Australia's performance in the World Cup

[Sanz]

Just have a Look at the following :-

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc2007/content/current/site/wc/results.html?team=2

Won by 7 wickets, 9 wickets, 7 wickets, 10 Wickets, 103 runs, 83 runs, 229 runs, 203 runs, 5 wickets, 106 runs, (today is no different)

When they have batted first they have posted an almost unbeatable score (290, 334, 358, 377, 322, 348

When they have chase a score, they have won with lots of wickets in hand and overs to spare( 5 wickets 55 balls, 10 wickets 49 balls, 7 wickets 16 balls, 9 wickets 226 balls, 7 wickets 44 balls)

WOW !!!

I dont think I have watched this sort of domination by any team in any of the world cups. not even the great WI team dominated any tournament like this. In this world cup Australia have just demolished every team they have faced.

PS :- Please dont merge this thread with any other, australian performance deserves one thread.

 

[Perm]

It has indeed been a very dominant performance for them, there has been no real strugglers in the team (other than Hussey) and even he hasn't been exposed too much because the rest of the batting order makes up for his poor form.

 

[Richard]

Australia have been nowhere near so impentrable as in the previous Cup IMO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah my prediction of Australia having a major flop was a definite contender for the Griegy.

 

[Richard]

TBF, you certainly weren't the only one - overreaction to a small handful of games is a common trait!

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well it was the manner of the defeats, they looked pretty crap in the finals of the CB series. I knew they were going to go well, but never thought that they would be emphatic as this.

 

[PY]

Insane.

That is all.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Australia have been nowhere near so impentrable as in the previous Cup IMO.

Don't get this post. It reads like you're saying that Australia have been less dominant in this WC than the last one, yet on the results that's clearly not the case, given that Australia were almost beaten 3 times in 2003 (Pakistan is doubtful I guess, but NZ and England certainly) and nobody has come close this time.

Anyway, it's been an amazing performance, really. Virtually every Australian player has had a good World Cup, and the two you could point out as being somewhat disappointing haven't been needed at all. All four of the front line bowlers have been sensational and have averages around 20 or under, Hayden, Ponting and Clarke have been incredible with the bat, even Watson hasn't been dismissed once, and the other guys really haven't been required at all. And that's all with Australia coming off their worst run of ODI form in years, and without Brett Lee.

Still two games to go in which anything can happen, but there's never been a team who looked more certain to win a WC at this stage of a tournament, IMO.

 

[prakesh]

It's just Richard reaching for any way he can possible put a negative on it & manufacture a way to have a dig at them.

 

[PhoenixFire]

It's just Richard reaching for any way he can possible put a negative on it & manufacture a way to have a dig at them.

 

[prakesh]

Exactly, so ban Richard.

 

[PhoenixFire]

No, I was referring to you being a total hypocrite. You accuse Richard of being biased and negative etc, where all you ever seem to post about is, is how bad England are.

 

[Richard]

Don't get this post. It reads like you're saying that Australia have been less dominant in this WC than the last one, yet on the results that's clearly not the case, given that Australia were almost beaten 3 times in 2003 (Pakistan is doubtful I guess, but NZ and England certainly) and nobody has come close this time.

Really, they were nowhere near being beaten by New Zealand in WC2003. The only time they ever looked like losing was to England, and even then everyone knows with Michael Bevan at the crease no cause is ever lost, especially one like that.

And they've clearly been equally superior to all others in both tourneys, really. But the side of 2003, I would rate superior. There were doubts about any number of players going into this event - Symonds (fitness wise), Hussey, Watson (batting position and fitness wise - not to mention the still-existing doubts about his bowling), Hogg, Hayden, Tait... it's turned-out all right on the night in most if not all cases, but it could just as easily have not.

In 2003, on the other hand, the only players with doubts hanging over them were Symonds (who dispelled anything in the first game and has been a totally unrecognisable player ever since that game) and Harvey.

 

[Sanz]

Don't get this post. It reads like you're saying that Australia have been less dominant in this WC than the last one, yet on the results that's clearly not the case, given that Australia were almost beaten 3 times in 2003 (Pakistan is doubtful I guess, but NZ and England certainly) and nobody has come close this time.

Anyway, it's been an amazing performance, really. Virtually every Australian player has had a good World Cup, and the two you could point out as being somewhat disappointing haven't been needed at all. All four of the front line bowlers have been sensational and have averages around 20 or under, Hayden, Ponting and Clarke have been incredible with the bat, even Watson hasn't been dismissed once, and the other guys really haven't been required at all. And that's all with Australia coming off their worst run of ODI form in years, and without Brett Lee.

Still two games to go in which anything can happen, but there's never been a team who looked more certain to win a WC at this stage of a tournament, IMO.

Not only that, it has been one of the longest tournaments, if not the longest, and to perform at this level for this long is just amazing, really.

 

[prakesh]

No, I was referring to you being a total hypocrite. You accuse Richard of being biased and negative etc, where all you ever seem to post about is, is how bad England are.

Duh...I know.

nevermind, buddy. I'll keep it more simple next time & give you chance to catch up.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Really, they were nowhere near being beaten by New Zealand in WC2003. The only time they ever looked like losing was to England, and even then everyone knows with Michael Bevan at the crease no cause is ever lost, especially one like that.

And they've clearly been equally superior to all others in both tourneys, really. But the side of 2003, I would rate superior. There were doubts about any number of players going into this event - Symonds (fitness wise), Hussey, Watson (batting position and fitness wise - not to mention the still-existing doubts about his bowling), Hogg, Hayden, Tait... it's turned-out all right on the night in most if not all cases, but it could just as easily have not.

In 2003, on the other hand, the only players with doubts hanging over them were Symonds (who dispelled anything in the first game and has been a totally unrecognisable player ever since that game) and Harvey.

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.

 

[Craig]

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

 

[BoyBrumby]

Australia have been nowhere near so impentrable as in the previous Cup IMO.

Don't get this post.

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...

Anyway, interesting that we've probably run Australia the closest so far. If Bell hadn't played that daft shot when set....

 

[shehanwije]

Really, they were nowhere near being beaten by New Zealand in WC2003. The only time they ever looked like losing was to England, and even then everyone knows with Michael Bevan at the crease no cause is ever lost, especially one like that.

.

Perhaps you should read what Ponting and Bevan have said about the '03 Semi vs Sri Lanka...particularly, after Aus were bowled out for 210...on a low, slow PE pitch.

Fortunately, Lee fired at the correct time and pulled the game back for Aus.

 

[Matt79]

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.