Smith & Hussey minor have gone ok and a pace attack with three genuinely brisk bowlers who all swing it is a frightening prospect.How is Australia the best team on paper? They dont have a half decent spinner or a slow bowler on their side. Australia has a good batting lineup and their fast bowling is good but not exceptional but if you ask me NZ have the best all round side this tournament.
All fine and good but all their pace bowlers are 145k +. They're missing variety in their attack. They have a good attack playing in Australia, SA or maybe even England but in the WI when they come up with slower wickets they will be missing someone who can take the pace off the ball. They are a good side, no doubt about it, but they dont have the same all round balance that NZ does.Smith & Hussey minor have gone ok and a pace attack with three genuinely brisk bowlers who all swing it is a frightening prospect.
Harris no slouch either.
The world cup is in the WI, you need slower bowlers and the best bowlers this competition are spin bowlers. Australia have none, steve smith doesnt count. Its fine on the bouncier pitches in Barbados, but when they get to St Lucia it will be a bit different.Watson? Johnson has a killer slower ball too.
& Can't see how Bond, Mills, Butler & Styris/Oram is in the same league as Nannes, Tait, Johnson & Watson. Speed isn't the only variable either, Oz have two leftie seamers for variety.
Ok, even if, for the purposes of brevity, we allow that NZ's attack is better, a cricket team isn't just a bowling attack. Australia's batting much stronger than NZ's, which I took into account when I said they have the best team on paper.The world cup is in the WI, you need slower bowlers and the best bowlers this competition are spin bowlers. Australia have none, steve smith doesnt count. Its fine on the bouncier pitches in Barbados, but when they get to St Lucia it will be a bit different.
On NZ, Vettori has a better record than all of the above mentioned bowlers and Nathan McCullum has been brilliant all tournament. The point is that they have an attack for all seasons which Australia dont have.
Im not sure if I agree with that. NZ bats down all the way till 9. Australia really have 4 batsmen of note: Warner , Watson, Hussey and Hussey. Clarke and Haddin have dodgy records and White is in poor form.Ok, even if, for the purposes of brevity, we allow that NZ's attack is better, a cricket team isn't just a bowling attack. Australia's batting much stronger than NZ's, which I took into account when I said they have the best team on paper.
Yeah but the thing is, they are better on paper than the others, and are surely favourites nowYeah I fail to see how Aus are the best team on paper. They did well in that one game because the pitch was tailor-made for their bowling attack combined by some pretty atrocious batting by the indians. Tait, Johnson, and Watson all have the potential to be absolutely DECIMATED on an unfavorable wicket in this format of the game. Nannes is the only bowler who can be expected to bowl with success consistently on typical West-Indian wickets. They are not a better side on paper than any of the other big teams.
Struggling to see how South Africa can be the best team on paper when their batting is crap.Will they be disappointed if they dont win the 2010 icc world twenty20, they have the best team on paper. They have not won a major international tournament and are always known as chokers, will there luck change this tournament.
Did you watch the game against Bangladesh? Not to mention they lost to Zimbabwe in the warm ups. They have done well against 2 teams so far who were largely out of depth against the faster bowlers and lets face it its not the first time we've seen India bat like muppets against 145+ bowlers that dug the ball into their body.Yeah but the thing is, they are better on paper than the others, and are surely favourites now