ODI overview of 2006 with World Cup in mind

With hardly any one-day cricket left before the World Cup, I thought I would send out my overview of ODI teams from the last year, in terms of strengths, weaknesses, who’s looking hot and who not with the Cup in mind.

ENGLAND

Simply hopeless. In spite of their trashing in Australia, I think they are still amongst the better Test teams in the world. But not so in one-dayers. Their one day team has never managed to replicate the success of their Test team, even during their halcyon days of 2004-05. But there was a glimmer during the 2004 Champions Trophy, where their runner-up position suggested they were turning the corner. While the West Indies, who won that trophy, have moved from strength to strength in the shorter version of the game, England have simply moved backwards. In large measure, this is because no one in England cricket seems to take ODIs seriously – not the players, the team managers, the selectors, or the administration. One could put it down to a certain enduring conceit that Test cricket is the Real Deal. While I agree with that myself, that sits oddly with a cricket establishment that has any number of one-day trophies on the domestic circuit, and that has pioneered the 20-20 form of Ultimate Pajama cricket with much more enthusiasm than the Aussies or South Africans.

This disinterested attitude towards one-day cricket is just dumb. Twenty years ago, one could deride one-day cricket as secondary to Tests, but by no index – either in terms of prestige, or quality of cricket – can that be said to be the case anymore. England remain one of the two major teams along with South Africa to have never won a World Cup, in spite of having played 5 World Cups more than the Proteas have done (I’m not counting New Zealand as a “major” team in this regard). That alone, one would have thought, would have been incentive enough to go into the World Cup with all guns firing, as the Aussies did in October to rectify their absence of a Champions Trophy title. But the other point is that one-day cricket has been a feeder to improvements in the standards of Test cricket, where batting has become more positive and result-oriented, and standards of fielding have drastically improved, because of players bringing those qualities in from the shorter version of the game. Australia are the best example of a team that learns from one-day cricket and implements its lessons in Tests. Even if England have decided that only Tests matter, taking one-day cricket seriously will make them a better Test team.

Key players

Flintoff remains a fine all-rounder in both forms of the game, but he is going to be exhausted after the Ashes, may or may not be stand-in captain again going into the World Cup, and I think will be less of a factor over the course of the tournament than some of the other all-rounders we’ll see like Dwayne Bravo or Shane Watson. He’s still capable of winning the odd game for England single-handedly, but the real key to their fortunes will I think be Kevin Pietersen, who is quickly suggesting that he will be a future great in the game. In Trescothick’s absence, England’s batting is largely going to revolve around Pietersen. They need him to bat at 4, and for the others to bat around him. If he fails, then England’s already slim chances of winning any games of significance will become even slimmer.

Weak links

Where to start? There is an absence of quality batting beyond Pietersen and Flintoff, and the bowlers this summer were about as accurate as that of my Human Biology cricket team in college (where our captain once famously conceded 42 runs in an over, when the opposition needed an improbable 40 to win off the last two overs). But what mystifies me is that there are some quality one-day cricketers playing for the counties who haven’t been given the look in at all at the international stage. Foremost amongst them is Mal Loye, one of the most explosive batsmen in county cricket, and surely an essential replacement for Trescothick at the top of the order. Another fine one-day cricketer is Darren Maddy, one of the stars of the 20-20 circuit. A top 6 of Strauss, Loye, Maddy, Pietersen, Collingwood and Flintoff might actually give England something to play for – the likes of Ian Bell and Alastair Cook, while fine long-term Test prospects, are not going to give bowling sides sleepless nights at the World Cup.

Equally, I am amazed that Matthew Hoggard, one of the most niggardly bowlers in Test cricket, is completely not in England’s one-day plans. I know he doesn’t think that highly of one-day cricket himself, but that is precisely the weakness of attitude that England needs to get over that I’ve alluded to earlier. With Harmison retiring from the one-day game, England desperately needs experienced bowling support for Flintoff, and Hoggard is one of the few players to emerge from even the Ashes pounding with credit. I think Panesar would also be a key performer if Duncan Fletcher gives him a go – he is a quality bowler, and will enjoy the increasingly slow and spin-friendly West Indian pitches. But chances are that even if he gets as far as the West Indies, he will be benched for the bits-and-pieces utility of Jamie Dalrymple, and England will lose a true match-winning prospect in the process.

Predictions

Forget it. Nothing’s going to get England even close to the semi-finals, unless at least four other teams boycott the tournament altogether.

SOUTH AFRICA

An interesting case, and a team to look out for. By no stretch is this South African team as strong as the teams of the 1990s, with both the 1992 and 1999 teams being good enough to have won the tournament. Graeme Smith has struggled as a captain, Herschelle Gibbs has gone into a prolonged funk, and other than those two and Kallis, there isn’t much batting class either in the team or in the wings. In spite of this, they have performed as the number two one-day side in the world behind Australia, and remain one of the few teams with a chance of beating the Aussies. And they are capable of mind-boggling feats on their day, such as their successful chase of 434 in Johannesburg in March.

