The 2007 World Cup in the West Indies is the next great event in the cricket world. Up until now, there were other victories to be won for teams. Now however, everything that happens with each side, will happen with an eye on the World Cup tournament. India kicked out their schedule with two series of 4 matches each against West Indies and Sri Lanka. The Australians and the New Zealanders, currently participating in the annual ODI tri-series of the Australian summer, head to New Zealand for a 3 match series in February before the World Cup commences in March. England are not playing any cricket after the tri-series until the World Cup in March. For England, this may be a good thing, given their recent struggle with injury issues to key players. Pakistan and South Africa will play a 5 match ODI series in South Africa in preperation for the World Cup.
At this point, it might be instructive to look at the state of the ODI world today. The table below, shows the record of each team over their last 5 games against each of the other 8 teams. Zimbabwe’s lone victory came against New Zealand in 2001. They haven’t beaten a major team in over 6 years now, a record inferior to that of Bangladesh as well as Kenya. Australia and South Africa have shown themselves to be in a class of their own, with South Africa beating Australia 3-2 in the last series they contested in South Africa in early 2006. These two sides must surely be the big favourites to win the marquee event this time around. For the Australians, there must be a word of caution – the West Indians of 1983 were similar world beaters, and came a cropper in the final, going for their third successive World Cup win. India, New Zealand and Sri Lanka have a better than even record, and Pakistan, even though they have a lesser record, on paper are probably just as good – what with their phenomenal batting firepower.
If you consider the ratings
Australia 0.643
South Africa 0.611
New Zealand 0.519
India 0.516
Sri Lanka 0.507
West Indies 0.491
Pakistan 0.461
England 0.446
Zimbabwe 0.309
they convey pretty much the same story.
ODI Cricket, going into this years World Cup is probably more talent laden than it has always been. There are more teams playing a similarly current brand of ODI cricket in this World Cup than there have ever been before. On their day, each team can beat each of the other teams. Australia have raised the bar and the other teams have been forced to follow. In World Cup tournaments, it is the individual performances which guide team performances. Australia have had so many individual heroes in their World Cup victories, but Warne and Steve Waugh in 1999, Michael Bevan and Ricky Ponting in 2003 stand out. ODI games are designed so that they can be won and lost single handedly. India have done well in World Cups 1996 and 2003 when Tendulkar has been in top form for them. In 1999, Rahul Dravid was the top scorer, but even he will admit that in 1999 he was not good enough as a batsman to influence ODI games in the manner of a Tendulkar or Lara.
Brian Lara is the man to watch in this World Cup in my view. He has not had the World Cup fame of his great contemporaries, and would want to bow out in style in a home tournament. He is clearly still one of the World’s great batsmen, and his brand of play, and most importantly, his middle order skills, should stand him in good stead in the West Indies, where the wickets will ensure that games are not won or lost in the first 15 overs. Among others, Michael Hussey has made sure that Australia do not feel the absence of Michael Bevan in their middle order. The greatest ODI batsman in the world according to Steve Waugh was vital to Australia’s triumph in 2003. Along with Clarke, Symonds and Ponting, Hussey forms a formidable middle order. With Gilchrist in his last major ODI tournament, Australia are clearly the team to beat. Apart from South Africa, no team has looked like being able to achieve this in the last 18 months or so. The West Indians have threatened, but often flattered to decieve. Pakistan must always been regarded as dangerous dark horses – what with their batting depth and the recent emergence of Mohammad Asif and Umar Gul to partner Shoaib Akthar. Sri Lanka, with Murali (the most prolific wicket taker in the history of international cricket) and the renewal in their batting with Sangakkara and Jayawardene at their peak, and with Jayasurya going strong as usual, will threaten as well, especially if Malinga and Vaas can deliver consistently with the new ball. New Zealand will always compete, but one feels that their success in the World Cup will depend a great deal on the presence of Shane Bond. England are probably the weakest of the big 8 teams in the World Cup – but with Strauss, Pietersen (along with Hussey, the best ODI batsman in the world at the moment in my view) and Flintoff, supported by Bell and Collingwood, they have a competent batting line up. Bowling support for Andrew Flintoff and their inability to field a decent spin bowler (as against New Zealand who have Vettori) will hurt them. If they can make the knockout stage, then anything is possible for them. The South Africans will be competitive, not least because they bat deep, bowl deep and field better than anyone else in world cricket bar Australia. With Kallis bowling again, and with Ntini having taken his game to a new level, they will compete. Their fortunes will probably rest on how Herschelle Gibbs plays in the World Cup, for he is a genuine match winner. Pollock and Boucher will ensure that they are always competitive. Those two can chase 80 in the last 10 as well as set up games by batting for 20-25 overs to set up a total with South Africa can fight to defend. And this is over and above a strong batting line up. Just imagine where the South African’s would have been, had Kevin Pietersen not moved to England!
Where does that leave India? On the face of it, they look to be in disarray. Their top players have aged, and their talisman in the ODI game – Tendulkar has been in steady decline. This time around, i don’t think his reinstatement to the opening slot will help India. Number 3 seems like the place for him. The bowling is still weak, inspite of the emergence of Sreesanth. Hopefully, the Munaf Patel issue will be handled decently, because Patel offers India some semblance of control with the new ball, which the mercurial Zaheer Khan does not. Zaheer has disturbing tendency to follow up a good bowling effort (like Nagpur) with a couple of mediocre ones. Kumble remains a question mark, in large part due to the team balance issue. Two specialist spinners are realistic only if we play 5 bowlers. In the absence of Irfan Pathan, this seems unlikely. The middle order still has to be sorted out, with Dinesh Karthick currently occupying a middle order slot. Yuvraj Singh will hopefully be fit soon and put that to rest. Ganguly looks certain to play the World Cup now that he seems to have shed the cobwebs and begun to play like the Ganguly of yore (he still has problems, but between him and Wasim Jaffer, it has to be him). If both Ganguly and Kumble play, then we will have a poor fielding unit, with Dravid and Tendulkar also aging. Having said all this, in terms of personnel, and in terms of the ability to field spin heavy side, India probably have the core personnel available to mount a strong World Cup challenge.
There is one final issue that i think will be absolutely crucial in this World Cup. The round robin format, will test teams like no other format has done before. It may allow teams to start slow and still sneak into the semi-final stage. The West Indies also offer the most varied palate of wickets of any World Cup. Guyana and Trinidad are very different from Jamaica and Barbados. With a round robin format, this may come into play, with some wickets suiting some teams more than others. In previous World Cups, it was possible to describe the representative wicket in the host country, and wickets generally behaved similarly. This time around, it is likely to be much different. The length of the round robin format might cause some teams to peak early, like New Zealand in 1992 or South Africa in 1996.
Finally, i think that if Australia do not win this World Cup, then the winning side will not be the “best” team in the world, but the “right” side for the format and the conditions.
Kartikeyadate's Weblog 