Jump to content

Australia - WC2015 Winners??


zubinpepsi

Recommended Posts

Posted

NZ has very good balance I like how well brendon has led them. Pakistan being contenders is ridiculous, their fans and former players seem to think just because it is played in Australia home of their fluky win they will win this time also.

Posted

Australia are definitely favorites - they have the most explosive batting lineup and they are a very good ODI side SA would be favorites based on the overall quality of their players but their WC history haunts them

Posted
Close contest between Australia and Pakistan
There is no contest at all, Pakistan is way ahead of Australia at the moment. On a serious note, I think Australia has a very good chance of winning their 5th title, especially since it is being played at home. The other teams are looking very good as well, but I can't see any of them (except maybe India and South Africa) actually winning.
Posted
There is no contest at all, Pakistan is way ahead of Australia at the moment. On a serious note, I think Australia has a very good chance of winning their 5th title, especially since it is being played at home. The other teams are looking very good as well, but I can't see any of them (except maybe India and South Africa) actually winning.
NZ?
Posted
Australia are definitely favorites - they have the most explosive batting lineup and they are a very good ODI side
Yeah. Aus surely has the most explosive batting line-up, but the problem is they can implode any time. They had almost the same team for the T20 WC, and started as favorties, but didn't even cross the group stage. This time however, they play at home
Posted
with likes of sterling kevin obrien and brayan young I think ireland gonna win this cup...this team is better than kenya of 2003
Kenya of 2003 went to the semis only because some opponents forfeited the match fearing to play in Kenya. They had only 1 good match - against SL
Posted
South Africa were favorites in 99' date=' not Australia. In most of the 909s, SA were a better ODI team than Aus.[/quote'] That is correct because last year in 98, SA won the inaugural champions trophy and that too in sub continent that is why going in to the 99 WC everyone thought that SA could win it.
Posted
South Africa were favorites in 99' date=' not Australia. In most of the 909s, SA were a better ODI team than Aus.[/quote'] I changed my mind when I saw Waugh and bevan hammer sa into submission to win the series in SA in 1997 Australia had better batsmen...their fast bowlers were more effective vs lesser batsmen of SA. I could not see anyone in the SA batting who could win it for them...only kallis averaged above 45 in tests at one time and he was at best a irritant for aus.cullinan was a clown against warne. its the addition of de Villiers,amla and duminy that really gave a different look to sa batting.Before that they had depth,not the quality expected of a top team apart from that, they have the habit of playing too many stock bowlers because they are allroudners....klusener, kallis and elsworthy ...it just releases the pressure. the SC batsmen may have been clueless but they presented no terror to aussies by 2001, Australia was well on top
Posted
I changed my mind when I saw Waugh and bevan hammer sa into submission to win the series in SA in 1997 Australia had better batsmen...their fast bowlers were more effective vs lesser batsmen of SA. I could not see anyone in the SA batting who could win it for them...only kallis averaged above 45 in tests at one time and he was at best a irritant for aus.cullinan was a clown against warne. its the addition of de Villiers,amla and duminy that really gave a different look to sa batting.Before that they had depth,not the quality expected of a top team apart from that, they have the habit of playing too many stock bowlers because they are allroudners....klusener, kallis and elsworthy ...it just releases the pressure. the SC batsmen may have been clueless but they presented no terror to aussies by 2001, Australia was well on top
You need the allrounders though, I reckon you need 6-7 players who can bowl, 3 specialists, 1 bowling allrounder, 2 batting allrounders and another batsman capable of bowling a few overs.
Posted
You need the allrounders though' date=' I reckon you need 6-7 players who can bowl, 3 specialists, 1 bowling allrounder, 2 batting allrounders and another batsman capable of bowling a few overs.[/quote'] no I don't...australia didn't..windies didn't...the primary objective is winning matches ...playing players who are honest triers or 2/3rd bowler or 2/3rd batsman actually hurts your chances having high quality specialists is the best way of wining matches..i reckon I don't need a single allrounder look at sa-plenty of allrounders and zero cups to show for it its matchwinners you want first and foremost
Posted
no I don't...australia didn't..windies didn't...the primary objective is winning matches ...playing players who are honest triers or 2/3rd bowler or 2/3rd batsman actually hurts your chances having high quality specialists is the best way of wining matches..i reckon I don't need a single allrounder look at sa-plenty of allrounders and zero cups to show for it its matchwinners you want first and foremost
So you'd play 5 bowlers? I'm not saying you're wrong, but mate, those 5 bowlers would want to be bloody good considering you'll lack depth in batting.
Posted

Just thinking back to our hey day and who'd be the 5 bowlers we'd pick if we went with that strategy (mind you I don't think the strategy would work) McGrath Warne Gillespie Lee Fleming. Be very hard to post a decent total against that line up, but, I don't think its the recipe for success, playing 5 bowlers would mean no Symonds-Beven-Watson, also, those 5 bowlers mentioned weren't good ODI batsmen, not compared to our current day bowlers anyway, although Gillespie does hold the title of the worst batsman in history to score a test double ton.

Posted

Australia beat Pak in UAE. I don't think Pak would reach Semis. They will definitely get out of group stage. India, on the other hand, ODIs they have done well in the past. It will be surprising if they don't make semis. Aus will play either SAF or NZ in the Finals.

Posted
NZ?
I like the New Zealand team, but if Williamson and Taylor fail, they're probably not going to make 200. They don't have a very stable batting lineup. However, because those two batsman are not the type to fail often, I think they'll be successful in this world cup - just not successful enough to win. My best bet is that they'll get to the semi-finals, but not any farther than that.
Posted

They have an attacking line up, every single batsman can play long and score quick, on top of that they bat deep. Have a good set of fast bowlers , fantastic fielding side rarely drop catches. The only so called weakness could be lack of wicket taking spinner in the middle overs. Needless to say playing at home. Only a freak inning or bowling spell likely to stop them from winnings this.

Posted

australia are the clear favorites,lanka the second favorite if malinga is back(only team to beat aus more times in their home) then saf,nzl and india

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...