I wonder what plans Ponting and Vaughan have for the crucial - from England's point of view at least - match on Sunday in terms of the decision if the toss is won. I know that the norm thus far has been to put the opposition in, but it might not be as straightforward in this instance. If the weather remains neutral, Vaughan might have to think twice about putting Australia in if he wins the toss. England are not reknown for chasing down big totals and if Hayden and Gilchrist get after Anderson early like they did to Pollock, there is a risk of that happening even if Flintoff continues to be economical (like Ntini was in the SA-Oz match). But Australia themselves might prefer to bat first and try setting a big enough total for England to try and chase - again banking on England's comparitively modest chasing record.

Therefore, I think there is a case here for either captain to break the norm and bat first if he wins the toss unless the conditions are too unhelpful for batting. England in particular might feel that they can handle the moving ball in the morning, being used to such conditions at home. Australia might think about playing Stuart Clark instead of Tait and to strenghthen their batting with Hodge covering for the injured Watson. That would leave them with 5 bowlers including Symonds with Michael Clarke helping out if necessary.

I expect Australia to bat first should they win the toss as that has generally been their trend in the cup with the exception of the bangladesh match. Due to the poor weather that match was shortened to 22 overs a piece and i think that explains the reasons for Ponting opting to bowl first.

With England i have no clue as to what they will do, such is the uncertaincy that riddles their performances. Actually, since they had success in defending totals in australia, maybe they will look to draw inspiration form those matches and bat first too?

I should also note that i am totally against Clark bowling ahead of the pacey unpredictable Tait. Because it is exactly those characteristics that make him such an asset to the team. Sure he is a bit expensive, but he will learn to control his pace with more time in the middle. In the absence of Lee a player with express in the team is so important.

I know what you are saying, but despite his lack of success in CB Trophy a few months ago, my feeling is that Clark is more the sort of bowler that is likely to trouble English batsmen than the pacier Tait. The taller Clark might get more variations in bounce that might get a wicket or two. Having said that, I am not sure what the wicket is like at North Sound. He has that ball that pitches on the off-middle stump and moves away only slightly so that the batsman has to play at it - useful wicket getter with right handers early on with slips in place. I don't think that Joyce & Strauss with both play and so the one of them that does will be the only left hander till Nixon arrives.

Clark can also be more useful later when there are no slips. With his modest pace and limited movement, edged deflections are more likely to be within Gilchrist's reach than the fast & swinging Tait.

I think both teams will bat first if they win the toss.

In Englands case with the batting they have four problems - Vaughan - Flintoff - Joyce and Bell.

Flintoff is doing nothing at 6, so let him open with Strauss (in place of Joyce) the ball with more pace should suit Flintoff better.
Play Vaughan at 3, with Pietersen 4, England have to shuffle the pack after recent showings.

Australia should open with Tait, his extra pace could blast through the England openers - he can soon be took off if that goes pear shape.
Getting hayden and Ponting out early is a must, that means bowling tight - a shock tactic could be opening the bowling with Panesar and Anderson, New Zealand have used this ploy in the past.

__________________
Ern

I can understand what you're saying here Ern, but New Zealand didn't have powerplays and the fielding restrictions to worry about. Plus when have England even diverged from the norm, the modus operandum, to that great an extent?!

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

Didnt they try that in '96 V Sri Lanka?

Englands top 3 is a major worry they are leaving far too much for for the next three bats to do, especially as one of them is horribly out of form.

I'm with Ern on Flintoff, either stick him up the order and let him slog or bat him below Bopara and Nixon.

__________________
Mark.

Fine if it works, but what if it does not? How good is Flintoff going to be playing the new ball that is either swinging (Tait) or moving off the seam (McGrath) with a couple of slips in place? I agree that No:6 is not ideal for him. Better would be to send Bopara in that position and Flintoff at No:7 before Nixon.

Another option would be to try Nixon opening with Joyce or Strauss, followed by Bell, Pietersen, Vaughan, Collingwood, Bopara, Flintoff and the 3 bowlers. Nixon is brave enough and mad enough to make something out of the Poweplay overs and might just unsettle the opposition a bit.

Before the WC i would have opened with Read as he's done this before domestically and had a reasnoble record doing it.

Would opening with Flintoff be any worse than opening with Vaughan or Joyce?

__________________
Mark.

The problem with that is that if Flintoff does come good - he is wasted at 7 IMO, if the top order was fixed - a failure at 6 7 8 would not matter as much, but a real good start would knock the stuffing out of the bowlers, so it's easier for the middle order.
Agreed - it worked with Mal Loye in Australia, England missed atrick by not bringing him to the world Cup, the lesser pace of some of the bowlers would have been just right for Loye's 'slog sweep' in the powerplay overs
They don't as a rule - they did to some extent with Loye in Australia, but they soon went back into their very British shell.

__________________
Ern

No he could not make matters worse, also he likes a bit of pace on the ball.

If England go down that road, Strauss would be a better option than Joyce - these two have shared partnerships before.

If England open with Vaughan and joyce again - I believe England will lose against the Aussie's, so England would not even have a mathamatical chance of reaching the semi's.

__________________
Ern