World Cup Favourites

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Did you read the reports? it is said that he his stress fracture has healed and he's bowling with full run up daily ??

Yea, is he playing high intensity cricket? Thought not.

As posted on Cricinfo today:

Umar Gul: A serious concern. Ever since it emerged he was injured at the start of the South Africa tour, the extent and nature of his ankle injury has been the subject of wild speculation.

He has repeatedly said that he is or will be fit but a PCB official told Cricinfo that MRI scans have revealed the existence of a stress fracture, which is now healing. He is due to undergo another scan on February 26 but as the official conceded, "He may regain fitness during the World Cup but to be able to immediately come back having not bowled for two-three months will not be easy."

He's a very good strike bowler in OD cricket, decent is someone who Afridi is !

There's a fair gap between OD cricket and ODI cricket. And Asif averages over 30 in ODI cricket. That's not a very good strike bowler. He's taken more than 1 wicket in an innings only 4 times in the last 15 ODIs in which he has bowled. On 6 occasions he has taken none. His ODI SR is significantly worse than his Test SR.

Test /= ODI.

 

[IndianByHeart]

The fact that he's playing with an injury in South Africa actually contributes the theory that he won't fit for the World Cup. Common sense would dictate such.

And the reason that Asif, Akhtar and Gul have been named in the squad is that they can be replaced if they aren't passed as fit. If they were left out now and passed fit, the would not have a route into the squad. Again, common sense.

The fact that inspite of being injured Asif has been risked and being played in somewhat meaningless series in SA suggest that he's not seriously injured.Had he been seriously injured he wouldn't have been risked, souldn't be all that difficult to get this.

And its basically Akhtar and Gul that are being said that can be replaced from the WC squad if a situation arise, Asif is almost sure to make it, unless he gets banned for drugs.NOTE: they have two pacers on their standby list, and not three. Aagain use ur common sense.

 

[PakPowered]

Yea, is he playing high intensity cricket? Thought not.

As posted on Cricinfo today:

.

Only time will tell if he makes it or not, but i'm hopeful that he will make it.

.[/QUOTE]
There's a fair gap between OD cricket and ODI cricket. And Asif averages over 30 in ODI cricket. That's not a very good strike bowler. He's taken more than 1 wicket in an innings only 4 times in the last 15 ODIs in which he has bowled. On 6 occasions he has taken none. His ODI SR is significantly worse than his Test SR..[/QUOTE]

Say whatever you want, but Asif is a high quality strike bowler. Most teams would recognize that, as for all those SR and ave, they will change rapidly , unless ofcourse he get banned for drugs.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The fact that inspite of being injured Asif has been risked and being played in somewhat meaningless series in SA suggest that he's not seriously injured.Had he been seriously injured he wouldn't have been risked, souldn't be all that difficult to get this.

The fact that he's playing in South Africa is why he's injured!

Mohammad Asif: He has been worked into the ground in South Africa, at precisely the time when Pakistan might have wanted to wrap him in cotton wool. Instead, 150 overs later, Asif has reported a flare-up of the elbow injury that forced him out of three Tests last summer in England.

A source close to the team told Cricinfo, "He has a stiff elbow, but it doesn't seem to be serious. He just needs to warm up properly." Local newspapers suggest that Asif might also be carrying a calf injury.

And its basically Akhtar and Gul that are being said that can be replaced from the WC squad if a situation arise, Asif is almost sure to make it, unless he gets banned for drugs.NOTE: they have two pacers on their standby list, and not three. Aagain use ur common sense.

The standby list means little. Azhar Mahmood's name has not been ruled out of contention, according to CricInfo. Last time I checked, he's a seam bowler.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Say whatever you want, but Asif is a high quality strike bowler. Most teams would recognize that, as for all those SR and ave, they will change rapidly , unless ofcourse he get banned for drugs.

It's incredible how blind people are to facts. How can he be a high quality strike bowler if he's not striking?

