Not very different from you XI.
I would pick Tait over Bracken (true, he gave away many extras, but his pace gives him the edge - apart from the fact he took 23 wickets)
What say?
I believe you picked bracken for the variety (as he’s a left armer)

#1   Posted by The Piker on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 4:39:48

Ah! Ok. Read your Rediff piece. Guess it was variety and economy (that helped out McGrath and Tait) that got Bracken into your XI.
Anyway, agree with most of your other choices though

#2   Posted by The Piker on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 4:45:28

My World cup XI:
The Australian team. They were the best on the field - and gelled immaculately.

#3   Posted by HeShootsAndScores on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 7:00:01

It is a terrific team. I prefer Tait to Bracken. I will make Mahela Jayawardhane the captian instead of Ponting. Ponting, I still believe, is a NOT a great captain. It was Ponting’s mistakes as a captain that led to Australia’s loss to South Africa in that epic match which the Aussies failed to defend 434. Steve Waugh is a much better captain. No Australian captain would have allowed any team to do that. I think Ponting has been good, probably the best, at using the Power Plays. But Jayawardhane is a far better captain. A natural captain, someone like our own Ganguly. But Ponting is probably the best player now.

#4   Posted by Rajaneesh Vilakudy on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 7:12:37

I agree with you on a lot of positions except a few. I wouldn’t have lasith malinga though(I hate that guy).  Would prefer someone like Shaun Tait in his place. Bracken would be replaced by Bond.

Because if you put out Bond for the reason of temperament then why have pieterson. He failed to deliver in the South Africa match.

#5   Posted by Sameer on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 7:44:17

Shane Bond should simply be in the team.  I just cant consider one match for removing his name from the XI.  Australia rely in McGrath, Tait, Bracken so less pressure to these individual.  But NewZealand rely completely on Shane Bond in their bowling department so u see a lot of pressure on him.  It is always easier/comfortable to bowl in a good team.
So, Shane Bond choice over Bracken is simply unquestionable.

#6   Posted by vasanth on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 9:52:37

does 34 for 1 off 6 overs in a final reflect a big match temperament? Not necessarily.
I would go for Bond any day. He has the best strike rate in the history of one day cricket and to say that he lacks big match temperament b/c he failed to take wickets in one match would be a judgment made in haste.

#7   Posted by Jitendra on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 10:09:14

I think your 11 is reasonable but really, if you are selecting based only on their world cup performances, it would be hard to leave out any of the Australian 11. Certainly Michael Clarke should be in there. He had a much better tournament than either Jayawardene or Pieterson and I would say better than Styris as well(Styris and Symonds would be a toss up as allrounder). I would have to chose Bond over Malinga. Bond was awesome overall(Av. 16, econ 3.0). If you base the decision on how well they played in the match that mattered then you have to go with an all Australian 11.

#8   Posted by Michael H. on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 11:02:44

Jitendra, context. With SL chasing 7.5 per over and in an aggressive mood, 34 off 6 is pretty good, and I thought Bracken was quite excellent.

Sameer, good point. But Pietersen has less people challenging him.

Michael, sigh, yes, you have a point. But Clarke and Symonds were less tested in tough situations, so excellent were the Aussie top three. Jayawardene and Pietersen and Styris did play some crucial innings for their teams, on the other hand. In general terms, outside the context of this World Cup, I’d pick Clarke and Symonds any day over the others. They’re stunning players, both.

Thanks, all, for your picks.

And isn’t it such a screaming pity that we can’t even consider any Indians or Pakistanis for this team. Feels like 1975 or 1979 all over again…

#9   Posted by Amit Varma on Mon, April 30, 2007 at 11:29:07

As for the india/pakistan I know it’s sad..

But maybe we could have chosen them if only there were no ireland and Bangladesh..

These minnows[with due respect to them] made the world cup a Yawning affair.

#10   Posted by Sameer on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:18:42

Oh no! Now everybody’s coming up with their World Cup XI and guess what? It’s more or less the same team. Check out Richard Hadlee’s team on Indian Express (I think). Pretty much says it all about the World Cup.

#11   Posted by Soumya Banerji on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:33:20

Why should we exclude teams that can legitimately beat the ‘superpowers’? So we can watch India and Pakistan some more? Even if they are not the best teams there? Reeks of exclusionism to me.

#12   Posted by HeShootsAndScores on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:37:25

I know it’s unethical but c’mon India lost because of the format..

I will stick to it..Did you see the bermuda match..India were looking good..

*414 against any team is not a joke. Srilanka didn’t score that much.

And it should have been QFs instead of super 8 ...would have made the game more interesting.

#13   Posted by Sameer on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:41:16

India didn’t lose because of the format. They lost because they lost.

And c’mon, Ireland beat Pakistan, Bangladesh beat India, so who are the minnows here?

#14   Posted by Amit Varma on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 1:04:39

Heres’ my pick

1 Matthew Hayden, 2 Adam Gilchrist (wk), 3 Ricky Ponting (capt), 4 Mahela Jayawardene, 5 Kevin Pietersen, 6 Michael Clark, 7 Brad Hogg, 8 Jacob Oram, 9 Nathan Bracken, 10 Muttiah Muralitharan, 11 Glenn McGrath.

I disagree with you on position of Styris in your line-up, at no.4 he just pushes back explosive Pieterson; Instead I’ll pick Pieterson at 5 and Clark at no.6

Also,I strongly feel Malinga is overrated, and his action is also a suspect. Anyday I’ll refer Jacob Oram in place of him.

#15   Posted by Stone on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 1:05:40

@Amit:

If bangladesh had been in the group of South Africa and Australia and by a stroke of luck they had defeated South Africa..Then South Africa would have gone home coz’ they wouldn’t have been able to defeat australia...ditto happened with India...They weren’t a poorer team than England or West Indies..

Though I respect your point that crucial games need to be played well..

#16   Posted by Sameer on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 1:15:29

Amit, I agree with you on most positions except the following:
1) I would pick Clarke ove Jayawardane.
Clarke is a better fit in the team and Jayawardane is a great test player, but still has some miles to go before he should be considered a great ODI player. His innings in SF was wonderful, but there has to be consistency and speed when you play ODIs.

2) I would pick Bond over Malinga

Malinga was great at times, but is no where near where Bond is. Bond was great in the tournamnet except in the SF.

3)I would pick Tait over Hogg.

With Murali in the team, I dont see a need for any other spinner. As for Hogg, I wasnt much impressed with his bowling although he bagged wickets in the tournament.

#17   Posted by Ranjeet on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 3:52:27

I completely agree with your XI except that I would choose Bond instead of Bracken.

Also, I agree with Sameer here that India lost because of the format and I feel that too much was made out of India’s first round exit.

I find the format of the World Cup extremely odd. I don’t know of any major tournament (in any sport) where a team has to play more matches in the second round when compared to the first round. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is always the other way.

-Varun

#18   Posted by Varun on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 8:08:40

The 1999 world cup had the best format and it was intersting...54 matches in a tournament is excruciatingly boring.

2003 world cup would have been intersting had it not been for match forfeits.

#19   Posted by Sameer on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 4:14:51

Linking it on http://www.bestofindya.com

#20   Posted by indya on Tue, May 01, 2007 at 5:55:15

rgdwjwlb atpabgkx http://yrqnofxq.com zxiajmah skbcamae bfdwifzb

#21   Posted by navzzukq on Sat, November 03, 2007 at 11:41:54