World Cup - Australia first.... daylight second

[Richard]

I gotta agree that Australia still look well ahead of the rest of the pack, but Pak will be the guys who will challenge them the most, I think. A lot will depend on Inzy's form and fitness as I am yet to be convinced that the team will be as united without him. I still don't think Shoaib and Afridi particularly respect Younis Khan as a captain.

Quite why Younis Khan is in the ODI side anyway is beyond me.

 

[Richard]

They didnt win the ICC Champions Trophy and the only real thing to happen since then is that they have lost the Ashes.

Anything can happen.. although yeah they are odds on favourites!

Of course The Ashes makes so much odds on ODIs...

 

[luckyeddie]

No ODI between England and Australia ever has significance for 1 team only.

As far as their tenure in that particular tournament was concerned, I meant.

It's quite obvious it meant huge amounts to the players and supporters as far as 'putting the Poms in their place' was concerned.

 

[Richard]

Who lost to Bangladesh though?......

Because of course that was a big game wasn't it...?
Losing to Somerset and Bangladesh doesn't, in the end, really matter that much, however embarrasing it is.
Because in the end they beat England 3-2, and even that could have been 4-1 but for the Pietersen factor at New Road.

 

[Richard]

As far as their tenure in that particular tournament was concerned, I meant.

It's quite obvious it meant huge amounts to the players and supporters as far as 'putting the Poms in their place' was concerned.

And it always does.
Which is why anyone suggesting the CT game wasn't important to Aus was out of their mind.
Australia always want to beat England, be it a Test or a ODI (though obviously not a Twenty20 game). England always want to beat Australia (and for them you can include the Twenty20).

 

[Richard]

It can happen - I remember a very good SA side being Lara'd in 1996. But you have to ask how many sides have the necessary talent to have a really good day and beat Aus when it counts. I can see why people say Pakistan could do it, although they could also fail horribly.

I remember SA being ****-uped out in 1992, 1999 and 2003.
Though I don't remember them being Lara'd in 1996!

 

[Richard]

Funny ODI side, England. On paper, their best XI looks a match for anyone. Then you look at how most of them have performed over the last couple of years.

Does "on paper" assume that Strauss, Collingwood, Vaughan, Harmison, Geraint Jones, Solanki et al are good players?
Because I'd say that "on paper" none are up to it.
The only England players that are worth places - "on paper" or in reality - in the current set-up are Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff.

 

[Richard]

Well if McGrath continues to slide & Gilchrist starts to lose his impact then thats alot of fire-power lost.

1) McGrath has slid nowhere in ODIs. His economy-rate this VBS was actually better than his career rate.
2) Why on Earth would Gilchrist lose his impact?

 

[Richard]

South Africa & Sri Lanka aren't exactly making them work very hard though.

South Africa are of course expected to make them work hard with an entire front-line bowling attack out...
Of course Australia would challenge so many people with an attack of Lewis, Dorey, Mitchell Johnson, White, Hopes...

 

[Butterteeth]

Butterteeth Official Preview WC2007

Now 2007 is a way off so predictions a this stage are a tad, well, silly really. Who knows what young cricketer is waiting to emerge to explode on the ODI scene and thrill us with exploits previously unseen. Who knows what team will rise to the occasion, throw off a gange induced haze and stride to glory?! But here is my 'Its a Bloody Long Way Off Preview - Part 1 - Australia'.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...entitled to be favourites but I don't think its exactly daylight second. I can see a bus driven by a rather large, slow moving gentleman with a bad back full of mad, wacky, zany and ridiculously talented cricketers who might do anything on any given day approaching in the distance (Pakistan I mean...if that longwinded description wasn't obvious). Australia's backup attack still leaves me a little uninspired - Bracken Ok if it swings, Clark solid but not spectacular, Dorey just not quick enough. Alot will depend on Brett Lee - but the wickets tend to be flattish in the Caribbean. I'm thinking Dizzy Gillespie is a certainty if McGrath isn't there. Batting wise things are rosier. Jacques, Clarke, Hussey and of course Ponting, Symonds and Gilly. They'll score runs easily enough.....but will they stop the runs at the other end of the game?????????

 

[Butterteeth]

'Its a Bloody Long Way Off Preview - Part 2 - South Africa'.

'Its a Bloody Long Way Off Preview - Part 2 - South Africa'.

Now the South Africans..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Butterteeth]

'Its a Bloody Long Way Off Preview - Part 3 - New Zealand.

'Its a Bloody Long Way Off Preview - Part 3 - New Zealand.

I like the Kiwis. No really I do. I think they are a big bloody dark horse for this coming World Cup. Don't worry about Cairns not being there - I actually don't think he has had too much impact on their results in recent times (I'm sure someone will correct me with stats there). Nathan Astle experienced and STILL dangerous no matter what Bracwell thinks, Stephen Fleming one of the smartest captains around, Shane Bond apparently fit and how good is Brendan MacCullum???? Throw in Lou Vincent, Daniel Vettori, Jacob Oram...if everyone is fit, they look the goods. Peter Fulton also looks the part.