 

[PakPowered]

It's incredible how blind people are to facts. How can he be a high quality strike bowler if he's not striking?

Going by stats, Rana Naveed has a good ave and a good strike rate, yet few would bet on him over asif!

 

[IndianByHeart]

The fact that he's playing in South Africa is why he's injured!

.

That doesn't make any sense atall. When did he got injured?? it was at the end of second test match, yet he was persisted coz his injury was NOT SERIOUS. Inzi and Bob might be dumb fellows, but aren't dumb enough to continue playing an injured Asif upto a point when he's ruled out of WC!

 

[IndianByHeart]

The standby list means little. Azhar Mahmood's name has not been ruled out of contention, according to CricInfo. Last time I checked, he's a seam bowler.

Waseem Bari in his press briefing named two players as stand by for Akhtar and GUl, and those happen to be Sami and Shabbir, Bari didn't mention Azhar Mahmood.

For the last time, a player can get injured and miss a competition any time, one wouldn't be surprise to see players like Bond, PLunk or even Zaheer Khan (God forbid) missing the WC.The chances of Asif missing the Wc coz of reasons other than doping is almost the same as of other guys in the competition.

 

[Scaly piscine]

As well as England played in the last few games of the CB series, you've never been shy of over-rating them. Any glimmer and they're suddenly one of the best ODI teams in the world.

No, I've never been shy of rating their chances in a big tournament. England can perform in big games, they've shown it plenty of times in the past 3-4 years. England have that big game winning mentality back now and things are clicking into place more than anyone could have expected. England are probably the only team that would have beaten Australia in that OD best of 3 final. That was the first ODI final Australia have lost in for over 7 years.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Waseem Bari in his press briefing named two players as stand by for Akhtar and GUl, and those happen to be Sami and Shabbir, Bari didn't mention Azhar Mahmood.

For the last time, a player can get injured and miss a competition any time, one wouldn't be surprise to see players like Bond, PLunk or even Zaheer Khan (God forbid) missing the WC.The chances of Asif missing the Wc coz of reasons other than doping is almost the same as of other guys in the competition.

The difference is the odds are against Pakistan having a good bowling attack because of injuries, drugs tests etc.

The odds are not against Plunkett etc. playing. Someone like Bond is obviously a bit more dodgy because of his history.

 

[pup11]

I back the aussies to win no matter what the conditions are? Its a fact that aussies have had amazing consistency during world cups, from 1987 world cup [if you bar 92 world cup] they have made it to every world cup's final[in different conditions] and has won it 3 times. I hope and feel they will lift the cup again especially because they are hurt after the CB series loss.

 

[Poker Boy]

Here's my ranking of the teams:

1.Australia: Still the best, and England might just have gave them the kick up the ass they needed. Need Symonds back and miss Warne but still dead certs for SF. I can only see them falling in a knockout game - most of the other teams do have recent ODI wins over them and they are not as invincible as either they are in Tests or as in the last WC.

2.Sri Lanka: They have experinced class batsmen, the best spinner, and improving seam bowling - Malinga could be a key. Gone are the days of SL fielding a new ball bowler as crap as Wickremasinghe(no wickets in '96). A repeat of 1996 is not impossible.

3.India: Similar to their Asian colleagues, the one reason I put SL above India is that india have to deal with the demands of their expectant fans. Still I expoect one of those two to be in Barbados on April 28.

4.South Africa:Over-rated as second favourites. A lot of their best ODI results are at home where they are nearly invincible but only two away wins in ODI series since last WC are weak in spin and have a tendancy to "choke". Semi-Final but no further.

5.West Indies: I had a hunch for them after CT but have lost two ODI series sice then and Sarwan is struggling to be fit. Can they cope with the expectattion or will they ****-up like England, South Africa and Australia did when hosts? The first game is vital for them. i do hope they do well - cricket needs a good West Indies and they are the non-English team I want to win.

