So where would you put your money? Pick two finalists and we will re-visit this thread again in April 2007.
Mine would be India vs. Pakistan!
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
for once I thought SuperMe has hacked into funguys account
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
I opened this thread UNDER PROTEST. cheegum edited one of my posts where I called Munir Hussain (cheegum's favorite commentator) a bad name.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
Australia A vs. Australia
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
SuperME Xi vs. FG XI...
lolz...:D
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
Australia v don't really care.
Australia all the way. All the other teams tend to choke in games that really matter.
Australia can only lose it themselves. Their biggest threat is their own complacency.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
Mine would be India vs. Pakistan!
Keep on dreaming. Both India and Pakistan tend to choke in pressure or knock- out games and not much has changed in that regard in Woolmer's time. As much as we would like Pakistan to lift the trophy something tells me that's not going to happen.
Australia all the way even given the chance and unpredictability factor of limited overs cricket
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
^ GA ...If McGrath and Warne announce their retirement from international cricket and they already lost Damien. We might be looking at a slightly less Oz side in the WC.
..
You never know. I do agree with you that we choke under pressure and it was a completely different sit. in the 92 WC.
We were chokers in the early part of the WC and then sparkled with a late flourish.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
Australia all the way even given the chance and unpredictability factor of limited overs cricket
You just can't make a sweeping statement like that. In 1983 WI was even more awesome than Aus are now and having won two world cups in a row were favourites to lift the third one as well when unfancied India came along and knocked them out.
The fact that they than went to India and beat the hell out of them just shows that on the day anything can happen.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
The fact that they than went to India and beat the hell out of them just shows that on the day anything can happen.
That's why I said Australia's biggest enemy is their own complacency. WI too lost that Final because of complacency. They thought chasing a mere 184 was peanuts in a 60-over game (games used to be 60-overs a side then).
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
The fact that they than went to India and beat the hell out of them just shows that on the day anything can happen.
Don't forget this Australian team has also won the last two world cups (infact they have been in the finals of the last three WCs). While that all-conquering WI team had an edge in terms of their pace arsenal and in having in Viv Richards one of the greatest and most destructive batsman in the history of the game, I believe this Australian outfit is mentally tougher and perhaps more professional in their approach.
I know stats are not everything but they do paint a slightly better picture of Waugh and Ponting era compared to Lloyd and Richards era in both forms of the game.
Make of it what you will.
1- Lloyd and Richards era:
Tests
Lloyd: won 36 and lost 12 tests in 74 tests as captain
Richards: won 27 and lost 8 in 50 tests as captain
Success%: 75.90%
ODIs
Lloyd: won 64 and lost 18 in 84 matches as captain (1 game tied)
Richards: won 67 and lost 36 in 105 matches as captain
Success%: 70.43%
2- Waugh and Ponting/Gilchrist era:
TESTS
Waugh: won 41 and lost 9 in 57 tests as captain
Ponting: won 25 and lost 3 in 33 tests as captain
Gilchrist: won 4 and lost 1 in 6 tests as captain
Success% = 84.34%
ODIS
Waugh: won 67 and lost 35 in 106 matches as captain
Ponting: won 99 and lost 23 in 130 matches as captain
Gilchrist: won 10 and lost 3 in 13 matches as captain
Success% = 72.73%
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
^ I would never take the above into any account when comparing the two. These stats CANNOT ever be compared due to the fact they were in different times and with different opponents. Teams of late 70s and 80s cannot be compared with the teams of this era thus you can't simply compare these stats.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
Agreed to a certain extent but you can't just dismiss stats altogether. Just like it's unfair and even treacherous to compare batsmen and bowlers across era, I think the same goes for dominant teams in diffferent eras. Hence we can't really say the Windies side of the 70s and 80s was better or more awesome than this Australian outfit because there is no way of knowing the absolute truth. All we can say is Windies side was as dominant in their era as this Australian side is in today's era.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
AA Warne has long retired from ODIs. Both Stuart Clarke and Bracken (is doing it already. i.e. very hard to score runs off) can do McGrath's job in the one-dayers. As for Damien Martyn he was never a certainty given the recent arrival of Clarke and Hussey
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
one day cricket is un-predictable don't be so sure of australia winning or even reaching the final.remember the last world cup?a lot of good teams did'nt make it to the second round like south africa,pakistan,england.. and kenya made it to the semis.Anything can happen in a few matches here and there.. its similar to the football world cup...the best team does'nt always win.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
I can bet on this and am sure the Windies of 70s and 80s would still rate way higher than the curren Aussies. Ask uncle ehsan. Ehsan pa nay to unko bachpan se dekha hai 
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
Australia vs. Pakistan
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
yeah ur right about Warne. But we will see in the WC climate how Aus perform without McGrath and Warne.
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
South Africa vs West Indies
Re: Name the WC 2007 Finalists
The format of this WC ensures that only the 4 most consistent teams qualify as literally you have to play against each of the top 7 or 8 test playing nations. Minnows won't be featuring in the knock-out stages for a change and thank god for that.