Australia's performance in the World Cup

[Burgey]

As good as the Australian players are, I can't believe all of the opposition is so hapless.

Yeah, but part of that may be how bad the Aussies have made them look.

Anyways, one bad game and they will be packing their bags for home like the others. You just never know.

 

[pasag]

This is for all the threads after the C-H and CB series. Australia are going down, Lack of "Australian depth", "Australia wont win the World Cup". And the media weren't any better either. Neither were heaps of ex-cricketers like Viv Richards and quite a few others who tipped Australia to fail. All I can say is....

 

[Craig]

This is for all the threads after the C-H and CB series. Australia are going down, Lack of "Australian depth", "Australia wont win the World Cup". And the media weren't any better either. Neither were heaps of ex-cricketers like Viv Richards and quite a few others who tipped Australia to fail. All I can say is....

Well it can still happen

Ever the optimist I am. I seem to believe nothing is impossible.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yep, just talking rubbish here I'm afraid Rich - the results, and the conduct of the games to date simply do not bear out what you're saying. Apart from anything else, we've not needed someone like Bichel to save games for us with the bat this tournament, like in WC 2003. This tournament has been an even better performance by Australia - to date.

That's a good point as well actually. Aside from that one innings by Hogg against a minnow, Australia's lower order hasn't been exposed because the team has never been in trouble. In every game, one or more of Hayden, Ponting and Clarke have performed, and the likes of Symonds, Watson and Hodge when he's played have just finished the job.

There were a number of times in the last WC where Australia were in real strife.

 

[pasag]

Well it can still happen

Ever the optimist I am. I seem to believe nothing is impossible.

Yeah, 434 changed me and alot of Australian fans I reckon that there's that feeling that when we bat first, no matter what we get, we're never safe and anything can happen. The C-H series did nothing to help that feeling as well.

 

[simmy]

Australia will win this WC completely unchallenged imo.

Literally unless RSA pull something miraculous or Murali or Bond to some serious damage nothing will stop them.

It will be a predictable end to a disappointing WC.

 

[prakesh]

This thread sure got ugly for Richard, again.

No wonder he disappeared from it, quicker than a fart in a tornado.

 

[Richard]

Piss off you ****.

 

[Richard]

Don't see your point, really. You're effectively arguing that the 2003 side was more dominant because of things that happened outside the tournament. We're talking about results in a World Cup here, not some sort of general analysis of the strength of a team. Australia have thus far dominated every match they have played in. The closest any team has come to beating Australia was a side who were chasing over 350 and had a good start. In 2003 there were a lot more challenges, and I don't feel the opposition overall was any better. Still two games to come though, so we'll see how those go.

For what it's worth, Ponting, Symonds and Hayden are clearly better players today than in 2003, Clarke is better than Martyn in ODIs, Hussey's amazing record probably cancels out the huge loss of Bevan, or goes close, Bracken's a big improvement over the likes of Bichel and Tait's more or less done what one could have reasonably expected him to do, which is take a lot of wickets. Watson's better than Harvey with the bat too, and the Symonds/Ponting/Clarke/Hussey group in the field is one of the best ever assembled in an ODI team. The team in 2003 had some stronger points, mainly the inclusion of Bevan and Lee, but it had more holes in it than the current one IMO, particularly with the bat and in the field. Bowling you could argue, certainly.

Anyway, the real point is that the team in 2007 has clearly been much more dominant and challenged a lot less up to this point in the tournament. Whatever the reason for that is, the facts are there.

Yep, just talking rubbish here I'm afraid Rich - the results, and the conduct of the games to date simply do not bear out what you're saying. Apart from anything else, we've not needed someone like Bichel to save games for us with the bat this tournament, like in WC 2003. This tournament has been an even better performance by Australia - to date.

Suit yoselves, couldn't give a **** about BLE, I don't feel the Australian side of 2007 > 2003, but there we go.

 

[Richard]

That's 'cos Richo clearly doesn't have a handle on what "impen(e)trable" means. Turning into CW's very own Mrs Malaprop he is...

