Shane Warne has picked his preferred World Cup squad, and it's peak Shane Warne

Agree. Once the tournament reaches knock out stage, England will be shaky.

Why is there a love affair for Carey? What does he bring that Handscombe, who should play valuing his batting to spin? Also Wade, can ANYONE explain his fall from grace at all? Or will that require a defamation case? It's very odd.

Very contentious claiming the Australians are better than their counterparts. If you look at a combination of averages and probable batting orders since the last World Cup, Roy is superior to Finch, Bairstow shades Warner, Root is better than Khawaja, Smith maybe ahead of Morgan (though not last two years), Buttler shades Maxwell, Stokes ahead of Stoinis, Ali superior to Carey. Putting in Head or Handscomb instead of Stoinis or Khawaja doesn’t help. One out of seven at best IMHO, sad to say, with an even bigger advantage on English grounds. Their other advantage is having two better spinners and all rounders, though we potentially have better quicks. But will the English stand the pressure of favouritism but never having won the Cup?

D'Arcy is 28 Bernie. He might make the next WC but I can't see him being around for the one after that. He was dropped after just 4 games and I think there's a real possibility his ship has already sailed.

Strange logic you're employing Bush. Maybe if Maxwell looked at how someone who bats in a similar position and regularly in similar game scenarios and succeeds enough to be one of the greatest ODI players of all time then he'd be heading towards a similar standing. I do apologise for attributing the 'fact' comment to you, badmanners actually claimed that on your behalf, but your last sentence was unbecoming of a site guru.

Actually we have plenty who can do what Maxwell can do, too few who can do what Khawaja does.

Really? What's wrong with Handscombs recent ODI form? What is Wade's recent ODI/ODD form?

That's because he only burst on the scene about 2 years ago. The comparison with Warner is not really viable, because Warner burst on the scene in 2009 when he was only 22.

Looks pretty good. Spinners are the key in short cricket and Short can be picked for his bowling alone

Chris, The New Zealand experience of 1992 says they (England) can’t. In that particular world cup the kiwis carried all before them in the group matches on the back of Martin Crowe and then it was in the semi-final that their mediocre bowling was found out. Mind you, do Anderson and Broad no longer play one day cricket at all, and Sam Curran and Adil Rashid are also very good one day bowlers. Some one else on here, Paul I think his name was, made the excellent point that England’s shoot em all up wild west style kind of depends largely on mediocre opposition bowling attacks to succeed consistently, so it’s just as likely a class opposition bowling attack is what might bring England unstuck at the business end of the tournament.

Fair enough Tom. I had some weird and wonderful idea Short was like 21 or 22.

Pretty sure I understand risk management. Maxwell does too looking for quick runs for the team. Khawaja has 30 ODI innings, 2 NO, average 44 (Nice, but always batting in the top 3), strike rate 83. Maxwell 90 innings, 9 NO, average 33, strike rate 122. There both good players, but we have others who can do the job Khawaja does, not many who do the job Maxwell does.

So he's not as good as one of the greatest ODI players of all time? Wow, who would have thought. That doesn't mean Khawaja is suddenly a better player. You're free to have your opinion. I never said it was a fact. But some opinion's are more sensible, considered and informed than others.

Sorry slight miss-print: first part should have read ‘sacrilege to suggest that it is possible to come up with something better than D/L’. Everything else as read.

How do people not understand this? Because it's an opinion not a fact! Dhoni is an unselfish player who decides his job is to be there to use every ball instead of the possibility of a bowler not being able to get bat on ball. In my opinion, that is an unselfish player.

It will be interesting to see if they can pull it off. In general, bowlers tend to win world cups. In the last World Cup it was very much the four best bowling attacks in the semi's, the two best in the final, and the best that won. Can England buck that trend and win a tournament purely on the basis of stacking their batting at the expense of their bowling? It's a risky strategy. They might be able to pull it off, but their bowlers really need to step up. Add to that the pressure of playing at home in front of a home crowd and media that pretty much see anything short of winning the tournament as a failure, and we will see how they stand up.

That's a cop out along the lines of 'It's sacrilege to suggest that it is not possible to have a better system than D/L' or even that 'How dare anyone criticise D/L when it has been there so long'. It is a case of the emperor's new clothes. I reiterate, it simply must go on wickets in all scenario types. A blanket target is completely unfeasible in all situations.

Funny stuff mate, not sure you understand the term 'risk management'. It refers to using your training and skills to lessen the impact or result of risks as they arise. That would mean Maxwell picking up the ball early and realising that the best options for a good ball would be to use his estimable straight drive to record anywhere from 1-6 from that good ball, because it is his best shot. At the very least block it, because he'll be there next ball to take advantage of whatever comes. Playing a premeditated cross hand low percentage shot isn't risk management, especially as he regularly gives chances and gets out to that.

Maybe not directly post world cup, but I think Phillippe definitely has a big chance of filling that position by the next world cup if he can keep growing as a cricketer over the next couple of years.

I think D/L is the best we've had worked out so far. I believe there have been little tweaks made over the years. But the fact is, there's never going to be a way to make it 100% fair. It's just the nature of cricket, there's so much that's not fair about it. Teams take turns batting and conditions change, one bats during the day, the other at night, one team has to bowl with a damp ball while the other team didn't have that issue, one team bats under overcast conditions ideal for swing, but then the sun comes out and the swing goes away in time for the other team to bat etc... D/L is just another thing. There's never going to be a way to have a mathematical formula come up with a number, in all scenario's, where one team can have a much shorter innings than the other, yet it's exactly as even as if they both played the full game.