South Africa have two real strengths that make up for the lack of genuine class. The first, as has always been the case, is their electric fielding, which gives them a 20 run handicap per game over most teams in the world, and a 30-40 run handicap against India or Pakistan. And the second is that they bat very deep – Pollock, who comes in at 8, would rank as a better batsman than many number 7s in world cricket. This means you can never write them off – like Australia, they could be 4 or 5 down for less than 100 and still post or chase a score close to 300. Their weakness is their tendency to choke in big games – for all their one-day prowess, better South African teams than this one have failed to win any major international ODI tournaments.

Key players

Of course the veterans Smith, Kallis and Pollock form the core of the team, but the real player to watch here is Justin Kemp. He is one of the most explosive no. 6/7 batsmen in world cricket, akin to Andrew Symonds for Australia, Dhoni for India or (when he fires) Shahid Afridi for Pakistan. What this means is that South Africa, like these other 3 teams, can be very dangerous in the slog – expect them to end up with 80 to 100 more than whatever they have scored in the 40th over of any innings. Lance Klusener showed in 1999 how effective a slog over batsman of that caliber can be – get ready this time round for Klusener 2.0. Kemp is also a handy enough bowler to give Smith 5-7 overs a game, making him a key match-winning part of this line-up.

Weak links

Their tendency to choke in big games, and the absence of a genuine fast bowler of the class of Allan Donald, who had so much to contribute in South Africa’s previous World Cup campaigns. Dale Steyn, his anointed successor, is not in the same league in terms of consistency. Both Pollock and Ntini are quality bowlers, but Pollock will not blast sides out, and Ntini has always done better in Tests than one-dayers. So this is a weaker South African bowling attack than those of previous teams.

But the biggest gap is the absence of a spinner of any quality – Robin Petersen, their current one-day favorite, would struggle to get into a club side in India, let alone a Ranji side. In West Indian conditions, spinners are going to have a big role to play, and the Proteas are going to rue the absence of a good one.

They are also going to be exhausted, having a three-Test series against Pakistan coming up between now and the World Cup – meaning 6 Tests in a 6-week period leading up to a 6-week long one-day tournament. Not ideal preparation.

Predictions

This is a team that is a serious candidate for the title, and ought to reach the semi-finals. But I don’t think it has quite the class, or the leadership, or the stomach, to play with the consistency needed to go all the way. And I think that they could get upset and fail to reach even the semis, especially if any of their key players picks up an injury during the Pakistan series. They don’t have a huge amount of talent waiting in the wings, and the likes of Smith, Kallis, Pollock, Kemp and Ntini will prove irreplaceable. Will they be as fit and focused as some of their rivals for the semi-final spot? Possibly not, at which point Smith’s head will really be on the chopping block.

PAKISTAN

Predicting the performance of the Pakistani team has always been a bit like predicting the weather in an English summer, and even Bob Woolmer’s stint as coach hasn’t changed that. What has changed are the traditional strengths of the team. Pakistan has always depended on quality fast swing bowlers to blast out the opposition, backed up by a talented but somewhat mercurial batting line-up. Now it’s the other way round – they still have some quality young seamers in Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul, and Shoaib Akhtar may yet play and play big. But it’s their middle order of Younis, Yousuf and Inzamam that is the envy of the rest of the world. The other key strength is the number of all-rounders they have. Traditionally, it has been the less talented teams like New Zealand that have filled their side with the bits-and-pieces men; but now a Pakistan 11 could well include Shoaib Malik, Mohammad Hafeez, Shahid Afridi and Abdur Razzaq, each of which on his day is good for a 100 with the bat and 2-3 wickets with the ball. When you combine that with the devastating talent of their middle order, what you get is, on paper, arguably the most exciting and versatile team in the tournament. And while a bowling attack of Shoaib, Asif and Gul might not (yet) be in the same league as Wasim, Waqar and Aaqib Javed, it is an extremely versatile attack – Akhtar’s raw pace, Asif’s ability to seam it off a length, and Gul’s line and length and consistency. The emergence of Abdur Rehman as an exciting spin bowling prospect in the series against the West Indies means that the bowling, while inexperienced, has depth and great variety; Rehman could turn out to be one of the young players to look out for.

The question, as always, is consistency. Brilliant as this team is on paper, it has, like previous Pakistani teams, swayed from dazzling brilliance one day to sheer mediocrity the next. I think this is a much better looking team than the disappointing 2003 unit; but I don’t think it is the well oiled machine that the Cup winning 92 team was.

Key player

Anyone who has made 1800 Test runs in a calendar year is a key player, and Mohammad Yousuf is a hot candidate for being player of the tournament. But the two who surround him, Younis and Inzamam, are match-winners in their own right, and it is these three who form the core of the team, capable of out-batting anyone on their day. With the ball, Mohammad Asif is truly a great fast bowler in the making – if he can stay fit through the tournament, he could well claim his place in the sun, and every team will struggle against him.

Weak links

The weak links are two – the first is leadership, and the second are the unpredictables. In terms of leadership, Inzy has never set the Indus on fire as a strategist. His job has been to lead by example. While his form was top-notch in the first part of last year, he has done little of note with the bat since the Oval fiasco. With many people (probably in the team as well) feeling that Younis would have made the better leader, a bad showing with the bat by Inzy could really make things fragile for the team – not only will it leave a big hole in the middle order, it will reopen the leadership question in the middle of the tournament, which could be disastrous for a team that very rarely plays as a unit at the best of times. Add to that the volatile relationship Inzy has with Shoaib, and the potential for things to go horribly wrong for Pakistan does exist. Bob Woolmer compensates as strategist, but he hasn’t really gelled with the Pakistanis, and I’m not sure that he can work the coaching magic that he worked with South Africa or Warwickshire in the 90s. Next in line for the England job, perhaps, but not yet a World Cup winning coach, I don’t think.

The unpredictables are those players who are amongst the most talented in the game, but who have serious questions of form, commitment and fitness hanging over them. For Pakistan, Shoaib has been such an unpredictable throughout his career. On his day, he can still be the most devastating fast bowler in world cricket. But that day is interspersed with poor fitness, controversy, bust ups with the captain, coach and team, and all manner of other disruptions. Leaving him out leaves Pakistan without a genuine fast bowler, and reduces the experience of an already inexperienced attack. Pulling him in brings with the risk of all manner of explosions and implosions. The second unpredictable is Shahid Afridi – if he fires even 3 times out of 10, Pakistan have won that game no questions asked, and I think he provides terrific balance to the side at no. 6 following the big 3. But his form through much of last year has been simply horrific, so the question becomes whether to select him based on reputation, or select someone else like Faisal Iqbal or Yasir Hameed who might be more reliable or in form. South Africa face a similar question with Herschelle Gibbs, but in Pakistan’s case there is more talent waiting in the wings. Shoaib and Afridi are difficult selectorial decisions, and it will be interesting to see which way the selectors and team management go on both.

Prediction

I think Pakistan are real candidates to reach the semi-finals, but much will depend on how easily they can relate to each other and come to terms with themselves rather than their opponents. I don’t see Inzy leading them to a Cup – they need a captain with the authority and respect of an Imran Khan to play with the sort of consistency and discipline that is required to win such a big prize. And they are quite capable of imploding before the semi-final stage and making an inglorious exit. They have struggled to compete with Australia for over a decade, and have yet to beat India in a World Cup game, so winning those games are going to be a tall order. They should win against England and New Zealand, so the games against South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies will determine whether they can make the semis or not – they will really need to beat two of those three to be sure of doing so.

INDIA

To be honest, India aren’t much easier to predict than Pakistan, and 2006 has seen stunning highs and staggering lows. Form leading into the tournament is little guide as well – India were absolute rubbish heading into 2003, and then looked unstoppable en route to the finals. They are a more experienced unit than they were in 2003, and the fact that many of their players have played in a World Cup final, and that most of this team would have experienced West Indian conditions last summer, will help. Dravid, I think, is one of the best captains in world cricket (in my mind, second only to Jayawardene as tactician and leader), and his leadership will be as crucial as his batting.

When you look at India’s see-saw year, though, the unpredictability has some logic. And this is that India’s golden run early last year was because of four key players – Dravid, Dhoni, Pathan and Yuvraj. By the end of the year, only Dravid was really in the picture – Yuvraj injured (and potentially out of the World Cup); Dhoni not quite in the groove (though not yet facing anything as serious as a devastating loss of form); and Pathan a nervous wreck. It is hard when three of your most important players fall out of form or fitness at the same time, and India have to figure out what to do about that. Yuvraj’s recovery is out of their hands, and Dhoni I think is not a huge worry, but somehow the team management needs to figure out how to get Pathan mentally ready for the tournament.

Key player

Dravid is always a key player in the manner that someone like Kallis is for South Africa, but really India’s two key players are the ones who may not even play in the Cup. The first is Yuvraj – on the whole, he hasn’t achieved as much over his career so far as he might have, but the talent is immense, his ability to read a game is second to none, and of course the value of his fielding in an otherwise weak fielding side cannot be overestimated. He was awesome last season in both forms of the game, but even before this purple patch, he has been a match-winner for India. Indeed, ever since he made his debut in 2000, India has invariably won when Yuvraj has made 50; such a strong correlation between individual performance and team success doesn’t exist for any of the other Indian batsmen, not even Dravid. If Yuvraj doesn’t recover in time for the Cup, then forget any chances of winning – probably, I would say, forget any chances of even making the semis.

The second is Pathan. Playing him with his fragile confidence is a huge risk, and he has shown in the latter part of the year that he can be very bad indeed on an off-day. But he is the one genuine all-rounder in India today (I think Joginder Sharma is a second and has to be in the picture, but he is still untried), so is crucial to the balance of the team. The other bowling candidates in the team can chip in the odd 20, but for the most part can’t bat to save their lives; so sans Pathan, if we want to play 5 bowlers, you have the horrible thought of Agarkar at 7. Imagine a game against South Africa, already 40 behind on fielding difference between the two sides, with India having Golden Duck Agarkar at 7, and South Africa having a class batsman like Pollock at 8. There’s no way that imbalance can be compensated for, however star-studded the top order might be. The other option if you leave out Pathan is to go in with just 4 bowlers, and even Australia are finding these days that 4 bowlers is one too short. The 2003 formula of packing your side with 7 batsmen and out-batting the opposition, as both Australia and India did, just isn’t feasible anymore. Therefore, India can’t go with form when deciding on Pathan – he has to be part of the plan, and so too does Joginder to back him up without disrupting the balance of the team if he doesn’t fire.

Weak link

In terms of structure, the weakest link is the absence of all-round depth. Pathan promised to plug that, but India really should have groomed back-ups to Pathan a few months back instead of throwing all their eggs into that basket. (I think that in this regard, the decision to jettison J.P. Yadav after just a couple of games in mid-2005 was a terrible one with long-term implications). Joginder could be that all-round back-up, but of course it’s not ideal pitch-forking a newcomer into the mix just before such a big tournament. No other team in the world is as weak on the all-rounder front, and that could be a crucial factor in India failing to go all the way (or even half-way) in the tournament. This is something that has to be addressed over the long term if India is to consistently remain a top one-day team.

On the personnel front, India’s weakness is the same as Pakistan – the unpredictables. Pathan is obviously one, but two others are Sehwag and Tendulkar. India’s position with Sehwag is identical to Pakistan’s with Afridi – how do you drop someone who has the ability to win a game for you single-handedly like he does? On the other hand, Sehwag’s problems in the one-day game are now long-term enough to indicate that something worse than a loss of form is the issue – the last one-day 100 Sehwag scored was in April 2005. For an opening batsman to not score a 100 for two years and still be persisted with is virtually unthinkable. It’s hard to drop a person of Sehwag’s reputation before a big tournament – Sehwag has, after all, done much more than Afridi if you look over the course of their respective careers – but it is clear that he is a huge liability at the top of the order now, and one that is dragging down the performance of the team as a whole by ensuring consistently poor starts. If Sehwag is to squeeze into the 11, it has to be as batting slog over all-rounder at no. 7, perhaps fighting for the same spot as Pathan and Joginder.

Tendulkar’s inconsistencies are equally worrying, suggesting that he has entered into the twilight of his career. He still shows glimpses of brilliance, which again makes it hard to contemplate dropping him. But there have only been two match-winning knocks from him over the past two years, and again having him at the top of the order means that the openers look very fragile. Sachin was in a similar bad patch before the 2003 World Cup, and then had a tremendous tournament. And his position in the team makes it hard for him to be in the 14 and not in the 11, which means that his presence in the side virtually ties up a spot, regardless of how well or badly he is doing. India hardly missed him when he was out with injury, so deciding what to do with him, Sehwag and Pathan is as tricky for the Indian selectors as dealing with Shoaib and Afridi is for Pakistan. But having three heavyweights who don’t pull their weight could be devastating for India’s fortunes.

Predictions

This team has the ability to reach the semi-finals, but it’s going to be a struggle. And if it reaches the semis, it has the experience, and will have the momentum, to possibly go all the way. As with South Africa, there is a tendency to choke the big games, and I think winning is a tall order, especially given the very poor one-day record against the Aussies in the past couple of years. And I frankly think that beating South Africa is a tall order as well. Reaching the finals will be a fine performance, but I think expecting more than that is unrealistic. A flat performance leading to a pre semi-final exit is, as with South Africa and Pakistan, also a distinct possibility.

SRI LANKA

Of the three sub-continental teams, Sri Lanka are the ones to watch. But they too have had an inconsistent year, starting poorly, then playing beautifully in the middle against England, but failing against all odds to make the semi-finals in the Champions Trophy. On paper, they are one of the best balanced sides in the world. Unlike in 96, where they depended on big hitting at the top of the order followed by the genius of Murali to strangle the opposition, there is a real versatility in the side now. Jayasuriya remains a major force, but the likes of Sangakkara, Jayawardene and Attapattu caress rather than bludgeon the opposition into submission. Their middle order, indeed, rivals Pakistan’s for form and confidence, the difference being that their opening pair of Jayasuriya and Tharanga is far stronger than anything Pakistan have managed to put together. The bowling also is no longer a one-card pony, and the Lankans have real depth and variety to their attack. Chaminda Vaas, of course, is a terrific one-day bowler, but the real find has been Lasith Malinga, who for the first time in their history gives them a genuine pace bowling option to go with their swing and spin options. Malinga I think rivals Asif as being one of the most exciting fast bowling prospects in world cricket today, and he will be a key player for the Lankans.

The other area where Sri Lanka score is in leadership. Jayawardene has proved to be a brilliant captain, and Tom Moody has slotted in seamlessly into the coach’s role. No other team has this kind of captain-coach synergy, and that makes for a very harmonious unit driven by a team ethic that few others can match. This is a huge plus when compared especially to an equally talented team like Pakistan, and indeed the game between the two will have a huge bearing on both teams’ fortunes in the tournament.

Key player

As with Dravid and Kallis, Murali is a key player by virtue of his pedigree and centrality to this team over the past decade. But I think Malinga will be the X-factor that will give this Sri Lankan bowling an extra fizz and potentially surprise opponents. And of course, Jayawardene and Sangakkara with the bat – they are the pivotal players at 4 and 5 (like Dravid and Yuvraj for India, or Yousuf and Younis / Inzy for Pakistan), their form has been outstanding, and they are both big occasion players who come good when the team needs them most.

Weak link

While the top 5 are quality, Sri Lanka do have a weak underbelly in their lower middle order, with the likes of Thilakaratne Dilshan and Russell Arnold never really establishing themselves as match-winners in spite of being in the picture for 7-8 years now. This could change in this World Cup with the emergence of Chamara Silva and Chamara Kapugadera, both of whom are immensely talented and who will probably fight for the no. 6 spot. But when you compare that lower middle order with Kemp and Pollock for SA, Afridi, Razzaq and Akmal for Pakistan, Dhoni and Pathan for India, Symonds, Hussey and Watson for Australia, or Bravo, Samuels and Dwayne Smith for West Indies, then you see a real relative weakness. What this means is that if an opposition can knock off 3 or 4 Sri Lankan wickets early, they’re really in deep trouble – this is not the case with Australia or South Africa, or even to some extent with India, Pakistan or the West Indies. There also is not a quality all-rounder, other than Jayasuriya, who is a frontline batsman and good for 10 overs most days. That’s a more reliable all-round option than someone like Pathan currently is for India, but doesn’t compare to the all-round depth that many other teams (India excluded), even England and New Zealand, have in the tournament.

When you look back at 2006, Sri Lanka haven’t had the one-day results to back up their talent. The 5-0 drubbing of England in England was ruthless and clinical, but it was England after all. So on paper they are a genuine contender, but they are also eminently beatable, and don’t have that aura of invincibility that a great team like Australia has about it.

Predictions

I think Sri Lanka are a real contender to reach the finals, and certainly have a much better chance of doing so than they did in 99 or 03. And they are one of the few teams who have the talent and temperament to beat Australia on their day. The two things they have in their favor are their leadership team – except for Ponting in 03, who had one of the all-time great teams under him, the last 4 World Cups have been won in substantial measure by great captaincy (Waugh in 99, Ranatunga in 96, Imran in 92, and Border in 87) – and the fact that, unlike South Africa and India, this unit has won many finals of many tournaments (true, many of them have been tournaments played in Sri Lanka where they are virtually invincible, but it does mean that this is a unit that knows how to handle big-match pressure).

On the other hand, other than the big win in England, 2005-06 saw a crushing 6-1 defeat in India; a defeat by Pakistan in Sri Lanka (a rare feat); and that poor Champions Trophy showing. So as with South Africa, Pakistan and India, this team is as capable of an early exit as it is of going all the way. I think Sri Lanka’s Super Eight game against Pakistan, whenever it is, will be a key marker of how far they’ll go in the tournament. The two teams may well end up fighting for one semi-final spot, and that game could be a key indicator of relative form as well as have consequences in deciding the semi-final line-up.

AUSTRALIA

Is there any point even writing about them? What do you say about a team that has won 10 Tests out of 10 in 2006 and the Champions Trophy for good measure in the one-day arena? The spate of retirements won’t affect them – McGrath will play the World Cup, Warne had already retired from one-dayers, Langer wasn’t part of the one-day team and Martyn had become a borderline selection already. So any tempering of predictions with respect to Australia has to be clutching at straws.

Having said which, South Africa did beat Australia 3-2 in a series last spring (albeit in South Africa), and they have lost the odd one-day here and there, such as to the West Indies in Kuala Lumpur. So on any given day, they are beatable. The question is – who can beat them? England and New Zealand are out of the equation to my mind. Pakistan have never played them well, and India have really not competed well with them in ODIs over the past couple of years. The West Indies can, but have played two finals against them – in Malaysia, and the Champions Trophy final – very, very badly, suggesting that they could pull off an upset in a Super Eight game, but are unlikely to beat Australia in a World Cup final. South Africa too can beat Australia on the day, but given their poor record in big games, that day is unlikely to be in a final. Which leaves, to my mind, Sri Lanka as the only team that is mentally strong enough to beat Australia in a final; but Sri Lanka will have to get there first.

Key players

Ponting has been a colossus the way Yousuf has been for Pakistan, and the two will compete for being the highest run scorer of the tournament. But their key is the lower middle order, 5-7, of Symonds, Hussey and Watson. Symonds and Hussey are the ones who bat Australia out of jail if they lose early wickets, or run away with the game if the start is good. Symonds’ ability to hit a cricket ball with force is rivaled by very few in the world; add to that his useful bowling and brilliant fielding (worth 20 a game itself), and he’s in the market for being one of the most influential players of the tournament. Hussey meanwhile is simply Bradman for the one day game – we thought Michael Bevan was a great finisher, but Hussey has all the instincts for reading the game that Bevan had, plus is a much better player technically and in terms of talent than Bevan ever was. Watson is an exciting all-rounder find, and allows Australia a genuine five-bowler option that they never had in 03. Following Ponting, these are the three that make Australia so formidable, which allows them to outbat most opposition even though in terms purely of class Pakistan and Sri Lanka might be said to have stronger middle orders.

Weak link

Four years ago, it could be said that they had none, but now they do. The biggest is at the top of the order, with neither Hayden nor Gilchrist the forces they were 4 years ago (though both are still capable of winning matches for Australia on their own steam). There have been a few occasions when Australia have found themselves 80 for 4 or 100 for 5 of late, and it’s very important for teams that have them in that position to find a way to keep them there. (Maybe tripping up Hussey as he takes a single in order to sprain his ankle might be something to try). Hussey usually bats them out of those situations, but if Hussey’s golden run comes to an end and he is reduced to being a mere mortal with an average in the 50s rather than the 90s, Australia could find themselves in a spot of occasional bother.

Lee and Clark are fine bowlers and McGrath can’t be taken lightly, but the bowling too I don’t think has quite the versatility of, say, Sri Lanka’s. Brad Hogg is a good spinner but not a great one, so if batting line-ups like Pakistans and Sri Lanka’s (and India’s on its day) adopt the right mental approach, then this bowling attack is probably easier to take on than it was 4 years ago, when both McGrath and Gillespie were at their peak, and Lee breathing fire.

Predictions

When Australia demolished India in the 03 final, the wisdom was that they were an aging side and their best days were now behind them. 4 years on, the lack of that wisdom is all too apparent. Australia can be beaten in a World Cup, but it would be a brave punter who decides that this is the year that will happen. The only hope that other teams might have is that they might be a little flat after their incredible Ashes campaign, but that too is clutching at straws.

NEW ZEALAND

I might seem to have already written New Zealand off as a serious contender, which of course is a dangerous thing to do in the shorter version of the game, where they have always been an underrated and competitive side. They have never been a star-studded side, and the whole has always been greater than the sum of their parts. But I think this is the weakest New Zealand team to go into a World Cup in two decades, because in the past those parts operated around at least one real star – Richard Hadlee in the 1980s, Martin Crowe in the late 80s and early 90s, or Chris Cairns until a couple of years ago. New Zealand don’t have a single star of that caliber who can lay claim to being amongst the best in the world at the moment. Their one world class player is Shane Bond, but he has hardly struck together 10 games on the trot without breaking down with injury. As long as Bond is fit, New Zealand will be a factor, especially if they get slightly helpful conditions – of the three genuine fast bowlers in world cricket (Lee, Akhtar, Bond), I think, on his day, Bond is the most complete bowler. But whether he will stay fit through a 6-week tournament is the big question.

Key players

Bond. There are other useful players, and Nathan Astle will want what is probably his farewell series to be a memorable one. But no other bowler is capable of winning a game for them single-handedly, and Astle isn’t the batsman that he was in 99, when he was one of the top batsmen of the tournament. They have a lot of useful all-rounders, and Jacob Oram promised much a few years ago, but he hasn’t really lived up to that promise, and none of the all-rounders are in the league of a Cairns or a Hadlee. Like South Africa, they do bat deep, with Vettori at 9 good for a fighting 50, but really their fortunes depend entirely on Bond’s fitness.

Weak link

Their coach. John Bracewell has to be the most eccentric coach in world cricket, and some of his team selections and strategies have defied logic. He has also managed to completely stifle Stephen Fleming’s leadership, turning the most creative and charismatic captain in world cricket into a bit of a rudderless doormat. How New Zealand’s cricket board persists with him on the job when someone of the caliber of John Wright is sitting there jobless is beyond me, but there you have it.

Predictions

I think New Zealand have far greater potential than England to cause upsets, so no team would do well to take them lightly. I don’t think they’re good enough to beat the Aussies, and they have always for some reason crumbled against Pakistan. But they ought to beat England; are more than capable of beating the West Indies, who struggle against steady and consistent opposition; can beat India and Sri Lanka if they get conditions that help their swing bowlers; and tend to play their best against South Africa because of Fleming’s deep personal animosity towards Graeme Smith. If they really string it together, then, they’re good enough to win 5 of their key games out of 7, a semi-final performance. But I think that’s a tall order, and anything beyond a semi-final spot I think is out of the question.

WEST INDIES

The last time West Indies was a serious contender for the title was two decades ago, and the last time they’ve reached the semi-finals was in 96, when they somehow beat South Africa in the quarter finals after looking the far inferior team until that point in the tournament. Considering that there really have been no systems in place to improve this state of affairs, it’s a testament to their natural talent and to Brian Lara’s recent inspirational leadership that they are now, again, a contender. The turn-around started with the Champions Trophy in 2004, and has continued into this past year – a big win at home against an Indian team that was on a roll at that point, another run to a Champions Trophy final, a spirited performance (albeit in a lost cause) in Pakistan. There is still a lot of inconsistency – as with the sub-continental teams, they can be brilliant one day and very ordinary the next. And this is a relatively inexperienced side, that may ultimately find itself unable to handle the pressure of such a big occasion. But there is no doubting the class in the team, which is saying a lot, since a few years ago it seemed like the West Indies had stopped producing quality cricketers because basketball had become the primary sport that youngsters were getting into. Lara is a much more mature captain the third time around, and he will be very eager to end his one-day career on a high note with a cup-winning performance at home.

Key players

Lara is the key player in the manner of Kallis, Dravid, or Ponting, but there are three others to look out for, and the good thing for the West Indies is that they all do different things. The first is Chris Gayle, who has always been explosive at the top of the order, but has spent much of his early career squandering promising starts and failing to live upto his promise. That has changed now, and the consistency he has brought to his cricket over the past year has been immense. 4 years ago, explosive starts were the norm, a pattern initiated during the pinch-hitting experiments of 1992 and maintained through the 90s. But now, with the decline of Hayden and Gilchrist, Sehwag and Tendulkar, and Gibbs for South Africa, all the big hitting openers in world cricket seem to be either past their best or out of form. Jayasuriya still carries on regardless, but really he and Gayle are the only two openers from whom we can expect 1996-style fireworks consistently in this tournament. And that gives the West Indies a huge edge at the top of the order, because they’re capable of getting off to flyers that other teams will find hard to catch. Gayle has also worked on his off-spin bowling, and is now one of the more useful and effective one-day off-spinners, providing the West Indies with a genuine all-round option in the manner of Jayasuriya.

The second is Dwayne Bravo, who I think will be the all-rounder of the tournament. The talent is immense, with bat, ball and in the field, and he has already won so many games for the West Indies in his short career that it is hard to remember that he is still only 20. But what this means is that West Indies have a quality big hitting batsman at either end – Gayle to provide an explosive start, and Bravo to provide an explosive finish – and sandwiched in between those are the class and reliability of Sarwan, Lara and Chanderpaul to shepherd them through the middle. When you compare that with the other strong line-ups – Sri Lanka’s (strong at the top, but weak further down), Australia (strong further down, but weak at the top) or Pakistan (brilliant in the middle, but questions above 3 and below 5) – the West Indies emerge as one of the batting line-ups to fear the most in the tournament.

The third is Jerome Taylor, who for me is in the Asif-Malinga league as being one of the most exciting fast bowling prospects in world cricket. One of the reasons the West Indies have struggled over the last 5 years is that there has been no quality new ball replacement for Ambrose and Walsh. Now their new ball pair is Corey Collymore, who can be as niggardly as a McGrath or a Pollock, and Taylor, who can be as quick as an Akhtar or a Lee. That’s a potent combination, Collymore capable of strangling the opposition while Taylor takes big wickets. With Bravo backing them up and Gayle’s useful off-spin, the West Indies have a more than useful bowling attack to back up their strong batting line-up.

