View Full Version : Is it safe to say....
wagstaff
16 Feb 2003, 00:02
that Australia have got this World Cup wrapped up?
I personally think that it's 80% certain that Austraila have got this won.
They're virtually already guaranteed a spot in the semi-finals under the current system and while people go on about the unpredictable nature of one-day cricket, I think that is highly overrated. It's been suggested that the likes of Lara and Tendulkar could have a day out against Australia but the great strength of the side is that, more often then not, they rise to the challenge and defeat their most significant enemies.
Tonight's match was a good example. Tendulkar was in pretty good form, but the Australian bowling wore him down due to various factors and eventually Gillespie got him out with a brillant piece of bowling.
I only think New Zealand would be the only side who could genuinely challenge Australia, as they are the only team in recent times who have had the right mindset when playing them, and not be subjected to the defeatist/negative attitude so prevalent amongst other nations. But they are no guarantee to make it to the Super Six stage, let alone the finals.
I would say that Glenn McGrath's pre-tournament prediction of Australia going through undefeated is a fair chance to be realised.
mattyc2422
16 Feb 2003, 00:11
I dunno, Canada are putting up a good show versus Kenya.;)
Seriously, I think you are pretty close to the mark, but I don't want to jinx it.:D
To win, Australia has to win two knockout finals.
Assuming we make it to the semis, and assuming we will win 80% of the games against the 2nd and third best sides (assuming we are first), that still only gives us a 65% chance of winning overall ;)
Kenny_01
16 Feb 2003, 02:30
I think its safe to say we will get to the semi-finals, but after that... anything can happen.
Jim Boy
16 Feb 2003, 02:41
At best it's only 50/50 that we'll win. Read that we get to the semis, but then we have to beat two other teams that will be in a little form. Christ, if it wasn't for an unlikely innings by Symonds, we could really have struggled against Pakistan. The world cup has been won a couple of times by teams you wouldn't think were the best in the world before the tournament.
We certainly deserve favourites status though.
EagleBlue
16 Feb 2003, 06:06
1 problem I see, have we peaked too early ??? Or have the opposition we have played been so ordinary ???? The frightening thing for the opposition is Martyn, Bevan, Lehmann have not made a run yet !!!!. Lets hope we bat against Holland on Thursday to get these guys into form
It was only a few weeks ago that Sri Lanka hit 340+ against the Aussies, and I'd think South Africa's, India's and possibly Pakistan's batting line-ups have as much depth as SL's and at least one player of compiling a quick & big score.
Australia was under-manned that night, but the way Jayasuriya was hitting them, I doubt a full-strength side would have held them to under 280. Players like Lara, Tendulkar, etc. can make good bowlers expensive. Hit them out of the attack and it puts a lot of pressure on Hogg, Symonds, Lehmann etc. to not get blasted about. This might happen 1 game in 10 or 20, but who's to say it can't happen in an important game...
Australia have deserved their favouritism with two strong performances, but I don't think we'll see too many good teams folding up as easily as India did yesterday.
GhostofJimJess
16 Feb 2003, 13:16
Even if Lara, or Jayasuriya, or Sachin, or even Kallis have their "day out" against the Aussies, it would require at least 5 of our top 8 bats to be off their game for us not to get 280.
Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.
Even last night, I thought Tendulkar was seeing them as well as ever, and having little problem with our frontmen. The problem was that he was being starved of strike during the crucial opening 15 overs, usually scoring off the first or second ball of an over, and being forced to watch his partner fend aimlessly at the strike end for the remainder of the over. Whilst his well-credentialed partners persisted in giving Gilchrist catching practice by flaying at balls a metre or so outside off-stump, Sachin sat on his handle, champing at the bit to renew acquaintences with McGrath and co. By the time our second-stringers (Gillespie is certainly not one of these, despite coming on first change!) came on to bowl, I felt that he was unable to once again engender the momentum required. It was like he was batting with tail-enders from the start!
i.e. HE NEEDS SOME HELP!!
Once again ... somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.
Australia will win this thing in a canter, and the only reason most of us won't be in accordance with this early call is based on our irrational fear of putting the mozz on ourselves ...
Australia are stuffed if McGrath and Gillespie go down again.
GhostofJimJess
16 Feb 2003, 20:00
And if mum had wheels, she'd be a friggin' wagon ....
dr nick
17 Feb 2003, 08:55
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Australia will win this thing in a canter, and the only reason most of us won't be in accordance with this early call is based on our irrational fear of putting the mozz on ourselves ...
you've gotta have a small chuckle at these people who think they are so 'god-like' that when they say something, they think it can alter the entire course of the world cup.
red+black
17 Feb 2003, 11:34
Originally posted by Kenny_01
I think its safe to say we will get to the semi-finals, but after that... anything can happen.
exactly
red+black
17 Feb 2003, 11:36
Originally posted by EagleBlue
1 problem I see, have we peaked too early ??? Or have the opposition we have played been so ordinary ???? The frightening thing for the opposition is Martyn, Bevan, Lehmann have not made a run yet !!!!. Lets hope we bat against Holland on Thursday to get these guys into form
i really think the chances of us batting first against holland or namibia are small. if we win the toss, we'll bowl first to finish the match off quickly. if they win the toss, they would rather make us chase than have us make 400 batting first.
the only reason we could bat first is to give our middle order batsmen some practice.
EagleBlue
17 Feb 2003, 19:46
Originally posted by red+black
i really think the chances of us batting first against holland or namibia are small. if we win the toss, we'll bowl first to finish the match off quickly. if they win the toss, they would rather make us chase than have us make 400 batting first.
Disagree. 2 of our batsman havent had a hit. Another one has faced one ball. Also Maher needs a hit as well. Of the bowlers only Bichel and Symonds need a workout, and they will if Aus bat first and make 300+
I dont think we can say we have this wrapped up till we are in the last ball of the competition and we have a winning score. But i'm hoping we will win it.
Originally posted by nicko18
you've gotta have a small chuckle at these people who think they are so 'god-like' that when they say something, they think it can alter the entire course of the world cup.
You're not familiar with light-hearted superstition?
dr nick
17 Feb 2003, 21:16
Originally posted by DaveW
You're not familiar with light-hearted superstition?
take it easy, i was being light hearted as well. im always saying that sort of stuff.
just pointing out how silly superstitions are, despite having a few of my own.