6.Pakistan: OMG, what can you say? They need Shoaib, Asif and Gul l fit to have a chance. Far too inconsistent - the curent ODI series in SA has gone crap, briliant, crap...so they probably be brilliant tomorrow. Would be very dangerous in SF as they can beat anyone on their day - getting there will be the problem.

7.England: I've just got the feeling the CB series might be as good as it gets - and in a funny way KP coming back might be a problem - without hin the others have took responsibility and they need to continue that when he comes back. Sometimes when a star player is in the team the others leave it to him - they can't do that here. I still think england MUST win first game to have a chance - if we lose the confidence could go and we could have a flop like '96 (when we lost to NZ first game and went downhill from there).

8.NZ: I wouldn't write off NZ as they are a solid team but they need Bond and Vettori on song and IMO they threw away the chance of geting to the CB Finals (they were better than England for most of that tournament). Again need to win first game to have a chance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Going by stats, Rana Naveed has a good ave and a good strike rate, yet few would bet on him over asif!

Not in Tests, but the reality is that Rana Naved has taken wickets more consistently than Asif in ODIs. You can bet in favour of Asif all you want. Unless he starts actually taking wickets, he's not a strike bowler.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That doesn't make any sense atall. When did he got injured?? it was at the end of second test match, yet he was persisted coz his injury was NOT SERIOUS. Inzi and Bob might be dumb fellows, but aren't dumb enough to continue playing an injured Asif upto a point when he's ruled out of WC!

His injury is largely due to the burden of bowling he has faced in South Africa. Hence him playing in South Africa is a key reason as to why he's injured. Think about it...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

England are probably the only team that would have beaten Australia in that OD best of 3 final. That was the first ODI final Australia have lost in for over 7 years.

Had England made it to the final without the momentum of consecutive wins, they probably would not have won it. Aside from that, I disagree with the assertion that - basically - England is the only team likely to beat Australia in a final. That's grossly over-rating an average team.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Waseem Bari in his press briefing named two players as stand by for Akhtar and GUl, and those happen to be Sami and Shabbir, Bari didn't mention Azhar Mahmood.

Just as the 30-man squad means little in the selection of the final 15, the names stated to be on stand-by mean nothing. Stating that a player is on standby is not making a commitment to selecting that player.

So by your reckoning, if all the fast bowlers in the present Pakistan squad are injured, Pakistan would only go into the tournament with 2 fast bowlers? Think...

 

[Scaly piscine]

Had England made it to the final without the momentum of consecutive wins, they probably would not have won it. Aside from that, I disagree with the assertion that - basically - England is the only team likely to beat Australia in a final. That's grossly over-rating an average team.

No I said England were the only side that would have beaten Australia in that final. I don't see what grounds you can disagree with what your own interpretation of what I said anyway. Who has beaten Australia or gotten a result against them in an ODI final in the last 7 years? England, twice. Who's the only team to beat Australia in a CT or World Cup in the last 5 years? England.

Everyone was busy to say how crap Australia were when they lost the Ashes and tied an ODI final, guess what's happened since? They've stuffed everyone. It's the same now, Australia aren't suddenly crap because England beat them three times, England just lifted their game, applied the pressure and were too good on the day. Average teams don't beat a high strength Australia when it matters.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The side that tied Australia in the final in 2005 has exactly three players in common with the one that won the CB series last week, and one of those players is Andrew Strauss. I really don't see how you can draw any sort of parallel between the two series. It's basically a totally different team. Unless your argument is that English teams are inherently capable of challenging Australia in finals regardless of who plays in them...

The fact is that England have been decidedly average for a long time in ODIs against all opposition. They suddenly and unexpectedly turned that around in the last fortnight, based mainly on a series of brilliant performances from Collingwood, and some good contributions from Flintoff, Plunkett and Joyce, two of whom are totally unproven at ODI level. And, of course, the rain in the second final.

