World Cup Favourites

[Richard]

Gone are the days of SL fielding a new ball bowler as crap as Wickremasinghe(no wickets in '96).

TBF, the Lankans have fielded plenty of far worse seamers than Pramodya. IMO the 3rd-best they've produced after Vaas and Zoysa. Laaaasith Maaaalinga is obviously coming up on the rails, though.

4.South Africa:Over-rated as second favourites. A lot of their best ODI results are at home where they are nearly invincible but only two away wins in ODI series since last WC are weak in spin and have a tendancy to "choke". Semi-Final but no further.

Being weak in spin doesn't matter if your seamers are good enough, especially in ODIs. "Choking", too, is overrated.

And with regards away series since WC2003; they've played 8, and were truly poor in just 3 (NWS 2003, and the two in 2004 in NZ and SL). Other than that, they've hardly been unconvincing:
They were clearly the best side in the TVS Cup in Bangladesh in 2002\03
They won the last 3 after losing the first 2 in Pakistan in 2003\04
They achieved a clean-sweep in West Indies in 2005
They drew 2-2 in a win-toss-win-match series in India in 2005\06
And they lost 3-5 in the VBS 2005\06 where about half the side was missing, which really doesn't mean a lot.

So I'd not say that clearly rules them out of being 2nd-favourites.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Sachin averaged 40.60 with the bat in 2004, 44.86 with the bat in 2006 and is averaging 49.20 so far this year.

Yep, he may be past his best, but his best (96-99) was so freaking good, him being just half as good as he was then is good enough to be better than every England ODI batsman bar Pietersen (who is the only England ODI batsman that is better than Sachin atm).

Then of course there's Dravid, he's not too bad. That Dhoni isn't too bad either with his average of 46+.

They need someone that 'freaking good' in the batting to make up for their bowling being so awful (outfielding is sluggish as has also been said). Their batting lineup is one of the best but it's not hugely better than most other batting lineups and so that's why I consider them one of the weakest 'top 8' sides.

 

[Richard]

Sachin averaged 40.60 with the bat in 2004, 44.86 with the bat in 2006 and is averaging 49.20 so far this year.

Yep, he may be past his best, but his best (96-99) was so freaking good, him being just half as good as he was then is good enough to be better than every England ODI batsman bar Pietersen (who is the only England ODI batsman that is better than Sachin atm).

Then of course there's Dravid, he's not too bad. That Dhoni isn't too bad either with his average of 46+.

Jono...

Why do you bother with EXD? What's the point?

 

[Salamuddin]

They need someone that 'freaking good' in the batting to make up for their bowling being so awful (outfielding is sluggish as has also been said). Their batting lineup is one of the best but it's not hugely better than most other batting lineups and so that's why I consider them one of the weakest 'top 8' sides.

Lol...England don't have particularly good bowlers other than Flintoff and you're talking them up bigtime. Haven't England won like 3 out of their last 13 games aganst the Indians ?

 

[Salamuddin]

I can't see England winning this, they rely far too much on the trio of Bell, Colly and KP with the bat and Freddy with the ball. That's not the hallmark of a world cup winning team.
Verdict: SUper eights

Australia - still my pick to win despite their recent losses.
Verdict: Winners

Pakistan - Can't see Pakistan winning ....they may pick themselves up after their recent woeful form but there are far too many question marks over the side for my liking ....
Only a fool would write off Pakistan but I just don't think they'll do it this time.
Verdict: SUper 8's

West Indies - I'm expecting the Windies to have a good world cup and reach the semis at least. From there, its down to whether they have the mental nous to go all the way.
Verdict: Losing semifinalists

Sri Lanka - Possess attacking batsmen aplenty coupled with the genius of Murali and the experience of Vaas. their plethora of slow bowling options would be handy in the Caribbean.
Verdict: Surprise Semifinalist me thinks

South Africa - On paper and on recent form, you'd say they have a great chance. If the pitches are low/slow as expected, that could hurt RSA...still, anything less than a semis berth would be a massive disappointmnt and from there, its down to whether they can prevent themselves from choking.
Verdict: finalists

India - Weak fielding team and their bowling is only reasonable.
Also very brittle under pressure - howver there's no denying there's real talent in their batting- every team will be wary of their batting lineup. A good outcome for India, given their limitations, would be a semis berth. ANything from there would be a bonus.
Verdict: Dark Horse for the semis

New Zealand - The Kiwis are a gutsy, resilient side, Could upset a more fancied team and sneak into the semis but lack depth and the technical ability of other sides to be a real; contender.
Verdict: Super 8's

 

[pup11]

I really can't see how south africans would make it to the finals really. They don't have the bowlers to win them games on west indian tracks . The likes of Pollock,nel,ntini. and Kallis need some help of the track to be effective.
Their batting order has got great depth but against good spin they generally tend to struggle.
There world cup jinx is another factor.

 

[PakPowered]

Yea right, of course he was 50%, which match was this that he won single-handedly then?

.

