-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
England Will Win
- Thread starter eddy
- Start date
)The Baconator
Well-known member
of course we always blame the germans
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
West Indies to the final was never that long a shot.
1) Their QF was against South Africa, who were (are) horrifically out of form - 50/50.
2) Their SF would be against either Pakistan or India, who are both incredibly inconsistent - 50/50.
Giving at worst a chance of 1 in 4 of making the final - i.e. 3/1, with bookies offering 20+ on them (1/2 E/W), it wasn't at all a bad call.
1) Their QF was against South Africa, who were (are) horrifically out of form - 50/50.
2) Their SF would be against either Pakistan or India, who are both incredibly inconsistent - 50/50.
Giving at worst a chance of 1 in 4 of making the final - i.e. 3/1, with bookies offering 20+ on them (1/2 E/W), it wasn't at all a bad call.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Regardless of South Africa's horrible form as a team, the fact remains that they are infinately stronger man-for-man than West Indies, and personally I was not merely disappointed but surprised when they beat them - as at WC2003.
India and Pakistan - both stronger, both better suited to the conditions (pace and spin over batting - West Indies have one of each - Bradshaw and Gayle).
IMO it was a long-shot.
India and Pakistan - both stronger, both better suited to the conditions (pace and spin over batting - West Indies have one of each - Bradshaw and Gayle).
IMO it was a long-shot.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Well-known member
The batting...Richard said:
Gayle > Smith in ODI cricket.
Wavell Hinds < Gibbs.
Sarwan = Kallis
Lara > Rudolph
Chanderpaul > van Jaarsveld
Browne < Boucher
I'd say Powell and Klusener are level given Klusener's batting of late.
The bowling...
Bradshaw < Pollock
Collymore > Langeveldt
Ryan Hinds < Boje but Gayle > Boje
Bravo = Klusener (perhaps a controversial statement)
Bradshaw = Ntini
Collymore < Ntini
No real match for Kallis for a bowling comparison.
Overall I won't say which team is better man for man, but South Africa is certainly not "infinitely" better.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Guess I should have added an IMO to that...
True, you have some good players - but personally I'd say SA are much stronger.
And I'd also argue with this:
True, you have some good players - but personally I'd say SA are much stronger.
And I'd also argue with this:
As far as the ODI-game is concerned, Klusener is still very much superior. I do believe Bravo will come quite close as his career pans-out. In the Test-game, I'd say Bravo is already well on the way to being better than Klusener has been at any time from his 1998 ankle-injury onwards - yes, after just one series.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Well-known member
It was in reference purely to batting. You'd admit that Klusener's batting is not anywhere near what it used to be? In his last 19 matches he's failed to cross 50 and has crossed 15 just 3 times. That's 13 innings. Take away the not outs and in 9 innings he's crossed 15 twice.Richard said:
