I'm assuming that South Africa is the clear favourite for the World Cup, with New Zealand and Australia as their most likely challengers. I'm expecting a solid showing from Sri Lanka, and refuse to rule out India, the WI and England... leaving an injury-depleted Pakistan as the real outside-bet of the major nations.

Is this a fair assessment?

Voted for:

India: Peaking, most batsmen getting back in form, bowlers are doing well.
West Indies: Its their backyard and they have the players to accomplish the task.
South Africa: Thet arent there at the top for no reason.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

I don't think South Africa are "clear" favourites, but they're certainly up there with Australia and Sri Lanka, who have put together a pretty good ODI outfit. They're the three I've gone for.

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

Not wishing to dwell on SA's "choker" tag but they dont have a good reputation for winning under pressure, I'd be surprised to see them get past the semis.

Whilst Australia have had a dip in form at the moment and are struggling with a pretty weak bowling attack i feel their batting will see them alright.

My other favorites are Sri Lanka. They've got a good coach and are an experienced side with a talented batting and bowling line up.

Other than that everyone is capable of beating everyone else so it could be a wide open world cup.

__________________
Mark.

Well if Australia get back a fully fit side concidering that Ponting, Clarke, Symonds & Lee were injured and could not play in New Zealand, Gilchrist taking personal time off with the birth of one of children. Does South Africa have a better side than this.

Gilchrist - 257 matches, 8585 runs at 35.62, Hs 172
Hayden - 134 matches, 4840 runs at 41.72, Hs 181*
Ponting (c) - 269 matches, 9856 runs at 42.48, Hs 164
Clarke - 101 matches, 2893 runs at 42.54, Hs 105* & 30 wickets at 36.73, bb 5/35
Hussey - 61 matches, 1739 runs at 66.88, Hs 109*
Symonds - 161 matches, 4037 runs at 38.81, Hs 156 & 121 wickets at 37.38, bb 5/18
White/ Watson
Bracken - 57 matches, 96 wickets at 22.23, BB 5/67
Johnson - 18 matches, 26 wickets at 27.88, BB 4/11
Clark/Tait
McGrath - 239 matches, 355 wickets at 22.63, BB 7/15

With other players like Hodge, Hogg, Voges, Haddin, Hifenhaus unable to get a place in the side.

Lee is a big lose looking at his ODI career it is very impressive, 150 matches, 267 wickets at 22.65, bb 5/22

Don't get me wrong South Africa are a good side but they are not the best in the world when a full strenght Australian side is playing. The question is how close can Australia get to a full strenght side for the world cup.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

A lot depends on the way the wickets play. If they are slow and low as has been predicted this may nullify South Africa's pace attack.

Australia have to be fancied, even with their recent blip and injuries, purely on their batting strength alone. Short boundaries may lead to them posting scores unattainable by the opposition even against a weakened (Lee missing, Symonds injured and McGrath fading) bowling attack.

Sri Lanka get my vote on their cracking bowling department supported by experienced and talented batting.

My third choice (as outsiders) would be England. Pietersen back strengthens our batting immeasurably. Vaughan returns with his shrewd captaincy (though the less said about his batting in ODI's and fielding in general the better). Bowling attack is looking suited to the predicted wickets - just wish we had someone at the top of the order who could make the most of the power play restrictions.

Why are you making South Africa favourites?, have you got a solid reason.

New Zealand are not in that good form at the moment, neither is Australia.

While I would not bet 'against' the trio you have mentioned, I gave one vote to England because they have some momentum going, plus Pietersen is back in the side, also England have a bowling attack as good as any, remember of late both Australia and New Zealand bowlers have gone for 300+ in Australia.

My second vote went to Pakistan - who could rule them out, injuries or not.

It would be a fair assessment Rachael if you could give a solid reason why South Africa are your favourite choice.

__________________
Ern

Personally, I think SA have a balanced team on paper. Their bowling attack of Ntini, Pollock, Nel and Hall is very good and they can afford to use Peterson in Nel's place if the wicket is likely to help a spinner. Kallis is good enough as the 5th bowler, with assitance from Kemp if required. Another option - which I feel will strengthen the team is to leave out Prince and bring Boucher at No:5, followed by Kemp, Pollock, Hall, Peterson, Nel & Ntini.
The batting is also good; Smith & DeVilleirs have shown signs of recent improvement with their opening and if they don't get out early, both can score quickly in the powerplays. Kallis can always hold things together if things get hairy at the start & Gibbs can be dangerous. Guys like Kemp, Boucher, Pollock & Hall might not be specialist batsmen, but have the ability to strike the ball hard & score quickly.
I think the various available options would certainly make SA favourites...at least on paper. Time will tell.

I am not certain what the reaction of the rest of the players to Pietersen's return really is, irrespective of what they say to the papers. They did rather well without him in th CB Series, playing like a true team after a long time. Now that 'KP' is back with all the media hype & expectations to follow, I won't be surprised if some of the hardworking 'regulars' are pipqued. Yes, he can bat aggressively to turn tables on a situation, but 'KP' does not make the whole England team; his body language seems to suggest that he has too much self-impotance and not sufficient respect for his colleagues.

Ern, you never cease to amaze me. Its always about England and Flintoff.

Anyway, perhaps SA are favourites(personally I dont think they are) or 1 of the favourites because they have been on a winning streak which with the help of other results, has taken them to the number 1 position. Yes, we know that Sa are #1 because the "almighty" England and NZ beat Australia but at the same time, SA were winning most of their matches and even beat Australia the last time the 2 teams met. Please give SA some credit. Its not as if we were losing when Australia got beaten.

You voted for England because of their current form. That is fair but then you vote for Pakistan( awful form of late). Just because England won a few games recently it does not make them contenders. I still feel consistency is a problem and you cannot win the WC without consistency.

Everybody says that SA have no chance if the pitches are low and slow. Well what makes anyone think that Australia or England will fair any better in these conditions. (I dont rate Dalrymple or Hogg at all). Why does nt anybody look at South Africas record in West Indies. Perhaps if they did this, they would not make such silly comments.

As for Englands chances, IMO they have no hope of a semi final. Yes, they may provide an upset here and there but their batting is not good enough to get them to the last four. Only Petersen is capable of scoring centuries( and yes Rachael, like it or not, in one day cricket, centuries more often than not win games, ask Tendulkar or Mark Waugh, not 60's off 70 cough** Bell ) and he cannot carry all the batting.

Unfortunately, my pick is still Australia. They are the most consistent ODI side.

I voted for South Africa and India.West Indies probably have a chance but are not consistent.They win only if it's their day.

__________________
Karthik Venkatesan