Final.

[SJS]

Australia v New Zealand

I entirely agree.

 

[SJS]

P.S: SJS, it seriously about time that you cut the crap.

As I have been told often by those more familiar with the term...
....CHILL mate

 

[Sanz]

what do you mean, australia have not been tested? I just mean just that....The closet this Aus team came to facing some pressure was - RSA 210/1 in 30 overs in R1, and then again SL 167/3 in S8...on both occasions, Aus took quick wickets to regain the dominance and was not really tested.

Australia have not been tested and the credit for that goes to ?? Well Australia, they have played so well that no opposited even stood any chance to test them. Opposition played as well as they could on most occasions (obviously SF was not one of them) and still could do nothing, they didn't even come close to challenging Australia in any part of the game. So no, the notion that Australia have not been tested is just WRONG. They have bullied every opposition like a minnow in this tournament, something we have never seen in any tournament.

Cricket also dissappared so fast from the Aus media after the '96 finals that it was amusing - almost like the cup finals never took place. Fortunately, the footy season got into swing to take the minds off the cricket. Even to this day, almost all the Aus cricketers involved in that '96 final have an unbelievable level of bitterness in this loss to the Lankans as they were def. a minnow at the time (gleaned from the numerous autobiographies of those involved, also both Mcgrath and Warne recently named this loss as one of their worst).

That entire para is a figment of your imagination and nothing else, because Australia have won two world cups since and have beaten SriLanka in the Semis of the Last one. In any case I dont know what has that got to do in this world cup ? I think Mcgrath is the only Aussie player in this tournament who is still playing ODIs and if he Mcgrath remembers anything from that match then it will only motivate him and that doesn't sound like good news for SriLankan batsmen.

 

[pup11]

IMO, SL would struggle on the Barbados track if it offers bounce and carry, Sri Lankan batting is far from convincing against a good pace attack and their batting efforts against SA, Eng (who mind you aren't the best fast-bowling attack in the world) and Aus (and that too on a dry and abrasive Grenada track) in this WC, have highlighted that fact.

 

[JASON]

I actually don't think the two best teams made the final, TBH. The two best-performing teams of this World Cup made the final for sure, but I still maintain that South Africa are a better side than Sri Lanka.

And no JASON, that does not mean I'm South African!

You must be one of the very few guys ( in a minority on this forum) who think the chokers are still the second best Team... They lost to Australia very comfortably twice , and to NZ very comfortably and to Bangladesh very comfortably. They nearly lost to SL and would've certainly if SL had played them later on in the Super 8 than first up.

Their over rated number 1 ranking is just that...When it matters they just cannot come up with the goods ... How TF are they then the second best Team... BS ..to be honest.

If SL play Australia 10 times , IMO SL has a chance of beating them at least 3 out of 10 times. If NZ played Australia they would beat Australia 3 or 4 out of 10 times .

But I can assure you if the chokers played Australia (the way they are right now) they would lose all 10 times ... their ranking is over inflated.. thats all.

 

[JASON]

IMO, SL would struggle on the Barbados track if it offers bounce and carry, Sri Lankan batting is far from convincing against a good pace attack and their batting efforts against SA, Eng (who mind you aren't the best fast-bowling attack in the world) and Aus (and that too on a dry and abrasive Grenada track) in this WC, have highlighted that fact.

Which is why even at this late stage I would pick Atapattu over Arnold for the Final...but I know it won't happen....

 

[Prince EWS]

They lost to Australia very comfortably twice , and to NZ very comfortably and to Bangladesh very comfortably.

Yeah, they had a very poor World Cup. I already said that - no way do they deserve to be in the final. But as far as their actual team goes and how I would expect them to fare after the World Cup and beyond, I'm still convinced they have the second best team.

If SL play Australia 10 times , IMO SL has a chance of beating them at least 3 out of 10 times. If NZ played Australia they would beat Australia 3 or 4 out of 10 times .

