So Australia is overrated and England is not?

[marlonbrowndo]

If England do win their remaining 2 games and Pak win their remaining 3 games, we will have to bank on Australia beating New Zealand to qualify.

Even then it’ll come down to nrr between us and NZ

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Cricket can be such a cruel game.

England have worked so hard in the last four years. They had a clear plan and they worked towards it. They dropped as many as 9 players from their 2015 World Cup squad, and completely changed the way they played ODI cricket. Post 2015 World Cup, they won a series against every time and also beat India last summer to cement themselves as the number 1 team.

However, it is all falling apart and everything that could go wrong for them is going wrong. Injuries, marginal calls etc. everything is going against them.

If England fail to win the World Cup it will completely demoralize them. It is very disappointing. Now is the true test of Morgan’s leadership. He has the players to beat any team in the world, but it is about conditioning them to produce their 100% best against New Zealand and India.

England will bounce back, be positive my English brother

 

[WebGuru]

You missed the point. This is the only where leadership can make a telling difference. You have world class players who at their best are better than anyone in the world. If they are not performing to their max capacity for some reason, how do you lift them up?

If you have mediocre players in your team who simply don’t have the capacity, leadership will not make a difference. It can happen once or twice in 50 years, but it cannot happen consistently.

This England team doesn’t need fluke performances to win the World Cup, they just have to play their best cricket, because their best cricket had made them number one in the world.

South Africa stayed as number 1 In ODIs more thn England but failed when it mattered most you whole analysis is based on how England performed in bilateral series and their current ranking but the truth is winning a world cup needs more thn that.

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

If we win 3 games ours will catch up

Go easy on us brother, smash the Afghans

 

[Technics 1210]

You cannot be mediocre if you are ranked number 1. They have lost because of a combination of poor form, bad luck and injuries.

Right. But you can be medicore when beating the #ODI team.

1 mediocre team beating England can be considered a bad day at the office, but THREE defeat by 3 mediocre teams?

Save the ranking argument, it has already been proven rankings are unreliable. Rank 4, South Africa is out of the WC. Rank 1 was beaten by teams ranked 5 (Aus), 6 (Pak), and 9 (SL).

 

[topspin]

You cannot be mediocre if you are ranked number 1. They have lost because of a combination of poor form, bad luck and injuries.

Also because of England are not diversifying their home ODI pitches, which have been nothing but batting paradises dished up since their first home ODI series against NZ after the 2015 WC.

It's really beginning to haunt them.

 

[Mamoon]

Root, Butler, Eoin, and Stokes could have made the difference too. The chances of these batsmen scoring more is not high, it is a fact, check out top 20 batsman of the WC thus far.

Yes they could but they didn’t. That doesn’t mean Roy wouldn’t have either. Last year, England beat Australia at Old Trafford by 1 wicket. Buttler was 110 not out, but no other batsman scored more than 20.

Had Buttler missed that game, no one would have bought his absence as an excuse because if Roy, Bairstow, Hales, Root, Morgan and Moeen didn’t make a difference, neither would Buttler.

For all we know, Roy could have scored a half century like Stokes and England would have won the game, or maybe he would have failed too, but the point is that his absence is a major blow for England because he is their best opener and his replacement is a walking wicket.

 

[Mamoon]

South Africa stayed as number 1 In ODIs more thn England but failed when it mattered most you whole analysis is based on how England performed in bilateral series and their current ranking but the truth is winning a world cup needs more thn that.

South Africa’s leadership couldn’t lift their players in crunch moments, and Morgan and Bayliss will have to do it now for England.

 

[Ab Fan]

If we win 3 games ours will catch up

And NZ will also lose 3 games as well.

There are other scenarios as well:-

1) If Pakistan win all 3 games,
England beat NZ but lose to India
NZ loses to Pak, Eng, Australia all three

Pakistan 11 points
NZ 11 points
England 10 points

Pak may end up third!

2) If Pakistan loses to NZ but wins other two,
England also loses to both NZ and India,

Pakistan 9 points
England 8 points
NZ 15 points
Ind and Australia both will reach semis as well.

I see the first one has a good chance of occurring if somehow Pak beat NZ.

 

[Mamoon]

Right. But you can be medicore when beating the #ODI team.

1 mediocre team beating England can be considered a bad day at the office, but THREE defeat by 3 mediocre teams?

Save the ranking argument, it has already been proven rankings are unreliable. Rank 4, South Africa is out of the WC. Rank 1 was beaten by teams ranked 5 (Aus), 6 (Pak), and 9 (SL).

There is no need to group Australia with circus teams like Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Australia are ranked 5th, but that is because they didn’t have Warner and Smith for a year. They are not 1 or 2 in their presence, but they can be 3 or 4, which makes them inferior to England and India but superior to Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yes they could but they didn’t. That doesn’t mean Roy wouldn’t have either. Last year, England beat Australia at Old Trafford by 1 wicket. Buttler was 110 not out, but no other batsman scored more than 20.

