Group A - Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand

[theegyptian]

In England's favour is

They are at home (like the 2013 CT)
They take this tournament more seriously than nearly every other country imo, because inevitably (like 2013) they come off a terrible World Cup. Australia didn't take the 2013 tournament very seriously at all iirc.



These are two pretty big factors in England's favour.

They are a pretty good team. Not outstanding but could easily win the tournament.

I don't quite know India's injury situation but I'd have Eng, Aus and Ind as my favourites. ICC take control of the wickets iirc and like last time they'll probably get really dry and turn a decent amount as the tournament goes on. That's in India's favour, not so much Eng/Aus. SA on paper look strong but they always do.

 

[marc71178]

I'm unsure as to who all the hysterical media is that's been hyping England up. Surely S.K doesn't have a third shoulder to have a chip on?

 

[S.Kennedy]

All of the punditry (e.g. the Sky ex-player clique) I've read and heard have been saying things like, ''England are favourites''; England's batting has been hyped-up to hyperbolic proportions. Bowling weaknesses have been conveniently ignored. But heck, I might be wrong; England might beat every team by huge margins and go on and win the thing. I just do not see how anyone can rank England's chances significantly above three or four of the other sides.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Knockout cricket is unpredictable and you don't have to be the undisputed best side to win but at the same time, if you are up against a markedly better side who are better under pressure, the chances of knocking them out are reduced.

And this has also been the case with South Africa in tournaments. Other than 1999 and to an extent 2011, they weren't really the best side. They were somewhere in the middle, people thought they were the best and they just got knocked out by better sides in 2007 and 2015.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I really rate England's batting but they've got the second worst bowling attack in the tournament - only Sri Lanka would be worse, but with Malinga in there SL might actually be better.

I admit that NZ's batting has too much reliance on Guptill, Williamson and Taylor and hope one of the allrounders comes off, but our bowling is head and shoulders above England's. Matt Henry and Ish Sodhi would definitely start for England and can't even make the NZ squad.

Re favouritism I’d go:

Saffas should be favourites, even if they carry the chokers tag.

Aussies and India next favourites.

Then NZ and England. (If Tom Latham can score runs and keep wickets I'll put us on the same level as Aus and India)

Finally the other 3.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Not sure if Malinga can be counted as a force anymore.

 

[vcs]

I alctually like this England ODI side for a change, so them winning it wouldn't mildly annoy me, as it would have previously.

 

[Spark]

Knockout cricket is unpredictable and you don't have to be the undisputed best side to win but at the same time, if you are up against a markedly better side who are better under pressure, the chances of knocking them out are reduced.

And this has also been the case with South Africa in tournaments. Other than 1999 and to an extent 2011, they weren't really the best side. They were somewhere in the middle, people thought they were the best and they just got knocked out by better sides in 2007 and 2015.

People seriously overrated SA in 2015 for reasons I don't understand. They really, really, really were invested in them being amazing even after the whole thing was over despite the fact that they lost to basically every good team they played.

 

[StephenZA]

I
Re favouritism I’d go:

Saffas should be favourites, even if they carry the chokers tag.

No don`t even say it, we are not favourites!.... every time, EVERY goddam TIME!!!!!

 

[OverratedSanity]

People seriously overrated SA in 2015 for reasons I don't understand. They really, really, really were invested in them being amazing even after the whole thing was over despite the fact that they lost to basically every good team they played.

Weren't a great side in 2011 either. They had Johan Botha coming in at 6/7. You don't win odi tournaments in the SC with 5 batsmen.

 

[Spark]

Weren't a great side in 2011 either. They had Johan Botha coming in at 6/7. You don't win odi tournaments in the SC with 5 batsmen.

Right. People like to go "lol chokers!!1!" but there's no real evidence that SA played to anything other than their level. Racking up 400 against the likes of Ireland and that WI side tells you nothing, especially when everyone else is doing it too.

 

[straw man]

Lol

Luke Ronchi set to open for Black Caps again as they seek power hitting option at the top

 

[Black_Warrior]

Right. People like to go "lol chokers!!1!" but there's no real evidence that SA played to anything other than their level. Racking up 400 against the likes of Ireland and that WI side tells you nothing, especially when everyone else is doing it too.

I have made this argument pretty much every ****ing time and yet all you hear about South Africa's World Cup troubles is - choke.

96 - not the best side
99 - best side yes
03 - not the best side and deservedly didn't qualify
07 - a mediocre side up against the greatest ODI team, gets smashed
11 - decent side and did top their table winning every game and beating India and you would expect them to beat New Zealand in QF
15 - mediocre side at best, with huge problems chasing. Got spanked 1-4 in Australia just a few months earlier. Lost to India and Pakistan chasing.

Please explain to me other than 99 and maybe just maybe 11, how this side getting knocked out is any different to every other mediocre side that gets knocked out in World Cups.

This is why England is reminding me a lot of South Africa from 2014-15. They have big hitters, they smash 350+ scores regularly. South Africa smashed 400 twice or thrice in the World Cup and even before that in their bilateral series against West Indies.

But when they were put up against better sides, they lost to every one of them.

 

[Spark]

Yeah IIRC they had serious problems even chasing fairly unimpressive targets like 270 at the time, which was pretty fatal given where the trajectory of ODI first innings scores was headed.

 

[Black_Warrior]

They failed to chase 230 against Pakistan

 

[Black_Warrior]

That being said, their chasing has improved since then and they beat England last year chasing in 3 games and if I'm not mistaken, also chased quite successfully against Australia and New Zealand last year. And they actually look a much better ODI side now than they did in 2015.

 

[Daemon]

Semi against NZ was a choke though. They were nervous as hell. Missed run outs catches misfields in the pressure moments.

Agree with most of the rest, but lets not pretend there's absolutely no reason for them to be labelled as such.

 

[Howe_zat]

In 2011 SA lost against England in the group stages ftr. They had a rubbish lower-middle with Morne van Wyk and Robin Petersen expected to finish games with the bat.

If late-game collapses happen to SA more often it's because since Klusner retired they haven't had a consistent player in the 6/7/8 slots. Very top-heavy batting order in ODIs

 

[Howe_zat]

Semi against NZ was a choke though. They were nervous as hell. Missed run outs catches misfields in the pressure moments.

Agree with most of the rest, but lets not pretend there's absolutely no reason for them to be labelled as such.

It happens to everyone from time time, it's just that with SA people are prepared to force the round peg in the square hole and say it happens every time.

I remember a world cup game, I think against India, where SA were chasing 300, doing okay at about 180/3, then they lost a wicket and the comments were almost entirely 'CHOKE?!?!?!'

like, sometimes it's just cricket

 

[Daemon]

It happens to everyone from time time, it's just that with SA people are prepared to force the round peg in the square hole and say it happens every time.

I remember a world cup game, I think against India, where SA were chasing 300, doing okay at about 180/3, then they lost a wicket and the comments were almost entirely 'CHOKE?!?!?!'

like, sometimes it's just cricket

Yes I agree. SA's few chokes have tended to be more costly though.