But I can assure you if the chokers played Australia (the way they are right now) they would lose all 10 times ... their ranking is over inflated.. thats all.
But I can assure you if the chokers played Australia (the way they are right now) they would lose all 10 times ... their ranking is over inflated.. thats all.

I disagree completely. In fact, South Africa have defeated Australia 4 times in their last 10 meetings. Sri Lanka has only one 1 of its last 7 matches against Australia and probably only 1 or 2 of its last 10 (I couldn't be bothered to dig past the VB Series, lol). And although I don't believe matches against Australia are the be all and end all of cricket, it was your point so I thought I'd let it ride. One poor World Cup in conditions that are as unfavourable to them as one could possibly imagine doesn't change the fact that South Africa have a really good one day side - one which is far and away the second best going around.

 

[Athlai]

IMO Australia 1st

New Zealand
Sri Lanka
South Africa
Pakistan
India

Second on any given day.

Its Sri Lankas day.

 

[Anil]

what do you mean, australia have not been tested? I just mean just that....The closet this Aus team came to facing some pressure was - RSA 210/1 in 30 overs in R1, and then again SL 167/3 in S8...on both occasions, Aus took quick wickets to regain the dominance and was not really tested.

"sri lanka was far from a minnow in '96"...not what I recollect in the Aus press at that time...particular in the Thurs to Sat period of saturated publicity for the Aus cricket team after the heart stopping semi against the Windies.

Cricket also dissappared so fast from the Aus media after the '96 finals that it was amusing - almost like the cup finals never took place. Fortunately, the footy season got into swing to take the minds off the cricket. Even to this day, almost all the Aus cricketers involved in that '96 final have an unbelievable level of bitterness in this loss to the Lankans as they were def. a minnow at the time (gleaned from the numerous autobiographies of those involved, also both Mcgrath and Warne recently named this loss as one of their worst).

Re live the experience. Refer to the ABC news clip at that time - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LSqE9rr2uY

1. ok once again...the reason why they haven't had a close game is because they have been playing at a level much higher than their opponents...the way you put it, it seems you are suggesting they've just had it easy till now....the truth is the opposite of that, to dominate that much, you have to play exceptionally well in all departments of the game and that's exactly what they have done....in most games, they have asserted themselves from the start most of the times, the few times their opponents broke through and managed to push them, they pushed back emphatically...

2. the lankan had one of the best batting lineups in the history of one day cricket going into the tournament, no matter what the biased aussie press/players called it, they were no minnow, they were a classy side and fully deserved their victory....

 

[JASON]

I disagree completely. In fact, South Africa have defeated Australia 4 times in their last 10 meetings. Sri Lanka has only one 1 of its last 7 matches against Australia and probably only 1 or 2 of its last 10 (I couldn't be bothered to dig past the VB Series, lol). And although I don't believe matches against Australia are the be all and end all of cricket, it was your point so I thought I'd let it ride. One poor World Cup in conditions that are as unfavourable to them as one could possibly imagine doesn't change the fact that South Africa have a really good one day side - one which is far and away the second best going around.

I can't be bothered to dig up the stats...but form is current form ...its not based on 1 game ok.

This World Cup SA has played 10 games. So we are going by performances over 2 months and over 10games....

They are poor full stop.

And they certainly don't get anywhere near the second best ... if anything I think if Pakistan and India had a chance to play them even they would have easily beaten them too in this World Cup.(In fact Pakistan did beat them in the Warm up before we heard some whinging from Smith about the suitability or otherwise of the pitch... its been the same ...whenever they lost even at CHampions Trophy they winged about the pitch not about their weakness or lack of performance...)

This is not 1 game we are talking about ..its the form through a World cup of 10 games against several countries.. They are near 4th - 5th ranking currently .

Nowhere near the second spot. If they improve over the next 12 months may be they could come back to number 2 but I doubt it....they are not going to ...

They were struggling to perform to their over rated inflated ranking as this World Cup over 2 months and against several countries over 10 games has clearly shown.

