Super Eight

[Matt79]

Fifth bowler all done - in the end we got away with it, I'd say.

10-67-0

And Australia only used five batsmen...

Yeah, I totally agree with you. If I could be bothered, I could give a link to where I'd said for several days leading up to the match that we should take Johnson rather than Hodge. What I meant by that comment was that 10 overs at 6.7 an over was not disasterous from a couple of part-timers, especially given Clarke went for 13 in one over and Symonds went at 10 an over in his first spell. From that point, Symonds pulled it back well - admittedly after the momentum had shifted.

IMO, Pietersen lost a big chance to add to England's total by not attacking Clarke earlier. How he could get away with only five runs off his first two overs, mainly bowled at KP, during a powerplay is beyond me. Given that they were pasting McGrath at the time, it really would have put more pressure on the Aussies to go after Clarke straightaway. The selection of Hodge was an error IMO, and England needed to make us pay for it more than they did.

 

[FBU]

Finished with another Mahmood delivery being smacked for four...very appropriate.


Like I said earlier Broad and Plunkett must come in for Panesar and Mahmood. Can't really do much with the batting unfortunately other than shuffle things around a bit.

I agree there.

 

[Jono]

Another polished performance from the Aussies. It seems as if the only way Ponting's going to get out this WC is run-out.

 

[Johnners]

haha, but that was RTD afterall

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, its an unrealistic standard to expect the other teams to live up to.

 

[Craig]

haha, but that was RTD afterall

Yeah what can't he do? (ok I know play for his country of birth )

Never got to see the end, but I figured this would happen whilst England kept it tight and Ponting was still at the crease.

 

[Anil]

is there any further point analysing other teams' chances? the aussies look like they are gonna walk away with the cup yet again ....does anyone see a glimmer of hope for any other team, objectively speaking that is?

 

[Prince EWS]

is there any further point analysing other teams' chances? the aussies look like they are gonna walk away with the cup yet again ....does anyone see a glimmer of hope for any other team, objectively speaking that is?

Yep. Australia are far from guarenteed the win. I'm still tipping them, but once you get to the semi-finals, anything is possible - you only need two good days to win it (or one bad one to lose it..) after that.

 

[Matt79]

^^ Not really!

I'd say Sri Lanka and NZ pose realistic threats to Australia, especially if Watson doesn't recover and they risk playing Hodge rather than a proper fifth bowling option again.

 

[JASON]

This is the table atm:

Australia 3-0 --- 6pts
Sri Lanka 3-1 --- 6pts
New Zealand 3-0 --- 6pts
South Africa 2-2 --- 4pts
England 1-2 --- 2pts
West Indies 1-3 --- 2pts
Bangladesh 1-3 --- 2pts
Ireland 0-3 --- 0pts

These are the fixtures, with my predictions to the side:

Australia vs England - Australia win
Ireland vs New Zealand - New Zealand win
West Indies vs South Africa - South Africa win
England vs Bangladesh - Bangladesh win
Sri Lanka vs New Zealand - Sri Lanka win
Australia vs Ireland - Australia win
South Africa vs New Zealand - New Zealand win
Bangladesh vs Ireland - Bangladesh win
Australia vs Sri Lanka - Australia win
South Africa vs England - South Africa win
Ireland vs Sri Lanka - Sri Lanka win
West Indies vs Bangladesh - Bangladesh win
Australia vs New Zealand - Australia win
West Indies vs England - England win

Which would leave the table:

Australia 7-0 --- 14pts
New Zealand 5-2 --- 10pts
Sri Lanka 5-2 --- 10pts
South Africa 4-3 --- 8pts
Bangladesh 4-3 --- 8pts
England 2-5 --- 4pts
West Indies 1-6 --- 2pts
Ireland 0-7 --- 0pts

And the semis as:

Australia vs South Africa/Bangladesh
New Zealand vs Sri Lanka

So, let's see how wrong I am (hopefully starting with a bad prediction on Match 1)...

I expect the Table to look like this

Australia 14 points
South Africa 10 points
Winner of NZ v SL - 10 points.
Loser of NZ v SL 8 points

Australia v Loser of NZ v SL
SA v Winner of NZ v SL

 

[LA ICE-E]

I expect the Table to look like this

Australia 14 points
South Africa 10 points
Winner of NZ v SL - 10 points.
Loser of NZ v SL 8 points

Australia v Loser of NZ v SL
SA v Winner of NZ v SL

you expect SA to win all the rest of their matches?

 

[LA ICE-E]

Yep. Australia are far from guarenteed the win. I'm still tipping them, but once you get to the semi-finals, anything is possible - you only need two good days (or one bad one..) to win it after that.

It's either someone beats them in the final or its australia winning the cup.

 

[JASON]

Sri Lanka aren't really much more secure than South Africa. South Africa lost to Bangladesh, yes, but they also beat Sri Lanka - so if everything goes "to plan" then those two teams will end up on the same points.

I would add NZ to that equation too , as theoretically (although very hard to see it happening) if NZ lost their next 3 key games by any more than narrow margins ( to SL/SA/ Australia) - they would not be secure either .

SO in reality no one is secure despite predictions ATM based on form suggesting Aus and NZ are secure and SA and SL getting close to being secure.

SL's batting has failed to deliver against quality bowling attacks in Super 8 - namely SA and England. So they are highly likely to struggle to get a score over 250 plus against NZ and definitely Australia. And these 2 teams will thrash those scores reasonably comfortably . ( Australia would do it in 40 overs if Hayden and Gilchrist got cracking . So they could potentially suffer a real NRR beating there. And NZ game while I expect it to be close) could be determined by Toss (+ weather , Duckworth Lewis and various permutations on the day) .