The recent second test b/w Pak and SA. Ofcourse its an exxageration to say that he single handedly won teh match as others too played their part, but the fact remains that Akhtar bowled in just one innings and destroyed SA, had Sa not been bowled out for 120 run total in first innings , Pakistan would never have won the match!!

 

[HowsThat]

Well we have two sets of teams going to world cup, one who's confidence is dented and one's whose confdence is boosted.

The dented one's.

Aus, Pak, and WI

The boosted one's

NZ, India, SA and Eng.

Chances are higher for teams that have great confidence, i think NZ, SA, India and Australia would qualify for Semis.After that its anyone's game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Lol...England don't have particularly good bowlers other than Flintoff and you're talking them up bigtime. Haven't England won like 3 out of their last 13 games aganst the Indians ?

Anderson is a good ODI bowler, Plunkett based on his recent ODIs is a good ODI bowler. Panesar/Lewis are perfectly decent. Then you've got the rest made up from Collingwood mainly who's been very tidy over the past two years (his career record his still weighted down by his early bowling which was usually expensive). These bowlers are all in form as well (or at least they were in the last series).

At present this bowling attack is up there with anyone elses. Batting is still weak but it'll be a lot better with KP there and at least we're getting respectable totals on the board now.

 

[HowsThat]

Anderson is a good ODI bowler, Plunkett based on his recent ODIs is a good ODI bowler. Panesar/Lewis are perfectly decent. Then you've got the rest made up from Collingwood mainly who's been very tidy over the past two years (his career record his still weighted down by his early bowling which was usually expensive). These bowlers are all in form as well (or at least they were in the last series).

At present this bowling attack is up there with anyone elses. Batting is still weak but it'll be a lot better with KP there and at least we're getting respectable totals on the board now.

Anderson is a decent OD bowler, though the medical reports suggest that he's injured right now. Plunkett has done good in last few OD matches, so its difficult to pass judgement on him.Rest are hardly worth mentioning.

At best its a decent attack, but to say that this attack is up there with anyone else is plain rediculous,SA and Aus have an attack that is ten times better than that of England.English attack will probably find place in bottom 4 ODI team's bowling attack.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Anderson is a decent OD bowler, though the medical reports suggest that he's injured right now. Plunkett has done good in last few OD matches, so its difficult to pass judgement on him.Rest are hardly worth mentioning.

At best its a decent attack, but to say that this attack is up there with anyone else is plain rediculous,SA and Aus have an attack that is ten times better than that of England.English attack will probably find place in bottom 4 ODI team's bowling attack.

Flintoff is most definitely worth mentioning, one of the best ODI bowlers in the World. Anderson would get into any team. Virtually every team would take Panesar or Lewis as their fourth bowler. Most teams have a bits and pieces 5th bowler, Collingwood's record over the last couple of years is as good as any in that role (averages 30.10 with the ball, dunno what ER but it'll be comfortably under 5, probably just over 4.5).

Australia's batting >> England's batting, obviously. So explain how England win nearly half their games against Australia over the last couple of years with crap bowling?

When England actually manage to set moderate totals with the bat they usually win, that tells you their bowling is pretty good - it gets better when you remove Mahmood and put Anderson as anyone will tell you.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's no way Anderson would make the Australian side, and probably not South Africa either. He'd probably make any other team though, if he was fit and in form, which is a pretty big if. Panesar might end up being a good ODI spinner but it's WAY too early to judge.

Flintoff would walk into any team in the world easily, as would Pietersen. That's it really.

Having said that, I agree that England's ODI attack is, in theory, a fairly solid one right now. Anderson, Lewis, Flintoff and Panesar with fill-in from Collingwood and Dalrymple is fine. It's not as good as the best ODI attacks around, but it's certainly enough to win games, and comparable to the bowling attacks of most of the mid-strength ODI teams at the moment. England's problem is the batting, and consistency and fitness from bowlers like Anderson, Lewis and Panesar who don't have a huge number of games under their belt. When you lose one or two of those, real problems open up, which is why England have lost so many ODIs in recent times.

 

[Scaly piscine]

There's no way Anderson would make the Australian side, and probably not South Africa either. He'd probably make any other team though, if he was fit and in form, which is a pretty big if.

Flintoff would walk into any team in the world easily, as would Pietersen. That's it really.

He's better than Tait, Clark and Johnson. For SA he's better than Langeveldt and Hall easily so he'd play in SA's team. Australia's team would depend on balance and form etc.

 

[Jono]

They need someone that 'freaking good' in the batting to make up for their bowling being so awful (outfielding is sluggish as has also been said). Their batting lineup is one of the best but it's not hugely better than most other batting lineups and so that's why I consider them one of the weakest 'top 8' sides.

