The VB series is very much a three horse race

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4644056.stm

None of the teams have stamped their authority, and Sri Lanka look the most consistent, while Australia (who seem more concerned about who to rest than whether they want to win) are proving that there back-up players are not as good as they could be.

England and Pakistan were wonderfully inconsistent in their last ODI series

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_PAK/

India managed to draw their last ODI Series with SA, who are also proving inconsistent..

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/RSA_IN_IND/

The only team that is currently thriving and winning series is New Zealand

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_NZ/


So what money on the Kiwis for to win the 2007 World Cup

I am afraid I disagree FF. The Kiwis are like the Lankans - always tigers at home, but generally ineffectual abroad. They have a good ODI outfit, and yes anything can happen on a day, but to win a World Cup, you need to string together a number of a very good days - the Kiwis simply do not have the personnel to do that. Sure, they will do well and impress, but they will not go all the way, IMHO.

I also believe that it will be a sad day for cricket when the bits and pieces players from NZL win something outside their home at the expense of the better cricketers from other countries - a bit like Greece winning the Euros and the better teams being shut out. Yes, a World Cup win for NZL could be seen as just reward for hard work and for the team ethic, but it could also be seen by some as "relative mediocrity and lack of talent" triumphing over the more talented players from other teams! In the past, NZL have had some great players with oodles of natural talent, Hadlee, Crowe, Cairns; but there is hardly anyone in the recent past who merits comparison in the same breath; Shane Bond is the obvious exception but sadly his career has never taken off, whilst Nathan Astle has promised a lot more than he has delivered, unfortunately.

On another note - aren't the Kiwis always talked of as World Cup dark horses, before every tournament, and the only time they came remotely close was way back in 1992, when they had the likes of Crowe and Greatbach?

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

For me, Australia are favourites if McGrath keeps on playing, otherwise it's South Africa and then India. Pakistan could be the dark horse, or England at a long shot. I don't see a Cairns-less New Zealand winning it.

I think Australia are always going to be favourites when they have McGrath and Lee bowling.

NZ do have a good ODI outfit, with a fair few allrounders, but they never seem to be able to beat anyone away from home. I can't see them winning the world cup, then again on the day anything can happen.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

I don't see how NZ are any worse playing overseas games than most of the other teams. Of course whenever the Black Caps go to either India or Pakistan, they have little chance of victory, but how many teams (other than Australia) do? NZ have recently played well in England, Australia, West Indies and Sri Lanka, appear to be a better touring side then England, Sri Lanka, West Indies and on par with India and Pakistan.

Dark horses to win the World Cup? Maybe, but I think there are about 5 other teams that can also be considered dark horses.

So instead of being happy for a country thats never won the cup before, you're going to be bitter about it? How would it be "unfair"? And where is the lack of talent? You've got Vettori, Fleming, Bond, Oram, McCullum, Astle and up and comers like Fulton, Patel, Adams and Marshall. New Zeland also play very well as a team and is full of allrounders that can bat right down to number 10 or 11.

Certainly not bitter, maybe I didn't explain myself properly; anyone who wins the WC deserves to celebrate and enjoy their success and I would heartily congratulate whoever the winner is, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe! However, I believe that other teams are more deserving of winning it compared to NZL; also, some of the other teams have a different approach and mindset to the Kiwis and play the game in a manner that I prefer - not a statement of fact, merely my personal preference!

__________________
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes
Mark Twain

I fancy Pakistan's chances in the WC. They have won 10 of the past 20 away matches and consistently hit 300+ totals. The WI pitches will nullify the "hit-the-deck" bowlers and Pakistan play the slow bowlers very well. I think it will be a close fought series with a few upsets. I think winning the toss will be important to bat first and score at the correct tempo. Today, Sri Lanka lost to Australia because they were too slow in the first 15 overs and didn't have enough runs at the end to place attacking fields.

Pakistan certainly are in contention and they have a side that bats a fair way down the order, also they have some great ODI players, Shahid Afridi comes to mind, he could tear a bowling side apart if he faced more than 100 balls.

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

Would you call Steve Harmison a hit-the-deck bowler?
http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/20...15MAR2004.html

I know that was a test, but it was on the same kind of pitch, and he and Flintoff took wickets in the ODIs too.

harmison is definatly a hit the deck bowler his stock ball is usually short on off or just out side off stump but he hits the deck very hard which does slow down his bowling but he is able to make the ball rise sharply