Chances of winning the 2019 WC on present form.

[thirds captain]

Below is the chances I give each nation from 1 (Highest) to 10 (Lowest).

1) England
2) South Africa
3) India
4) Pakistan
5) Australia
6) New Zealand
7) Bangladesh
8) West Indies
9) Sri Lanka
10) Afghanistan

 

[The Speaker]

The only reason NZ would be below Australia is because they haven't played much cricket this year.

 

[Bwillow11]

Sri Lanka is last by an absolute country mile, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, the two newer test teams are overtaking Sri Lanka with wins over them in the asia cup. New Zealand is a quality outfit with many high quality players and based on current form would certainly be ahead of Australia. If South Africa barely defeated Australia in the recent one day series then they should below NZ too.

 

[scoremachine]

1. England - are red hot favourites, pretty much have all bases covered. Best batting lineup in the tournament. Root will be the key in the knockout games i feel. The only weakness i see is possibly there fast bowlers, i don't see a quick who other teams will fear.

2. New Zealand/ South Africa-
I think these two sides could make the semi's, both solid teams. South Africa are probably relying on Miller to have a big tournament without De Villiers but he's in good form.
South Africa's top 4 bowlers in Steyn, Rabada, Ngidi & Tahir are as good as any teams.
New Zealand have a very good top order with Guptill, Williamson & Taylor all firing they'll be tough to beat. Along with Boult being one of the best bowlers going around.

4. India- Everyone knows how good the top 3 are & yes it might be good enough to win them the cup, but my gut feel is they'll bow out in a semi final. They've won so many ODI games lately, but it doesn't really count for much unless they bring the cup home.

Kohli is so damn good that he could win it off his own bat. Bumrah is there best bowler & will bowl well in England. Outside of the top 3 & Bumrah i'm not convinced.

5. Australia- With Smith & Warner back, the Aussies are the real wildcard here. Funnily enough if Australia can make the knockouts i'd back them to go all the way.

They've got proven world cup winners amongst the team. Most other teams have a gun spinner but this is one area they haven't settled yet. Need to sort out the death bowling too, leaking far too many runs late.

6. Pakistan- Haven't watched much of them but they will be dangerous as always.
Babar Azam is a gun in this format & will surprise some people how good he is.

7. West Indies- Who knows what we'll get here, very hard to even know what team they'll put out. If Gayle & Lewis both open it'll be fun to watch. Hetmeyer looks the goods & hopefully we see him shine.
Holder is in great form.
Hard to see them all of a sudden winning a world cup but hopefully for the sake of the tournament we see the good West Indies rock up.

8/9/10- Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan.

 

[Cleavy]

0%

 

[La Dolce Vita]

England will choke
Nothing more certain

 

[Carbine Chaos]

England will choke
Nothing more certain

South Africa: "Hold my beer."

 

[The Speaker]

England
India
New Zealand
South Africa
Pakistan
Australia
Bangladesh
West Indies
Afghanistan
Sri Lanka

which now that I look at it is basically the ODI rankings except for the bottom three

 

[frankrizzo]

england india and south africa look like the best teams, england really should win this one they are playing great and it will be at home but it's just hard to make a side who has never won the odi WC the clear fav's.

I don't think we will make the semi finals will be SA england nz and india.

 

[DT_fanatic]

Might see the trend of the home team winning continue. Looking forward to it though. The format is perfect with each team playing each other, and every game will count while not necessarily being a knockout from the get go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhatBoy]

With SA they have obviously failed to produce their best when it counts but there is almost no circumstance left for them to run into. They’ve been f***ed twice by the weather - the second time was the Grant Elliott game where they still could have won but the rain didn’t help them any. They also had the infamous failure to read the D/L scenario properly and knocked themselves out. England’s failures however have almost invariably been through just not being good enough. It’s probably not referenced as often but I reckon the failure thing would hang just as heavily over them as it does SA. They’ve both got a lot of demons to slay.

England, NZ and India would be my picks in that order if I had to put money on it.

 

[Tigerssaints]

Bangladesh v England final
most the other teams , will b on the take
Like others Aussie should now developed a specialist 1 day team
we cannot continue wrapping hazelwood, starc cummin in cotton wool( i only play Starc )
Smith ok to play as 12th man
i will never select Warner again,he is too disruptive

 

[The Speaker]

The format is perfect with each team playing each other, and every game will count while not necessarily being a knockout from the get go.

wrong wrong wrong wrong

wrong wrong wrong wrong

you're wrong

 

[PhatBoy]

wrong wrong wrong wrong

wrong wrong wrong wrong

you're wrong

Um......

 

[Stopher]

England will never get a better chance. A bit like their football team...

 

[DT_fanatic]

wrong wrong wrong wrong

wrong wrong wrong wrong

you're wrong

Whys that? Because associates don’t get a look in? Should result in less one sided games.

 

[PhatBoy]

Whys that? Because associates don’t get a look in? Should result in less one sided games.

I don’t think the associates should have been cast out. Rubbish decision. But with the teams they’ve got, this is the best possible system.

 

[Stopher]

I don’t think the associates should have been cast out. Rubbish decision. But with the teams they’ve got, this is the best possible system.

Agreed. At least this way there can be no bitching about the draw.

 

[DT_fanatic]

I don’t think the associates should have been cast out. Rubbish decision. But with the teams they’ve got, this is the best possible system.

I’m not sure if there’s a way - format wise anyway - to combat the inability of the associates to compete though. I get the argument re: it’s a ‘World’ Cup and the benefit of exposure, but I’m not so sure it works for ODI cricket given where the format is at and now that T20 exists - probably a much better pathway imo. If the format didn’t exist I’d be more amenable to associates being included in the WC.