There's no way you're going to see me argue that India have a top class ODI bowling attack just yet... but if this attack is so awful, its unbeleivably disgraceful that they could do this to the great England ODI side you speak of:

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI1_28MAR2006.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI2_31MAR2006.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI3_03APR2006.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI4_06APR2006.html
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/iccct2006/engine/match/249745.html

In five out of the last seven ODIs vs. India, England have been unable to get more than 250 runs against this "awful" Indian bowling line-up. And these are on sub-continent wickets, so if you want to go on the stereotype, and go on about them being flat, well there you go. One was the Champions Trophy match of course which had bowler friendly conditions. An Irfan Pathan, who can't buy a wicket against any other major nation in world cricket, runs through the England team on a regular basis.

And to even try and talk up the England bowling line-up as something special, well... just wow. I don't mind Anderson, Freddie is obviously a gun, and Plunkett can be lethal in swinging conditions, but he will be fodder in the WI. I don't rate Lewis as high as others, and Monty is pretty good so far but hasn't done anything special just yet either.

Next, Tom Halsey is going to come out of the woodwork and claim England are the 2nd best ODI team in the world. This is exactly like the reaction that occurred after England pushed Australia in the 2005 ODIs, and won a few games.

 

[Scaly piscine]

There's no way you're going to see me argue that India have a top class ODI bowling attack just yet... but if this attack is so awful, its unbeleivably disgraceful that they could do this to the great England ODI side you speak of:

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI1_28MAR2006.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI2_31MAR2006.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI3_03APR2006.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_ODI4_06APR2006.html
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/iccct2006/engine/match/249745.html

In five out of the last seven ODIs vs. India, England have been unable to get more than 250 runs against this "awful" Indian bowling line-up. And these are on sub-continent wickets, so if you want to go on the stereotype, and go on about them being flat, well there you go. One was the Champions Trophy match of course which had bowler friendly conditions. An Irfan Pathan, who can't buy a wicket against any other major nation in world cricket, runs through the England team on a regular basis.

And to even try and talk up the England bowling line-up as something special, well... just wow. I don't mind Anderson, Freddie is obviously a gun, and Plunkett can be lethal in swinging conditions, but he will be fodder in the WI. I don't rate Lewis as high as others, and Monty is pretty good so far but hasn't done anything special just yet either.

Next, Tom Halsey is going to come out of the woodwork and claim England are the 2nd best ODI team in the world. This is exactly like the reaction that occurred after England pushed Australia in the 2005 ODIs, and won a few games.

I've said plenty of times how dire England's batting has been so what's your point? Where have I said England's attack as 'something special'? I said it's one of the best around at this moment - which it obviously is. SA's is good but very one dimensional, Australia's now has guys injured and McGrath past his best. What other good attacks are there? Also the white ball nearly always swings.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He's better than Tait, Clark and Johnson. For SA he's better than Langeveldt and Hall easily so he'd play in SA's team. Australia's team would depend on balance and form etc.

Hall really plays as an all-rounder. I agree that Anderson is better than Langeveldt, but ideally the SA team would have Pollock, Ntini and Nel as the specialist bowlers I'd imagine, with some combination of Kallis, Kemp, Hall and Smith filling in the rest. If they pick four specialist seamers, Anderson would probably make it though. Ditto Panesar if they pick a spinner, if only through a lack of competition.

Anderson's better than Tait and Johnson right now, but they're picked on potential as part of the rotation system, not really in the "best team". He wouldn't make it in ahead of McGrath, Lee or Bracken, obviously.

Anyway, England have a decent ODI attack at the moment, but at full strength I wouldn't say it's better than Pakistan or New Zealand, and obviously not Australia or South Africa. Probably on a similar level to the other mid-range sides, but they tend to have better batting.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Anderson is a better ODI bowler than Nel. So he'd definitely make their side.

England's attack is better than New Zealand. New Zealand's bowling 'attack' is Bond. After that you've got guys who can block an end like Vettori but don't take many wickets. If Bond doesn't take wickets all they can do is restrict the run-rate and hope batsmen throw their wickets away. Pakistan's bowling attack is also a one-man band but more erratic generally, when/if Shoaib is around it'll be better obviously. Oh and as for SA's attack it's difficult to compare with anyone else because it's so one-dimensional.

 

[Evermind]

How's SA's attack all that much more one-dimensional than England's? If you take away Panesar, they're all pretty much even. Hell, other than Hogg, Aus' attack is also "one dimensional".

On a sidenote, Panesar will most likely end up like Harbhajan in the long run. Kinda ok spinner, mostly just there to contain the batsmen, if possible. He doesn't look like a Murali or a Warne prospect, so far. But that may change, of course.

Maaaan Powar got robbed.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Plunkett and Anderson are similar, but of the other likely bowlers Collingwood, Flintoff, Panesar and Dalrymple or all completly different. With South Africa you've got nearly all their bowlers who are 75, 80 to high 80s in pace, all right-arm, none of them are particularly tall or short. They're not clones of each other by any means but they're all samey and if the pitch isn't suited to that sort of bowling or players get in and used to the style then they're in a bit of trouble. I could see someone like KP getting used to the line and pace and just teeing off. The only variation to this they have is the Witness and he's only a part-timer.

 

[Zinzan]

My prediction....

semi's.......

Aust V SL

and

SA V NZ

final ...

SL to beat SA