Form guide would suggest NZ are secure along with Australia , and SA and SL have all to play for and cannot take anything for granted . England , West Indies and Bangladesh have really got to lift their games and then lady luck might open a door or two ...

 

[JASON]

you expect SA to win all the rest of their matches?

I would expect them to ...but please don't give me a Greigy for this.

 

[LA ICE-E]

what's that?

 

[LA ICE-E]

Sri Lanka aren't really much more secure than South Africa. South Africa lost to Bangladesh, yes, but they also beat Sri Lanka - so if everything goes "to plan" then those two teams will end up on the same points.

yeah but sri lanka has 4 points while SA has 2

 

[Prince EWS]

yeah but sri lanka has 4 points while SA has 2

Sri Lanka have played England though - SA haven't.

 

[Salamuddin]

Vaughan's ****ing useless. Send him back to France.

Oi....I resent that.... France actually have a good cricket team, unlike England

 

[Anil]

^^ Not really!

I'd say Sri Lanka and NZ pose realistic threats to Australia, especially if Watson doesn't recover and they risk playing Hodge rather than a proper fifth bowling option again.

well i hope so, but the way they've been trampling over opponents, it's 2003 all over again(so far...)....

 

[chipmonk]

Mirror, mirror on the wall by Neil Manthorp

Posted on 8 April 2007

Captain and coach both spoke of 'analysing' the wretched defeat to Bangladesh on Saturday and seeking answers to the team's appallingly lacklustre performance against a side they were expected to beat comfortably. And should have beaten comfortably.
Mickey Arthur and Graeme Smith have instituted a system of 'de-briefings' after matches in which players and back-up staff are encouraged to honestly assess their own performances, and those of team mates, in an attempt to improve for the future.

Given that they will, effectively, have just 24 hours to do so before the next match against the West Indies in Grenada on Tuesday, a lot will need to be resolved. Many questions could be asked. Whether they should be, is a different matter.

'Honesty sessions' can be extremely productive, albeit painful for sportsmen. During pre-season training camps, or long breaks between fixtures, addressing sensitive issues between squad members and management can be highly productive. Who is angry with whom, and why? Who doesn't trust a colleague, who believes they are being unfairly treated, and to who's benefit?

An easy, and practical way out for Arthur may be to allow the squad to banish the angst of 13-days in Guyana and the resultant bickering and sniping in their own way. There must be a chance that players as talented as South Africa's will be able to bounce back to winning ways even if they played as 11 self-motivated individuals. A real 'team', of course, is far more productive than the sum of it's individual parts, but at the moment - on the evidence of the Bangladesh game - even the parts aren't performing to potential. Any of them.

So, if Arthur, Smith, the rest of the senior players and management decide to try and glue the pieces back together the hard way, these may be some of the very difficult issues they could address (in no particular order.)

* If the golden boys of the national team (Graeme Smith, Jacques Kallis, Shaun Pollock, Mark Boucher, Herschelle Gibbs and Makhaya Ntini) are untouchable when the team is playing well and winning, why is Andrew Hall still dispensable even when he is in the best form of his life?

* Why was it seen as important for Hall to be given a 'rest' because when South Africa faced four matches in 10 days, a schedule normally regarded as a near-holiday on a normal tour? Was the real issue, in fact, a desire to include Andre Nel at whatever cost - to appease his obvious disgruntlement at not playing?

* Is Shaun Pollock happy? Has he been able to cope with the murder of Bob Woolmer, one of the most powerful influences on his life and career? With a young family at home and the simmering reality that Woolmer was killed in an official, ICC sanctioned hotel, and the fact that the ICC have basically said nothing more than 'get on with the tournament' - has his equilibrium been affected?

* Is Kallis happy? Subjected to vitriolic and stupid criticism at home following the defeat to Australia, Kallis was offered only luke-warm support by his team mates. At a team meeting recently, apparently, it was suggested that Kallis be dropped down the batting order in the event that South Africa once again make a flying start to their innings as they did against Australia. Not much of a display of unity for the man who has won 27 man-of-the-match awards for his country.

* Has AB de Villiers been prematurely promoted to 'Golden Boy' status? Is the team's unquestioned faith in his undoubted talent justified?

* What's going on with Justin Kemp? Are the rest of the squad happy with him playing as a 'luxury' batsman at number seven and bowling a grand total of seven overs?

* Are all the players genuinely happy that they tried to make the best of a difficult situation in Guyana? Some, certainly, attempted to be positive in awkward circumstances but there were others who were more content to whinge and moan rather than accept the reality and get on with it.

There is no point in retrogressive criticism, particularly if it is negative.

But South Africa have now moved from second favourites to outsiders for the semifinals. Tuesday's game against the West Indies will be a do-or-die affair for the hosts, and if they survive and win, South Africa will need to beat in-form New Zealand and England in their last two games to squeek into fourth place. Provided their run-rate is better than the West Indies, who face Bangladesh in their last game.

It was a massive loss to Bangladesh.

So do South Africa's players face the reality of the next 10 days as a genuine team, or do they hope their individual skills will be good enough to get to the semifinals, and then take it from there? Are they interested in winning, or will the prize money for a semifinal appearance satisfy them?

The team always beats the individual. And I'm quite sure Mickey Arthur will help the sceptical individuals in his team understand that.