Superb Starc holds all the cards

Surely, player of the tournament to date is Shakib Al Hassan? Leading run scorer and 8th leading wicket taker. Centuries against England and Windies.

Great article David. Starc in ODIs is a different beast and at the rate he is going, he will retire as one of the great ODI fast bowlers.

True words. Out of the past 11 World Cups to have been played, the leading wicket-taker has come from the World Cup winning side, 7 times, including the last three editions. On the other hand, the leading running scorer has come from the World Cup winning side only 3 times. Sorry if that didn’t make sense mate.

That does make sense (to me anyway). I said before the tournament started that Starc was the key to Australia's chances - partly because he can be so good and partly because he can be so bad. The best batsmen (Kohli, Root, Williamson etc) can handle him when he is at his best but the average batsmen cannot. When he bowls poorly, he leaks runs to all batsmen. Looking forward to tomorrow nights match - an Aussie win will make the Poms nervous about the semis.

Note the word “Unfair”

For my opening bowler to "excel" I'd prefer him to get some early top order wickets. In his last four games Starc has taken four 1-4 wickets, with those batters scores being 117, 52, 30 & 62. I like Starc as a person, despite him marrying above his station and ruining a great Qld bloodline, but as a bowler he is second only to B Lee in the Oz Most Over-rated standings.

The guy currently leads all wicket takers in this tournament. He is playing on small grounds with mostly slow roads for pitches. None have really suited him. Yet he continues to excel.

Hmmm. So it was the "unthreatening" back up bowlers who were entirely responsible for this fall of Indian wickets? 1-127, 2-220, 3-301 (45.5 overs) - Starc: 10/0/74/1. Nice try for Excuse of the Month Chris, but if Starc is so "superb" why then does he need favourable conditions for him to be effective?

Perhaps no other modern day Aussie player has copped as much unfair flack as Starc... What absolute rubbish. That statement is on a par with Trump's claim to be the most persecuted politician in history. The Nelson Mandela equivalent in Oz cricket would be Shane Watson. With MJ & Roy in adjacent cells.

Watching the entire innings live and getting a sense of the tempo of the innings, there just seemed to be a dampening in sense of urgency, purpose even. Certainly in the first half of the innings. Yes the wicket was tacky, but SL's 2nd tier bowlers weren't threatening. Couldn't put my finger on it exactly at the time, but a sense of inevitability that they would just up the strike at a time of their choosing (and therefore win chasing a low score) started to look like that had been the issue as the innings was coming to a close. Key to ENG losing (and I loved SL's effort/approach, but I think ENG lost the game more than SL won it) was they allowed (too easily in my opinion) the SR to drift below the RRR for an extended period of the early part of the innings.

As you say, he hasn’t hit his peak yet. The yorker has missed the target a lot and he hasn’t achieved much swing. And didn’t worry the Indians much. So let’s hope he peaks in the semis, assuming we get there. “A 150km/h in-swinging yorker at the toes would stop any Eoin Morgan six-fest”. Unfortunately, Adam Zampa bowls more like 90 km/h.

I think it also helps to have a bit more backup than he had against India. In that match, the support bowlers were so unthreatening that it was up to Starc to come back on for a couple of overs and change the complexion of the match. That puts a lot of pressure on to produce the miracle, wicket-taking ball, which can lead to looser bowling. If the supporting cast can be a bit better, keep it tighter and pick up the odd wicket, then a bowler like Starc becomes even more dangerous.

I've often commented that, looking at the last world cup, it very much was about the bowling attacks. The best bowling attack won the tournament, the next best came second, and the next two best were the losing semi-finalists.

I have a feeling that England also fall into the trap of taking matches likely, almost assuming a win, and not really giving it everything. For the Pakistan match they weren't even talking about winning the match, it was just about how many runs they could score. Here, I wouldn't be surprised if they were already looking ahead to the Australian game.

It certainly doesn't help that CA went for a cash grab TV contract that meant most Australians will never see ODI cricket any more outside of the world cup either.

I agree. I was just looking to optimise from the squad we have - we may go to win it, may be not. But so long as we give it the best shot we can through correct selection. Agree re middle order batters; UK is scoring runs and Smith will also continue to. Maxwell seems in good enough form to get quickfire 20-40, just needs the balls to do. If we lose wickets then Stoinis comes into play and that's a weakness (but our strategy of wickets in hand - 1 or 2 down at 25-30 overs is paying off, so happy for Warner to be circumspect but stay in.

Excellent points Jeff. I'd only add that while Starc is the best bet to be player of the tournament if Australia do eventually go on to win the World Cup, I believe it will be the middle order batters and 3-6 bowlers who are going to play a large role in getting Australia to a final. Let us see how they do in these final 3 group matches to see if the team are indeed on track for glory in this World Cup.

I agree David. Prior to/at the start of the tournament, the concern was what if Starc or Cummins have an off day? So we need another (or 2) threatening/wicket taking bowlers in the side (Behrendorff/NCN/Richardson, but also Zampa). Starc and Cummins aren't showing they are going to have an off day and I think that greatly opens up our flexibility to adjust strategy in our bowling approach/make-up. It allows us to vary required overs from Maxwell and Stoinis depending on who is performing better on the day (with containment being the key), then Behrendorff/Richardson/NCN as hopefully the 3rd penetrating wicket taker and not hopefully not leaking too many runs. That eliminates the need for Zampa's penetration who can still go for runs and bring in Lyon to contain and build pressure. Given our top 7 is showing the ability to regularly post 300, that feels like the right balance to me. And a lot of that comes down to Starc having the tournament we hoped he would.

Still of the opinion that he never truly bowls well until he does, if that makes any sense. But when he does, the searing pace and radar is on, and he morphs into the match-winning, world-beating version of Starc that Australian fans crave and opponents dread.