Well, it is about to begin? Any predictions, on the winner as well as how many matches will be forfeited by teams not wanting to play their matches in Zimbabwe or Kenya? What a mess. An object lesson why the World Cup of soccer should NOT be in Africa in 2010. Well, enjoy the games. Group A Group B Australia Bangladesh England Canada India Kenya Namibia New Zealand Netherlands South Africa Pakistan Sri Lanka Zimbabwe West Indies The best teams in group A seem to be Australia, India and Pakistan. It will be interesting to see if Zimbabwe gets a free four points if England forfeits that match. Group B seems a little more interesting. South Africa, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand seem to be the top three in that group, but will New Zealand forfeit the Kenya match scheduled for Mombasa?
Gee, and I was thinking the same about Namibia. By the way, I went with a little bit of a dark horse, Sri Lanka, eliminating Australia along the way. Co-ICC Champions Trophey champions and winners of the World Cup in 1996. They have a fabulous spin bowler, which should help them on the hard South African wickets and an experienced batting line-up. Down side, they don't tend to do very well when the temperature dips below 25. Maybe South African will have a heat wave during the tournament.
The Aussies have just been absolute monsters lately (although most test nations would be against England ) Although, it is a long tournament, so a lot of things could happen. I just wish it were available on something other than Dish Network here in the States...
Really, it's a lesson in why the FIFA WC shouldn't be held in a Mugabe-led Zimbabwe, which it won't be. You shouldn't lump South Africa (or most of the other countries that have bid for 2010) in with Zimbabwe or Kenya regarding this.
Perhaps we have a chance to beat Kenya, compete with Bangladesh and keep it close against Sri Lanka? Probably not, but one can only hope. Here is the Canadian cricket association website. http://canada.cricket.org/
Not being picky or over reacting here but that's bollocks. True, Australia mauled us in the Ashes, but find a test side that would have beaten them. Is our (England) one-day side that bad that we don't even get mentioned in the chances in the poll? I'd suggest not, as would Sri Lanka ,who are interestingly part of the poll and India for christ's sake! The one chink of light for the supposed knowledge that is the basis of this thread, is that you're (not you eric for I know 'twas not you that started this charade off) assuming England will lose points for not playing the match in Zimbabwe as therefore will be automatically out of the running. Let me get things straight - not for one second do I think we will win the cup, Australia must be Schumacher style favourites, but to not even put them in the potential victors and behind India and Sri Lanka etc - lacks a little something along the line. Of course I may be proven hilariously wrong.
Anybody who doesnt pick the aussies to win the world cup is a fool or part of the english cricket team, whichever is more degrading. I have lost all faith in our english cricket team. Although most teams would be demolished by the lads from down under in a test series, england showed practicaly no fight through-out the whole series. 6 nations starts soon. I know which tournament i will be watching.
South Africa or Australia will be the main contenders... I dont see much difference between the others... Sri lanka lost 3 out of 4 against england in the triangular series... pakistan have done nothing for years... India have a weak pace bowling attack... England blow hot and cold in one day cricket.. I reckon we aint a bad oufit... I see we've taken abit of flak off people who know nothing about cricket.. keep it real you clowns...
It'll be interesting to see how the West Indies do now after their great start. But I think everyone is competing for second after the aussies.
Opening match West Indies 278-5 (50 overs) South Africa 275-9 (49 overs) West Indies win by 3 runs http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2730000/newsid_2736400/2736443.stm
West indies have been playing well in one-day cricket for quite a while . Its not really a suprise that they beat South Africa. They''ve been quietly putting a decent team together.
OK, someone please explain something to me, a cricket novice. If SA still had two people who were not out, why didn't they get the chance to make up the three runs with the 50th over? What the BBC report says is: "But he fell in the final over - the 49th after a slow over rate in West Indies innings - to leave his side agonisingly short." So what's a "slow over rate"?
Basically the South Africans would be able to catch the West Indies run total and the rate they were going. Even if it went to 50 overs, which is the max in a ODI, the South Africans would score enough runs to win.
Group B match at Bloemfontein Sri Lanka 272-5 (50 Overs) New Zealand 225 All Out (45.3 Overs) Sri Lanka wins by 47 runs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2730000/newsid_2739800/2739893.stm Group A at Harare Zimbabwe 340-2 (50 Overs) Namibia 104-5 (25.1 Overs) Match was halted due to torrential rains. Officals calculated the score and gave Zimbabwe victory by 86 runs. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2740000/newsid_2744200/2744231.stm
Re: Re: Cricket World Cup [R] The team bowling first has to bowl the full 50 overs within a specified time (not sure what it is in the WC - usually 3 1/2 hours). The umpires allow a little leeway for things like injuries, crowd disturbances etc, but if they deem that the bowling team are deliberately going slow, they will penalise them a certain number of overs when it is their turn to bat. In this match they determined that South Africa should be penalised 1 over.
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/030211/80/dsym9.html Shane Warne went home after failing drugs test. Australia lost a good player and perhaps caused destriction in the locker room.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2740000/newsid_2749800/2749831.stm England/Zimbabwe isn't happening as scheduled. Thanks to QPR Kevin for the heads up on this one, from another thread.
Group A at Johannesburg Australia 310-8 (50 Overs) Pakistan 228 All Out (45 Overs) Australia wins by 82 runs. Group B match at Durban Canada 180 All Out (49 Overs) Bangladesh 120 All Out (29 Overs) Canada wins by 60 runs. GO CANADA!!!!
So do Canada actually have some decent bowlers, or are Bangladesh just that bad? 120 All out @ 29 is pretty impressive.
Here is a picture of what the Canadian team had to deal with during training before the World Cup in Toronto. http://www.cricket.org/perl/picture.cgi/041716
Re: Re: Cricket World Cup [R] Again, not that I really know anything, but Bangladesh haven't won a single-day match in four years, which sounds kinda bad.
Re: Re: Re: Cricket World Cup [R] Probably because they went from a non test playing nation to a test playing nation in the last four years. Canada is a non test playing nation and part timers. The victory for Canada is huge in terms of crediblity.
Bangladesh was a non-test nation in the '99 World Cup. They beat Pakistan in way that turned out to be a bad omen for the Pakastanis. Canada, could say, has only one full-time pro of high quality. That being John Davidson.
Re: Re: Re: Cricket World Cup [R] Seems odd. Is there some reason it's in a team's interest to bowl slowly that makes the umpires feel it necessary to penalize for it?