Weak link

Consistency, especially in batting. Gayle has worked on his to great effect, but there are still too many talents in the team who produce too rarely. Ramnaresh Sarwan in a prime example, Marlon Samuels another. This of course is a problem with all the contenders in the tournament except for Australia, but a team that is this strong on paper really should be a much clearer shot for a semi-final spot than this West Indian team is.

Predictions

I think this team has a real chance of reaching the finals – at least as much as Sri Lanka. But it is also capable of imploding early on. The West Indies are working against a bit of bad history – the last time a host nation reached a World Cup final was England in 1979, and since then only India and Pakistan (in 87) and India (in 96) have even managed a semi-final spot as hosts. Definitely a team to watch for, and the fact that the West Indies are once again worth watching can only be good for world cricket.

OVERALL PREDICTIONS

Hard to look beyond Australia, though for the sake of cricket I hope someone gives them a run. But who they play in the finals is an open question. My gut feeling is that it will be either Sri Lanka or the West Indies, with the Lankans being the mentally stronger side. And I think the fourth semi-final spot will be a toss up between India and Pakistan, in this case India being the tougher team mentally and as a unit. I think South Africa will be a disappointment again, their series against Pakistan so close to the World Cup ultimately taking a toll on both teams.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR INDIA

The following, most of which I have alluded to above already:

To do well, we need a strong fielding unit. We are not going to turn into South Africa overnight, if ever, but a team that has Sehwag, Ganguly, Laxman, Kumble and Zaheer in its playing 11 will be carrying a lot of baggage in the field (add Munaf Patel to the mix, and you’re in real trouble). This is why Yuvraj is so important, why someone like Dinesh Karthik is important to consider even if Dhoni keeps wickets, and why either Mohammad Kaif or Subramaniam Badrinath is worth considering amongst the bench strength (Badri being in the same league as Yuvraj and Kaif as a fielder). All these strong fielders are also very good in between wickets – and indeed, we lost the Cape Town test in large measure because we easily gave away 60-70 runs to South Africa just because of poor fielding and poor running.

The core of the batting has to be Dhoni, Dravid and Yuvraj, and they need to be batting at 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The others can be fit in around them. 3 has been Dhoni’s most effective position, so he is wasted coming further down the order.

All-rounders. Pathan has to be in the picture as part of team balance, and in his own interests needs to be played as a batting all-rounder, rather than a bowling all-rounder. If he can bat at 7, come up consistently with 40-odd, and bowl 4-5 overs an innings, then anything over and above that is a bonus (that’s what is expected from a bits-and-pieces player like Dinesh Mongia, after all, and Pathan has far more talent with bat and ball than Mongia). Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking of Pathan as a strike bowler for the World Cup – those expectations just put pressure on Pathan as well. And a back-up to Pathan in case he fails to fire, who would be Joginder Sharma – perhaps more of a gamble at 7 than Pathan, but a far better bowler, so a good genuine 5th bowler to play against strong batting teams like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia and West Indies.

A decision to be taken on Sehwag and Tendulkar. I think having all 3 of Sehwag, Tendulkar and Pathan in the World Cup squad (which can only be 14-strong) is a huge gamble, because that really only leaves you with 11 in-form players to choose from. Pathan, as I’ve said, is essential from the perspective of team balance, so at least one of Sehwag and Tendulkar has to be dropped. It’s hard for me to think of dropping Sachin for what would be his last World Cup, especially given that, while past his best, he looked better than everyone else except Dravid in the disastrous one-day series in South Africa. His bowling will be a factor in the West Indies, and he remains a safe and agile fielder. So Sachin still in at the top of the order, and the selectors need to be courageous enough to drop Sehwag from the World Cup plans. Past reputation is all very well, but the form and commitment don’t measure up to take the risk of playing him.

I think Karthik has to slot in at the top with Sachin – he is so impressive temperamentally, and such a committed player – one of the real finds of the South Africa tour. That leaves one middle-order spot (the no. 4 spot), which has to be either Laxman or Ganguly – no place for both, especially since that will weaken the fielding and running in between wickets. Ganguly edges Laxman – in great form in South Africa, capable of chipping in with useful overs, a more aggressive batsman, adds variety by virtually of being left-handed – which will put Laxman onto the bench, but most definitely part of the touring party.

So, a team that looks like:

Karthik
Tendulkar
Dhoni
Ganguly
Dravid
Yuvraj (Kaif is Yuvraj fails to recover from injury)
Pathan / Joginder (depending on Pathan’s form)
Agarkar
Kumble
Zaheer
Sreesanth

With reserves as:

Laxman
Joginder / Pathan
Harbhajan

No place for Munaf, but his fitness and fielding are real questions, and Sreesanth has pipped him; Agarkar has to be in the team given how he bowled in the West Indies last summer, and Zak has re-emerged as our undoubted spearhead.