 

[JASON]

IMO Australia 1st

New Zealand
Sri Lanka
South Africa
Pakistan
India

Second on any given day.

Its Sri Lankas day.

I don't know how you can keep putting NZ at number 2 when you have been beaten repeatedly whenever you have played us on Neutral territory .(once in India and Twice in West Indies).

Even in NZ you managed to only draw .

So get real, you are Number 3 .


Australia


Sri Lanka

New Zealand
India/Pakistan/South Africa/England

 

[Prince EWS]

I can't be bothered to dig up the stats...but form is current form ...its not based on 1 game ok.

This World Cup SA has played 10 games. So we are going by performances over 2 months and over 10games....

They are poor full stop.

And they certainly don't get anywhere near the second best ... if anything I think if Pakistan and India had a chance to play them even they would have easily beaten them too in this World Cup.(In fact Pakistan did beat them in the Warm up before we heard some whinging from Smith about the suitability or otherwise of the pitch... its been the same ...whenever they lost even at CHampions Trophy they winged about the pitch not about their weakness or lack of performance...)

This is not 1 game we are talking about ..its the form through a World cup of 10 games against several countries.. They are near 4th - 5th ranking currently .

Nowhere near the second spot. If they improve over the next 12 months may be they could come back to number 2 but I doubt it....they are not going to ...

They were struggling to perform to their over rated inflated ranking as this World Cup over 2 months and against several countries over 10 games has clearly shown.

A whole post about their World Cup performances which I already agreed were poor. Well done.

In other news, 1+1 = 2.

 

[JASON]

I repeat SA on current form after 2 months of cricket playing against 8 countries ...are struggling to get ranked at number 4 even ... thats the Truth ..their over inflated ranking has finally been shown out to be just that.

 

[Fiery]

I don't know how you can keep putting NZ at number 2 when you have been beaten repeatedly whenever you have played us on Neutral territory .(once in India and Twice in West Indies).

Even in NZ you managed to only draw .

So get real, you are Number 3 .


Australia


Sri Lanka

New Zealand
India/Pakistan/South Africa/England

There will come a time when your chucker cheat retires and that may change things a lot

 

[Prince EWS]

I repeat SA on current form after 2 months of cricket playing against 8 countries ...are struggling to get ranked at number 4 even ... thats the Truth ..their over inflated ranking has finally been shown out to be just that.

What does current form have to do with how good a side is? Current form demonstrates... well, form, to state the bleeding obvious. Form is instrumental in winning matches but it has no bearing on how good a team is overall. To decide which side is actually "better", you have to look past current form and judge what they are likely to do consistently over a longer period.

 

[pasag]

Haha Jason. South Africa were heavily overrated as number one but anyone that has watched them over the past year would be able to attest to them being easily the number two side in the world. A semi-final loss to the best side doesn't change that.

Aus
SA
SL=NZ
The rest. IMO.

 

[JASON]

There will come a time when your chucker cheat retires and that may change things a lot

You lost ....deal with it . Go and see a counsellor to talk things over ... it will be therapeutic... (by the way try and take Martin Crowe with you )

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha Jason. South Africa were heavily overrated as number one but anyone that has watched them over the past year would be able to attest to them being easily the number two side in the world. A semi-final loss to the best side doesn't change that.

Aus
SA
SL=NZ
The rest. IMO.

Spot on.

 

[Burgey]

I don't know how you can keep putting NZ at number 2 when you have been beaten repeatedly whenever you have played us on Neutral territory .(once in India and Twice in West Indies).

Even in NZ you managed to only draw .

So get real, you are Number 3 .


Australia


Sri Lanka

New Zealand
India/Pakistan/South Africa/England

Don't you mean (on current form):

Australia

Daylight
Daylight

SL
Daylight

NZ
SA
etc., etc.

 

[Fiery]

You lost ....deal with it . Go and see a counsellor to talk things over ... it will be therapeutic... (by the way try and take Martin Crowe with you )

I don't think Martin Crowe needs a counseller, he's married to an ex-Miss Universe