't poor though, and given they're a mid table team, that's what you'd expect if this were a weak era of ODI cricket.

[andmark]

Why didn't Murili bat?

[Turbinator]

Originally Posted by andmark

Why didn't Murili bat?

He was scared the ball might hit him in the dark .

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Yeah, NZ are pretty good IMO. Though I suppose they aren't a particularly good team by historical standards, no. They certainly aren't poor though, and given they're a mid table team, that's what you'd expect if this were a weak era of ODI cricket.

New Zealand are just a bunch of well drilled mediocre players, plus Bond. They're not poor, but they're not good either. This is a weak era of ODI cricket. I do think modern cricket bats are reducing some the quality of ODIs and it'll become more of a slugfest when other teams catch up with Australia and the sorts of techniques they're using when they bat. Seems like timing the ball or even using the right side of the bat barely makes any difference.

[Matt79]

Yep - Australia have totally raised the bar in there performance here. They have found a brilliant formula to succeed in big tournaments, and have an almost perfectly balanced squad. Its getting hard to find enough superlatives to properly describe the level of consistently brilliant play they have achieved.

First, to applaud Sri Lanka. They showed admirable skill, determination and sportsmanship in first reaching the final, and then competing in it. They made much more of a game of the final than either the 99 or 03 versions, and it was deeply regretable that the weather intervened and marred their, to that point, fine performance. I was particularly impressed with Malinga - he looks to be a real prospect to be a genuinely good pace bowler and should hold his head high for the way he's performed this tournament. Jayasuriya batted with his customary verve and for a while looked like he would at least keep SL right in the match - a not inconsiderable feat given what Gilchrist had done. Sangakkara showed enormous class - first in the field when he immediately confirmed he had not taken a catch, and then with the bat. He had a somewhat dirty day behind the stumps, but batted with great intent and composure. And credit to Mahela Jayawardene for at least preserving some sanity in the debacle that ensued at the end of the match - he's confirmed through this tournament that he is a player and captain of substance, and a very good sport.

Australia were simply awesome. They played the best ODI cricket I've ever seen played this tournament and were just irresistable. It was a phenomenon that fed upon itself, as the Australian team's confidence grew with every match, and the belief and will of the opposition to resist and contend with them diminished. Much has been said about SL's decision to rest Vaas and Murali during the Super 8s. I think it was a mistake because the ONLY way anyone was going to stop Australia winning the final was to make a dent in that sense of confidence and show the other teams that they weren't invincible. Otherwise, teams defeated themselves in over-thinking and second-guessing and trying to play Australia's game, rather than their own. This was demonstrated most starkly by SA in the semi-final. It was a phenomonal team effort, with Hayden brilliant through most of the tournament and Ponting consistently successful in a form of brilliance that appeared almost matter-of-fact compared to Hayden's explosivenss. Clarke also appeared understated by comparison, but was in fact very very good as well. Gilchrist was solid without being great until the final, where he produced one of the alltime great ODI knocks and proved to be the difference on the day between the teams. With the ball, Bracken was economical and always dangerous early. Tait was a revelation. Hogg was fantastic, especially given his poor form leading into the tournament. Faced with these three, the opposition tried to target a supposedly old and worn McGrath and Watson. McGrath's greatness in this tournament was assisted by the lack of respect foolishly shown to him by some batsmen who should have known better, but he also used all the skill and guile he had accumulated in 15 years in the game at the top level to great effect. This tournament stands as a worthy epitaph to a great career. Watto rarely threatened to take many wickets, but was effective and economical enough as a fifth bowler, and did well to go for well under 5 an over given his still developing skill-set as a bowler, and the fact that he was the one link in the attack batsmen felt able to attack with confidence.

I thought Ponting captained brillantly through the tournament - I can't really remember him missing a trick. He's shown himself to have a great understanding of the rhythm of the shorter form of the game and has matured into a confident, relaxed leader of his men.

The loss of McGrath, and presumably in the next year or two Gilchrist, Hayden, and Hogg, will of course affect this. However Ponting will continue for quite a while yet, and is now, IMO emerged as a genuine contender for the best #3 in ODI history - and I think the world of Viv Richard's record in that capacity. Time will almost inevitably probably weary him and its unlikely he will be able to continue without his form coming back to that of the pack at some point, but it doesn't appear to be likely to happen anytime soon.

Symonds should be good for another few years, and in Clarke, Hussey, Lee, Bracken and Tait the Aussie team has a core that should be good to stick together for several more years and be better than any other team they are likely to encounter. Add to that the emergence, at last, of Watson as a player worthy of his place in the team and the balance he provides, and players in the wings like Hodge and Haddin, and it isn't foolish to think this team can stay on top for a long time to come.

There was a great article today on cricinfo referring to Gilchrist and McGrath's comments about the team spirit and sense of belief, and how that helps individual players to keep on producing their best. You can see in everything the team does the belief they have in each other and the dedication they have to the team cause - this is, as much as any physical attributes or level of talent, what separates them from the rest.

The other factor outside of the XI that makes this team so good is the medical support. Mark Nicholas mentioned this several times through the final, but Andrew Symonds was considered a slim chance to play any matches in the WC, and was thought unlikely to be fully fit at all. Instead, he took the field during the group stage, and played - apparently fully fit - every game after that. Shane Watson suffered a calf-strain that should probably have ended his tournament - he came back for the NZ game and again appeared fully-fit. The low rate of injury in the Australian team is phenomenal, especially when you consider the derision they have copped as a "Dad's Army" of old blokes at times. When you look at the inability of teams like NZ to consistently field their best XI, this success in keeping the best team on the park, and getting injured players right, has been a real key.

The question is what can the rest of world cricket do to match this, if anything? I honestly don't think waiting for a drop off in the Aussies is likely to be a path for success - and if I really knew how to do it, I could probably get a one of the half-dozen coaching jobs that are currently available.