No it wouldnt be funny .....it would be SENSATIONAL!!!!well australia winning it again wouldn't be funny that's for sure...
If Australia get knocked out in the semifinals then I think it's pretty feasible that New Zealand could win it, in saying that I don't think Australia will get knocked out.New Zealand to win world cup????????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA at least someone got a sense of humour in here
Australia are in a class of their own!!!! even South Africa are NOWHERE near the aussies.If Australia get knocked out in the semifinals then I think it's pretty feasible that New Zealand could win it, in saying that I don't think Australia will get knocked out.
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesStats_ODI.asp?SeriesCode=0602Australia are in a class of their own!!!! even South Africa are NOWHERE near the aussies.
1 more thing, How do u get to be rated the number 1 side in the world without BEATING the number 1 side in the world??? ITS A JOKE
Even when they were number 2 3 weeks ago!Being the no.1 side in the world ain't a joke and its huge responsiblity to carry the no.1 tag and thats where Australians need to be respected because for more than a decade they have carried the no.1 tag in such a convincing manner.
The exact same things that are being said now were indeed said in 2003.Just looking at the dates.
The 2003 WC went from Feb 9 - March 24
The 2007 WC went from Mar 13 - April 28
The 2003 WC - 54 matches
The 2007 WC - 51 matches
Did people also complain in 2003? Because as far as I can see there is no difference in the overall length of the tournament at all.
Late night frolics in itself doesn't demonstrate lack of committment - it's the extent combined with the timing that made such things disappointing.Top post .To create a great WC we need 100% commitment from all the teams. You don't hear of Australia getting up to late night frolics unlike England/SouthAfrica.
happens and yes one of the down sides of the cup.* woolmers death
no, no matching fixing conspiracy.* match fixing conspiracy
yes but improved a lot more and the atmosphere came back after the icc eased up.* Half-empty stadiums (higher ticket prices)
yeah they changed it in the super 8* No musical instruments allowed in some grounds (i think its changed now)
No, they really got some nice facilities, including pools! are you kidding me? but the ground with the sandpit outfield was a down side.* poor ground facilities
it didn't play a role that much this world cup as it did last time, and we had reserve days which was used about once.* **** weather
yeah, but we had more upsets than ever.* only handful of close games
No, there were less "minnow bashing games" than last time. And the minnows did well.* so many minnow bashing games
best possible schedule for the tourists, teams, with including reserve days and everything. It couldn't have made much better.* crap schedule
No, the same length as last time and even shorter in terms of games. Again with things they had to take into consideration- traveling for the tourists, reserve days etc.* Wc far too long
eh, not that of a big deal.* no day-night games
yeah but only in like one ground i think, barbados got a really nice one.* poor outfeilds
no, did south africa and england getting knocked out make 2003 the worst wc ever? I dont think so.* India and Pakistan knocked out early
at least they made it to the 2nd round unlike last time with south africa knockout in the 1st round.* poor form of the host nation
No not really, the bangladesh win over SA opened up the s8 a lot NZ could have been knockout with SA and ENG making it in.* Top 3 decided halfway though the S8 round
No, not the worst world cup ever.what do u think?