Wow, I missed an "e", so crucify me...

Yes, I do know what impenetrable means - it's not exactly the hardest word on Earth, is it?

 

[Prince EWS]

Suit yoselves, couldn't give a **** about BLE, I don't feel the Australian side of 2007 > 2003, but there we go.

Neither of those posts have one iota to do with BLE. You're letting yourself get worked up over this member and ignoring a genuinely good cricket debate which is completely out of character for you.

 

[Richard]

I was going to make that post anyway, just mentioned BLE because of that nonsense he posted which, fortunately, I spotted before replying to Fuller and Matt79.

I'm not gonna sway Fuller, I know that from endless experience.

 

[Prince EWS]

I was going to make that post anyway, just mentioned BLE because of that nonsense he posted which, fortunately, I spotted before replying to Fuller and Matt79.

I'm not gonna sway Fuller, I know that from endless experience.

If people stopped debating once they realised they had little hope of swaying the other party though, your posts would rarely ever get replied to. I was actually looking forward to your reply to Fuller's post - was a let-down of some significance I must say.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

If people stopped debating once they realised they had little hope of swaying the other party though, your posts would rarely ever get replied to. I was actually looking forward to your reply to Fuller's post - was a let-down of some significance I must say.

He just cbf making up "facts" at the moment. Give him time.

 

[Richard]

Ha ha Smith, you're so unutterably hilarious...

If people stopped debating once they realised they had little hope of swaying the other party though, your posts would rarely ever get replied to. I was actually looking forward to your reply to Fuller's post - was a let-down of some significance I must say.

It's fairly simple - Fuller thinks this Australian side was stronger, for a multitude of reasons - none of which I dispute are true, but I in turn have my reasons for thinking the one of 2003 was stronger. He doesn't seem to dispute what I'm saying there, either - we just draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

That's where there will be no swaying. I've had heaps of arguments with Fuller before, as I say, and if I feel there is point continuing I rarely fail to do so.

 

[Matt79]

Actually there's a difference in what you said and what you're now arguing. Saying the 2003 Australian team is stronger than the 2007 version (and I'm not necessarily accepting that this is true) is not the same thing as saying that it looked more inpenetrable during the respective tournaments. Whether or not the 2007 team is better or worse than the 2003, it has not been as closely run in any of its matches thus far as happened to the 2003 team. They've looked less like losing a match at any stage during this WC than the 2003 team did at a couple of points during their WC.

Really there have been two dodgy spots for the Australians so far this tournament. 1 - When Smith and de Villiers were firing in pursuit of the 377, before Watto ran out de Villiers and Smith's fitness let him down, and 2 - when Bell and Pietersen were cruising along and it wasn't clear where a breakthrough would come, before Bell played a weak shot and Pietersen's fitness let him down. Both of those were concerning moments, but neither lasted long enough for the outcome of the match to be seriously in doubt, although the potential was there. But the Aussies have back their swagger that, even in situations like that, you're confident they'll manufacture a wicket from somewhere and turn things around.

 

[Perm]

Didn't think you'd take what I said to heart Richard.

Anyway, Australia have been incredibly dominant which was to be expected. England played great cricket in the finals of the CB series and the Black Caps were only playing a a half-fit Australian outfit in th Chappell Hadlee series. The reaction to these series losses was unnecessary and premature.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Ha ha Smith, you're so unutterably hilarious....

 

[pup11]

I think to say that the Aussies haven't at all been tested in this tournament won't be right because in the game against SA,ENG and SL big partnerships formed which did put the Aussies under pressure but then they were strong enough to fight-back and wrap things in their favour.



As for the Aussie team being a better unit now compared to 03, i would say their batting is stronger compared to 03 but their bowling isn't.

 

[Sanz]

Aussie team has not been tested in this tournament because they have played so well in this tournament. They have not given any opposition any opportunity to dominate. They have not showed much weakness in this tournament so far.

Clearly they are the best batting, bowling, fielding side by quite a distance.