Yes indeedy, the Kiwis will challenge I reckon! Depth will be their problem. They can't afford too many injuries to key men - which is why guys like Jesse Ryder and Ross Taylor should be thought about very soon to blood them at the top level.

Off to bed now. Its far too late. And I've just realised that I've got 13 more teams to preview.....bugger.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Does "on paper" assume that Strauss, Collingwood, Vaughan, Harmison, Geraint Jones, Solanki et al are good players?
Because I'd say that "on paper" none are up to it.
The only England players that are worth places - "on paper" or in reality - in the current set-up are Trescothick, Pietersen and Flintoff.

Collingwood is certainly a "good" ODI player. He's not world class or anything, but he's an excellent fielder and a solid middle order batsman, and would make plenty of teams. Harmison has improved a fair amount in ODIs as well, and was quite a handful for Australia in the NWS, particularly as the pitches, oddly, were a lot more bowler friendly in the ODIs than in the tests.

I think it's true however that the reason England struggle in ODIs is that they carry a lot of mediocre players to go with some genuinely excellent ODI players. Flintoff, Pietersen and Trescothick are superb players in ODIs, while Harmison, Giles and Collingwood hold their own pretty well. The rest of the team has had some major holes in it for a fair while, especially when you consider that Pietersen is a relatively recent find.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood is certainly a "good" ODI player. He's not world class or anything, but he's an excellent fielder and a solid middle order batsman, and would make plenty of teams. Harmison has improved a fair amount in ODIs as well, and was quite a handful for Australia in the NWS, particularly as the pitches, oddly, were a lot more bowler friendly in the ODIs than in the tests.

How on Earth is Collingwood even a good player? Out of 63 visits to the crease (all right probably 6 or 7 of them were where he came in with 3 or 4 overs left and had no opportunity to do so), he's played match-influencing innings which haven't owed to inept catching on 3 occasions - this one, this one and this one.
Collingwood is an extremely ordinary player and had Bangladesh not been in the schedule I'm willing to bet a good deal that he'd not be in the side now.

I think it's true however that the reason England struggle in ODIs is that they carry a lot of mediocre players to go with some genuinely excellent ODI players. Flintoff, Pietersen and Trescothick are superb players in ODIs, while Harmison, Giles and Collingwood hold their own pretty well. The rest of the team has had some major holes in it for a fair while, especially when you consider that Pietersen is a relatively recent find.

Seriously - how many games have Harmison or Giles really influenced either?
Giles it's about 1 - this one. Harmison you could probably say 2 this one and this one.

 

[superkingdave]

Because of course that was a big game wasn't it...?
Losing to Somerset and Bangladesh doesn't, in the end, really matter that much, however embarrasing it is.
Because in the end they beat England 3-2, and even that could have been 4-1 but for the Pietersen factor at New Road.

you mean Bristol?

 

[superkingdave]

How on Earth is Collingwood even a good player? Out of 63 visits to the crease (all right probably 6 or 7 of them were where he came in with 3 or 4 overs left and had no opportunity to do so), he's played match-influencing innings which haven't owed to inept catching on 3 occasions - this one, this one and this one.
Collingwood is an extremely ordinary player and had Bangladesh not been in the schedule I'm willing to bet a good deal that he'd not be in the side now.

Seriously - how many games have Harmison or Giles really influenced either?
Giles it's about 1 - this one. Harmison you could probably say 2 this one and this one.

what about http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWS/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWS_ODI3_19JUN2005.html

 

[marc71178]

what about http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWS/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWS_ODI3_19JUN2005.html

Not worth trying Dave - he's right no matter how many people show him otherwise.

 

[Autobahn]

How on Earth is Collingwood even a good player? Out of 63 visits to the crease (all right probably 6 or 7 of them were where he came in with 3 or 4 overs left and had no opportunity to do so), he's played match-influencing innings which haven't owed to inept catching on 3 occasions - this one, this one and this one.
Collingwood is an extremely ordinary player and had Bangladesh not been in the schedule I'm willing to bet a good deal that he'd not be in the side now.

Seriously - how many games have Harmison or Giles really influenced either?
Giles it's about 1 - this one. Harmison you could probably say 2 this one and this one.

How about this one for collingwood?

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/OD_TOURNEYS/VBS/SCORECARDS/ENG_SL_VBS_ODI4_20DEC2002.html

Maybe eng didn't win but collingwood sure tried

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2...S/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_VBS_ODI11_19JAN2003.html

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2...RECARDS/AUS_ENG_VBS_ODI-FINAL1_23JAN2003.html

Or with the ball:

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWC/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWC_ODI1_07JUL2005.html

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/ENG_IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/ENG_NZ_ODI3_20FEB2002.html

He's not a botham-style all-rounder but that's not to say he doesn't have a place.

 

[Richard]

you mean Bristol?

Wrote New when I meant Nevill.

 

[Richard]

what about http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWS/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWS_ODI3_19JUN2005.html

Not worth trying Dave - he's right no matter how many people show him otherwise.

England were completely out of that game until Pietersen turned a near-impossible situation on it's head.
But for Pietersen Harmison's figures would have been pretty meaningless.