Forget about last year, talk about the here and now. England have 8 points. How is this possible if Roy only fired once?

Had Buttler missed that game, no one would have bought his absence as an excuse because if Roy, Bairstow, Hales, Root, Morgan and Moeen didn’t make a difference, neither would Buttler.

Had Pakistan held on to their catches they'd be #1 in the table. Had Sarfraz had a salad instead of a burger he'd be the top wicket keeper. Where does your logic end?

For all we know, Roy could have scored a half century like Stokes and England would have won the game, or maybe he would have failed too, but the point is that his absence is a major blow for England because he is their best opener and his replacement is a walking wicket.

For all we know Zaman would have scored a double century in every match had he played the correct shots.

You get the point, what ifs are not an argument, it's desperation.


Seriously, I think you are on the pull now.

 

[andy0204]

There is no need to group Australia with circus teams like Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Australia are ranked 5th, but that is because they didn’t have Warner and Smith for a year. They are not 1 or 2 in their presence, but they can be 3 or 4, which makes them inferior to England and India but superior to Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

That circus teams won the world cup which england will not achieve

 

[Technics 1210]

There is no need to group Australia with circus teams like Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Australia are ranked 5th, but that is because they didn’t have Warner and Smith for a year. They are not 1 or 2 in their presence, but they can be 3 or 4, which makes them inferior to England and India but superior to Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

I didn't group Australia, you did before today's game by claiming Australia is an average team.

I repeat, save the ranking argument, it has already been proven rankings are unreliable. Rank 4, South Africa is out of the WC. Rank 1 was beaten by teams ranked 5 (Aus), 6 (Pak), and 9 (SL).

 

[Syed1]

There is no need to group Australia with circus teams like Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Australia are ranked 5th, but that is because they didn’t have Warner and Smith for a year. They are not 1 or 2 in their presence, but they can be 3 or 4, which makes them inferior to England and India but superior to Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Circus team Pakistan has three international trophies.... how many does rank 1 England have?

 

[cririri]

Eng is a poorer version of the previous sa team.

 

[Technics 1210]

South Africa stayed as number 1 In ODIs more thn England but failed when it mattered most you whole analysis is based on how England performed in bilateral series and their current ranking but the truth is winning a world cup needs more thn that.

There's more. He believes playing in the IPL is better preparation for the WC than playing in bilateral series, yet here he is undermining his own argument (yet again) by using rankings based on bilateral series in defence on Englands performance.

 

[gazza619]

How come Tom Curran & Liam Plunkett were not playing? Silly England, silly.

 

[James]

The English dream is close to finished. Indisputably a good team, but seems as if they peaked too early. They are now drifting out of form at the worst possible time.

Meanwhile New Zealand and Australia (and perhaps India) are looking like they might peak during the tournament itself, which is what a team needs to do to win the World Cup.

It genuinely kills me to say this: but Australia are beginning to look like the overall favourites.

 

[Abdullah]

This table (updated as of today) proves why the excuse of Roy is just that, a pathetic excuses for England's failure. Look at the number of England batsmen in the top 20.

View attachment 92993

Babar needs to make some big strides to get into the top 5 over the next 3 games

 

[Abdullah]

I didn't group Australia, you did before today's game by claiming Australia is an average team.

I repeat, save the ranking argument, it has already been proven rankings are unreliable. Rank 4, South Africa is out of the WC. Rank 1 was beaten by teams ranked 5 (Aus), 6 (Pak), and 9 (SL).

This tournament format is good. It puts the team's where they belong by the end of the round robin.
We are probably the best of the rest, so we should finish 5th.
(Some people can't accept that.) it's just a case of us now putting pressure on England by winning 2 games, and it's over to them Vs India.

 

[Mian]

Babar needs to make some big strides to get into the top 5 over the next 3 games

MA he already started working on it

 

[Abdullah]

MA he already started working on it

MashaAllah , was there today and he took it on himself to finish.
It wasn't an easy pitch to bat on

 

[Mamoon]

Oh dear. Another thread backfires after “rankings are meaningless in World Cups”.

People wanted me to write an essay, maybe I will.

 

[ManFan]

Oh dear. Another thread backfires after “rankings are meaningless in World Cups”.

People wanted me to write an essay, maybe I will.

What’s up with the Yousuf smilie?

 

[Mamoon]

What’s up with the Yousuf smilie?

Don’t want to sound condescending. Smiley cuts the tension.

 

[ManFan]

Don’t want to sound condescending. Smiley cuts the tension.

Smart.

 

[hur rizvi]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] I told you this Aussie team lacks quality. They aced knockouts because they were an excellent team other than May be 1987 but you were hell bent on proving that Aussies are some kind of super humans in knockouts

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] I told you this Aussie team lacks quality. They aced knockouts because they were an excellent team other than May be 1987 but you were hell bent on proving that Aussies are some kind of super humans in knockouts

They are, like Germany of Soccer - somehow manages to raise their game under pressure. Regarding this WC, you missed my full quote, let's refresh it : "If any team is to win the WC, they'll have to beat Aussies in a KO game". Poms were just a little better team, playing at home - no shame in that for Aussies, they are the toughest nut to crack, but sometimes they'll also miss-out, like Germany did this time ... that too after losing against the Mex & Koreans!!!