Also there was a play off for the 9th and 10th countries anyway right ...it’s probably the best approach going forward imo.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Speaker]

I've explained this before: this format is the worst possible way to eliminate potential dead rubbers and blowout matches, and it hasn't made the format any shorter either, which was supposedly a reason to cut the number of teams. I even made a thread about it.

In terms of competitive matches, there are three historical categories we can look at: full members vs full members, full members vs associates, and associates vs associates. Guess what? You're just as likely to get a blowout with FM vs FM as you are with FM vs A. Only A vs A is more likely to produce a close match, according to past results.

More importantly, though, is the dead rubber issue. There is a very high likelihood that the last few rounds in the never-ending group stage (which will go on and on because there's only one match a day) will feature a high proportion of dead rubbers. The larger the pool, the greater the likelihood that the only match of that day will be between two teams for whom the result of the match doesn't really matter. The smaller the pool, the less likely. Seeing as this is the largest possible pool, it also has the largest chance of producing uninteresting and unimportant matches. It also smooths out the results far too much to really be called a tournament - in every other sport, a competition in which everyone plays everyone is called a league.

 

[PhatBoy]

I've explained this before: this format is the worst possible way to eliminate potential dead rubbers and blowout matches, and it hasn't made the format any shorter either, which was supposedly a reason to cut the number of teams. I even made a thread about it.

In terms of competitive matches, there are three historical categories we can look at: full members vs full members, full members vs associates, and associates vs associates. Guess what? You're just as likely to get a blowout with FM vs FM as you are with FM vs A. Only A vs A is more likely to produce a close match, according to past results.

More importantly, though, is the dead rubber issue. There is a very high likelihood that the last few rounds in the never-ending group stage (which will go on and on because there's only one match a day) will feature a high proportion of dead rubbers. The larger the pool, the greater the likelihood that the only match of that day will be between two teams for whom the result of the match doesn't really matter. The smaller the pool, the less likely. Seeing as this is the largest possible pool, it also has the largest chance of producing uninteresting and unimportant matches. It also smooths out the results far too much to really be called a tournament - in every other sport, a competition in which everyone plays everyone is called a league.

Mate no one cares about dead rubbers. It’s a cricket tournament, no matter what, unless you make it 8/16 teams and simply a tennis style knockout, there are going to be dead rubbers.

If you can’t eliminate dead runners what is the next best result you can achieve? Fairness. How do you get it? Everyone playing everyone.

Hell, you only have to look at afl to find a sporting environment where fairness is viewed MORE importantly than every match having meaning.

 

[The Speaker]

Mate no one cares about dead rubbers. It’s a cricket tournament, no matter what, unless you make it 8/16 teams and simply a tennis style knockout, there are going to be dead rubbers.

If you can’t eliminate dead runners what is the next best result you can achieve? Fairness. How do you get it? Everyone playing everyone.

Hell, you only have to look at afl to find a sporting environment where fairness is viewed MORE importantly than every match having meaning.

People absolutely care about dead rubbers in tournaments, particularly when there's a good chance that nearly every match in the last week+ of the group stage will be one, which means entirely wasted time in a very long, stretched out tournament. If you want everyone to play everyone because 'fairness', guess what? That's what the ODI championship should be for. Instead we've got in the other way round! It's wacky thinking.

Furthermore, as I indicated in 24-team WC thread (see signature), there are ways to create tournaments with a minimum of dead rubbers.

 

[PhatBoy]

People absolutely care about dead rubbers in tournaments, particularly when there's a good chance that nearly every match in the last week+ of the group stage will be one, which means entirely wasted time in a very long, stretched out tournament. If you want everyone to play everyone because 'fairness', guess what? That's what the ODI championship should be for. Instead we've got in the other way round! It's wacky thinking.

Furthermore, as I indicated in 24-team WC thread (see signature), there are ways to create tournaments with a minimum of dead rubbers.

In 1992, the last time this format was used, there was one match in the last 10 that had no impact on the finals and it was Zimbabwe beating England in the second last match. Even the last round robin match between two sides who missed out - Aus vs WI - had an impact because if the WI won, the eventual champions would have missed the semis.

I’m not sure what the draw is like this time but more than likely, most matches will have some sort of impact on at very least the ranking of the top four, if not its composition

 

[corbies]

Whys that? Because associates don’t get a look in? Should result in less one sided games.

Its weird though in that the 'associates' have in fact never been more competitive then they are right now. You only have to look at Scotland beating a full strength England less than 6 months ago immediately before England absolutely pumped Australia 5-0 in as one-sided a series as you will see.

Afghanistan who beat Sri Lanka at the Asia Cup and drew their last ODI series with the West Indies were beaten by Zimbabwe, Scotland and Hong Kong in World Cup Qualifying and only made it into the world cup due to the UAE beating Zimbabwe on the final round of the super sixers.

We see the full member nations play against each other constantly on a 4-year cycle, something different in a world cup would be nice.

 

[corbies]

In saying the above, I would be sort of okay with a 10 team world cup if their was a semi-substantive qualifying process where every team had to qualify similar to the Football World Cup. Sure the Test playing nations will almost certainly qualify but they should at least have to prove they can beat the Associate nations.

If the FIFA world cup was run by the ICC, Netherlands and Italy would automatically qualify and teams like Iceland and Sweden would never get the chance to show they deserved to qualify.

At the moment the World Cup qualifying and format are basically in place to ensure the big nations (mainly India) qualify and play lots of games at the World Cup for $$$$$$.