England played well, but it's four matches all in the space of two weeks, and doesn't mean they'll be competitive at the business end of the WC in two months or so, if they even make it that far. We've never seen performances like that from Plunkett or whoever, so you simply can't argue that there's any evidence of a general trend in key games. It may be that England have suddenly come across an effective ODI lineup at the last minute, or that it was simply a one off fluke like the 1997 whitewash and nothing will come of it in the World Cup.

It's also worth remembering, if you're going to bring up the choking of sides like India, South Africa and New Zealand in World Cups, that England haven't done anything of note in a WC for some time either. They've chucked it away at key moments, like the Bevan and Bichel comeback in the last one, and are just as suspect mentally as those other teams, if that's relevant criteria given the changes in personell.

 

[Scaly piscine]

England played well, but it's four matches all in the space of two weeks, and doesn't mean they'll be competitive at the business end of the WC in two months or so, if they even make it that far. We've never seen performances like that from Plunkett or whoever, so you simply can't argue that there's any evidence of a general trend in key games. It may be that England have suddenly come across an effective ODI lineup at the last minute, or that it was simply a one off fluke like the 1997 whitewash and nothing will come of it in the World Cup.

It's also worth remembering, if you're going to bring up the choking of sides like India, South Africa and New Zealand in World Cups, that England haven't done anything of note in a WC for some time either. They've chucked it away at key moments, like the Bevan and Bichel comeback in the last one, and are just as suspect mentally as those other teams, if that's relevant criteria given the changes in personell.

We don't know whether anything will come of it for England in the World Cup, I've never said they're a certainty to win the World Cup. All I've said is they're a far better shot than half of the other top 8 sides, around equal with SA and WI and significantly behind Australia.

Comparing India and NZ's choking to England's is a complete and utter joke. NZ and India have choked over and over again. England have choked very occasionally and those occasions are far outnumbered by those times when they've not choked and finished the likes of Australia off.

 

[wpdavid]

The fact is that England have been decidedly average for a long time in ODIs against all opposition. They suddenly and unexpectedly turned that around in the last fortnight, based mainly on a series of brilliant performances from Collingwood, and some good contributions from Flintoff, Plunkett and Joyce, two of whom are totally unproven at ODI level. And, of course, the rain in the second final.

England played well, but it's four matches all in the space of two weeks, and doesn't mean they'll be competitive at the business end of the WC in two months or so, if they even make it that far. We've never seen performances like that from Plunkett or whoever, so you simply can't argue that there's any evidence of a general trend in key games. It may be that England have suddenly come across an effective ODI lineup at the last minute, or that it was simply a one off fluke like the 1997 whitewash and nothing will come of it in the World Cup.

It's also worth remembering, if you're going to bring up the choking of sides like India, South Africa and New Zealand in World Cups, that England haven't done anything of note in a WC for some time either. They've chucked it away at key moments, like the Bevan and Bichel comeback in the last one, and are just as suspect mentally as those other teams, if that's relevant criteria given the changes in personell.

One big difference between 1997 & this month is that Aus in the Texaco games were not so much undercooked as virtually raw, which was obviously not the case this time. Plus these games were in Aus not England, which counts for a fair bit too. To which you can add that in 1997 Aus had two all-time-great bowlers at the peak of their game who just needed to come to the boil, which, of course, happened soon enough when they had a few games under their belts.

Believe me, I'm as careful as anyone about getting my hopes up where England's oneday side is concerned. I know full well we've been abysmal for most of the last 12 years, and I've seen far too much dross to be making silly forecasts. And yet, I just wonder to what extent our oneday disasters in recent years have been at least partically down to a complete lack of confidence from players who had never learnt how to win in this form of the game. If nothing else has been gained in the last 2 weeks, we have a bunch of players who know that they have beaten the world's best in their own backyard 3 times on the trot, often from unpromising positions, and no English side has had that for eons. hand at crucial times, but sometimes that's what it takes to tunr a side around. Yes,I think we've been lucky in terms of how the side has come together, and no I don't think we're anywhere close to favourites for the WC, but I don't think we should underestimate the last 2 weeks either.