-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Teams that will do well at World Cup 2007
- Thread starter JASON
- Start date
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
That's only because England won last time. When they lose them again the sporting public will revert to not giving a toss about cricket at all.Scaly piscine said:
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Disagree. England always expects.16 tins of Spam said:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lets put it this way, as I have done before.marc71178 said:
New Zealand haven't got a hope unless someone knocks Australia out for them.
India bottle it in big games.
Pakistan are in complete disarray but we've seen that before, however they've now got their best bowler and another bowler facing a ban.
SA are a good side but still haven't removed the bottlers tag - we'll see if they come up against Australia in the CT whilst Australia have a really strong team, not that pathetic bowling they pillaged 400odd against.
SL are too weak away from home and are just in a down cycle at the moment, another few years they'll probably become a force again.
So that leaves: England who have the mental strength needed to beat Australia, but not the personnel fit at the moment and West Indies who've come on stronger and quicker than even I imagined. Australia who are the one to beat again - someone has to beat them if they want to win. WI just did it, England did it a year or so ago, the rest haven't beaten a really strong Australian side when it counts for something recently.
People who look at the rankings are wasting their time. Teams change since then, Australia are now much stronger than the past year, if England have their players back they'll be much stronger, WI rise to the big occasion but usually manage to lose otherwise - not a problem for the World Cup.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
well now that Pakistan wont have Shoaib n Asif they are no longer in my top 3. So for me its Australia, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka as my main 4. NZ if they get their top order organised could do well and full-strenght England team. Somehow i don't think the Indians will do much damage in the world cup.
thierry henry
International Coach
West Indies= so overrated right now
tooextracool
International Coach
actually i think if kaif and powar play regularly they can be quite a good side.Sanz said:
tooextracool
International Coach
and their first team includes 2 more rubbish players than the current side. Sounds like making of quite a decent side. Seriously when are people going to stop living off the summer of 2005? one ODI series does not change 3 years of garbage in ODI cricket since the last world cup.Scaly piscine said:
tooextracool
International Coach
Why?thierry henry said:
There arent too many stronger batting lineups than Gayle, Chanderpaul, Morton, Sarwan and Lara going around IMO.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I said if they had their players fit, but carry on being an idiot if you like as you have been every time you reply to anything I say.Jono said:
I said all along about WI even when they were hopeless... at worst they're going to be a defeated semi-finalist in the CT after beating Australia.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Why bring WI in on this? I never said anything about them. That was a good pick of yours though, and I'll give you credit for it...
But then that's completely countered by your belief that England are that good. Look alright, who is missing from their ODI team? I'll give you a Freddy that can bowl.
If you come back with Vaughan and Simon Jones I'll laugh.
But then that's completely countered by your belief that England are that good. Look alright, who is missing from their ODI team? I'll give you a Freddy that can bowl.
If you come back with Vaughan and Simon Jones I'll laugh.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
WI is an example of how I backed a rubbish team to come good and they are. (Nothing to do with being an England fan before anyone else says owt about me with backing a *fit* England)
Simon Jones would certainly be a big improvement over Mahmood, I don't care what Simon Jones' record is like, he competed alright with Australia when he was fit against them - the best ODI batting lineup he'll face. England seem to have had at least two players out over the last year in ODIs, Flintoff was obviously completely out of touch when he came back and didn't have his bowling as you said, it was like of having some mickey mouse County Championship batsman there in the CT. England also had Tresco missing, Giles missing.
Whilst some of them may not be huge performers it's not one huge performance that generally wins you games in ODI cricket, it's having guys who can do a decent job from 1 to 11, if you have 10 overs that consistently go for another 15-20 runs than other teams and batting that contributes 15-20 runs less then you're in big trouble because of the nature of ODI games. I've no idea what'll happen with the wicket-keeping for England so that's one weakness that might remain.
Simon Jones would certainly be a big improvement over Mahmood, I don't care what Simon Jones' record is like, he competed alright with Australia when he was fit against them - the best ODI batting lineup he'll face. England seem to have had at least two players out over the last year in ODIs, Flintoff was obviously completely out of touch when he came back and didn't have his bowling as you said, it was like of having some mickey mouse County Championship batsman there in the CT. England also had Tresco missing, Giles missing.
Whilst some of them may not be huge performers it's not one huge performance that generally wins you games in ODI cricket, it's having guys who can do a decent job from 1 to 11, if you have 10 overs that consistently go for another 15-20 runs than other teams and batting that contributes 15-20 runs less then you're in big trouble because of the nature of ODI games. I've no idea what'll happen with the wicket-keeping for England so that's one weakness that might remain.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
My issue is you're only giving reasons as to why England (with those players back in) should become a competitive ODI team. Almost everyone acknowledges that with the personnel they have, some smarter selection policies and a different attitude should result in England returning to the pack and becoming a competitive ODI team, whilst not being great. People know they should be competitive.
What you're saying however is that with Trescothick, Giles and a Simon Jones (who may not even be able to do half as what he could before) returning to the team by the WC, they're going to suddenly be in the top 3 favourites for the World Cup. Its ludicrous. There's still plenty of issues to solve, like Harmison being crud, players like Yardy and Dalrymple not being sure of their role, where to bat your two best players (KP and Freddy) etc. You don't just solve that by adding in a couple of players who aren't spectacular anyway and then suddenly 5 months later you're a top 3 team.
What you're saying however is that with Trescothick, Giles and a Simon Jones (who may not even be able to do half as what he could before) returning to the team by the WC, they're going to suddenly be in the top 3 favourites for the World Cup. Its ludicrous. There's still plenty of issues to solve, like Harmison being crud, players like Yardy and Dalrymple not being sure of their role, where to bat your two best players (KP and Freddy) etc. You don't just solve that by adding in a couple of players who aren't spectacular anyway and then suddenly 5 months later you're a top 3 team.
Last edited:
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Err I've just given a load of reasons why it's not ludicrous. Here are some more, look at the CT group stages - all teams on 1 win 2 losses or 2 wins 1 loss. WI get completely trounced against SL then WI wins their first two group games and SL are the first team out. Teams go from being rubbish to very good and vice versa in no time once a few individuals come through or get injured, or without even that happening. The anyone but Australia lot are all close together to start with.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Except every team won a meaningful match except England.
England beat a WI team without their best bowler, and if you reckon they brought their A game to that match well youi're kidding yourself.
I guess you can say that about every England ODI though
Look, you don't have to explain the 'pack' theory to me. Its obvious that other than Australia the other major int'l nations are packed together and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Generally however, England are at the bottom of the pack, and at the least, those inclusions and changes you mentioned will only bring them into the pack and competitive again. Won't make them a force in ODIs, that's for sure.
England beat a WI team without their best bowler, and if you reckon they brought their A game to that match well youi're kidding yourself.
I guess you can say that about every England ODI though
Look, you don't have to explain the 'pack' theory to me. Its obvious that other than Australia the other major int'l nations are packed together and anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Generally however, England are at the bottom of the pack, and at the least, those inclusions and changes you mentioned will only bring them into the pack and competitive again. Won't make them a force in ODIs, that's for sure.
