Australia's squad

[Julian87]

Or on Tahir, given he'll be bowling on roads.

 

[Antihippy]

Surely you're not giving SA a boost on account of when it gets to knock out matches?

Nah, I'm saying anything goes really I guess. I just think that batting wise they are equal, it's just that SA relies more on 1 or 2 individuals. In the knockout stages if amla and de villiers both fire I can see them getting one over australia. The problem is their middle to lower order was seriously flaky last time they came down here, so if one of those 2 don't go big they will be the weaker team.

I think tahir is pretty good ODI bowler. His style of bowling doesn't really rely on getting turn anyway, so maybe bowling on roads might not be too bad for him.

 

[GGG]

Eh, I think south africa and new zealand are pretty evenly matched with australia.

We have a better top 5 IMO, pretty sure if you matched them man for man statistically speaking we would be better, that is presuming Clarke isn't playing. Not a heck of a lot of experience either besides Watson.

 

[Swingpanzee]

Good to see Pup regaining fitness and almost being a certainty for the game vs Bangladesh. Hopefully Faulkner recovers soon, we don't really need him in the first few games but he's essential for the knockouts.

Finch hasn't impressed me, so I'd like the team to be:

Warner
Watson
Smith
Clarke
Marsh
Maxwell
Faulkner
Haddin
Johnson
Hazlewood
Starc

Looks a very strong side.

 

[Niall]

Their middle order severely let them down that tour, but in knock out stages all bets are off. I count world cup chances with how many players each squad has that can take the game away from the opponent on their day regularly and SA and Australia are pretty evenly matched. SA has the better opening combination just due to hashim amla alone, AB de Villiers is just ridiculous, but we have smith and a much, much better middle to lower order. SA has the better spin bowler, but I'd rate both teams to have the strongest bowling lineup of the tournament.

Think new zealand's squad is actually kinda roughly the same as australia I reckon. Just need to see how home advantage works for both teams.

Australia are not invincible at all, but for me they have much less question marks than South Africa. I remain unconvinced about the Saffers at the death, they lost a few of those games against Australia because they got smashed in the last few overs, so many sides have hitters at the end, if their opponents have a platform you would be concerned. The one close game against the West Indies, they lost because they couldn't finish the job. QDK is promising but still inexperienced, the ODI stats of Faf are not to impressive either.

They also have the Behardien problem which can't be understated.

Amla-QDK-Faf-AB-JP-Miller- Behardien-Vern-Steyn- Morne- Tahir

His batting is the pits, but is the fact he may be able to bowl a few overs enough reason to keep him? Is Parnell a good enough option to bat at seven, as that would leave a seriously long tail. Its very hard to know really.