Indeed this is the weakest Aussie team since 1983 ('87 was a brilliant team, just too young to enter WC as "star") - still this Aussie team made the KO as first team, and lost the SF to the eventual winners.

 

[Robert]

They are, like Germany of Soccer - somehow manages to raise their game under pressure. Regarding this WC, you missed my full quote, let's refresh it : "If any team is to win the WC, they'll have to beat Aussies in a KO game". Poms were just a little better team, playing at home - no shame in that for Aussies, they are the toughest nut to crack, but sometimes they'll also miss-out, like Germany did this time ... that too after losing against the Mex & Koreans!!!

Indeed this is the weakest Aussie team since 1983 ('87 was a brilliant team, just too young to enter WC as "star") - still this Aussie team made the KO as first team, and lost the SF to the eventual winners.

Nothing weak about the 1983 Aussies who had Border, Hughes, Hookes, Lillee, Lawson and Hogg, all of whom would get into the current side. For some reason they just didn’t play very well. Could have been internal divisions.

Their 1987 team was a young side with some emerging stars such as Jones, Waugh and McDermott which was weaker on paper than the 1983 team and it just happened to play well in the tournament.

 

[sweep_shot]

I would not use the word "overrated".

Present England and present Australia are great teams but not invincible teams. Both teams have weaknesses that opponents can exploit.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

You cannot be mediocre if you are ranked number 1. They have lost because of a combination of poor form, bad luck and injuries.

poor mindset, over-confidence, weak mentality and wrong team selection cost them the WC... only saved by the fact that some1 finally realised that Liam Plunket is their best bowler, Jason Roy needs to be back and Woakes can be trusted with the bat.

Lost bcz the wickets they got were slightly , very slightly , bowler friendly... apart from the pak game where Pak out-fielded them (hugeeeee statement), out batted them and def out bowled them, the rest of the wickets were slightly on the even side with bat n ball...

they could only get in to the game bcz of the flatest of the flatest wicket games vs NZ and Ind and little lack of intent from both the teams (which i dnt have an issue with )

 

[Rellu_Katta]

poor mindset, over-confidence, weak mentality and wrong team selection cost them the wc... Only saved by the fact that some1 finally realised that liam plunket is their best bowler, jason roy needs to be back and woakes can be trusted with the bat.

Lost bcz the wickets they got were slightly , very slightly , bowler friendly... Apart from the pak game where pak out-fielded them (hugeeeee statement), out batted them and def out bowled them, the rest of the wickets were slightly on the even side with bat n ball...

They could only get in to the game bcz of the flatest of the flatest wicket games vs nz and ind and little lack of intent from both the teams (which i dnt have an issue with )

i meant almost lost them the cup ...

 

[MMHS]

Nothing weak about the 1983 Aussies who had Border, Hughes, Hookes, Lillee, Lawson and Hogg, all of whom would get into the current side. For some reason they just didn’t play very well. Could have been internal divisions.

Their 1987 team was a young side with some emerging stars such as Jones, Waugh and McDermott which was weaker on paper than the 1983 team and it just happened to play well in the tournament.

I think, there was a similarity between Australia 1983 & Pakistan 2003 - lots of star names but players in decline. Lillee, Hogg, Hughes, Hookes, Yellop, Trevor Chappell didn’t last much after the WC.

 

[Robert]

I think, there was a similarity between Australia 1983 & Pakistan 2003 - lots of star names but players in decline. Lillee, Hogg, Hughes, Hookes, Yellop, Trevor Chappell didn’t last much after the WC.

DK retired the year after but the rest all got banned for playing in SA.

I shudder to think what would have happened if the 1985 Aussie Ashes side had Hogg, Hughes, Alderman and Rackemann. Or even just Alderman.

 

[MMHS]

DK retired the year after but the rest all got banned for playing in SA.

I shudder to think what would have happened if the 1985 Aussie Ashes side had Hogg, Hughes, Alderman and Rackemann. Or even just Alderman.

ENG probably would have won 3 Tests still, at least 2 (I think 2 wins by innings out of 3); but Aussies would have definitely won more than 1 Test. ENG's top 4 led by Gower was outstanding and Botham enjoyed his last hurrah. Alderman took 41 & 42 wicket in previous & next Ashes tour, so he was a great loss, but don't think Hogg & Rackemann were much of a loss - CJ & Lawson took over 50 wickets. Kim Hughes wasn't the same batsman after 1983 - not a big deal at all.

Still, I believe ENG would have won the Ashes - at least 3-2 or at worst drawn 3-3. That ENG team under Gatting won Ashes 2-1 (2-0, then Aussies won 5th Test at SCG) in AUS 19 months later.