Four flawed ODI teams will face off in the semi-finals of this World Cup.
Compared to the 2015 World Cup, when Australia had a dominant line-up with every base covered, there is no side extremely well rounded this time.
Let’s look at the glaring weaknesses of Australia, India, England and New Zealand.
Australia: an all-round problem
Australia have had a wonderful tournament and are a strong chance of finishing on top of the table by beating South Africa tomorrow. They have won 15 of their past 16 games despite all of those matches being played away from home.
Yet their current team is, quite clearly, not on the same level as the Aussie XI that lifted the World Cup in 2015.
The conspicuous difference is in the all-rounder department. In 2015 Australia had one of the greatest ODI all-rounders of all time in Shane Watson, the top bowling all-rounder in the world at the time in James Faulkner, plus Glenn Maxwell in the best form of his career.
This time they have Maxwell in comparatively poor touch, no bowling all-rounder at all and instead of Watson a man who has been in rank form for more than a year in Marcus Stoinis. In this tournament Maxwell and Stoinis combined have averaged 21 with the bat and 64 with the ball.
Maxwell’s batting figures are not as poor as they look, because he’s often come in late with the task of going ballistic and his strike rate has been phenomenal. But as an all-rounder he’s been an inarguable failure, having taken 0-238 with the ball.
Stoinis, meanwhile, has done a decent job with his seamers, yet he’s first and foremost a batsman and has averaged 16 with the bat in this World Cup. That average increases only slightly, to 23, over the period of his past 26 ODIs.
Australia have been fortunate that their specialists have done a fine job with bat and ball so far in this tournament, such that their bowling all-rounders have not needed to pull their weight. However, that time may come very soon.
(Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
England: there is and never was a Plan B
The last two matches for England have been hugely significant yet have also taught us nothing new about them as a side. England are back in a big way, apparently. Well, they are and they aren’t. They are back in the sense that they’re again in the running to hoist the trophy after beating India and New Zealand to avoid elimination, but those two wins did nothing to address the flaws that were exposed during their run of poor form prior to that.
No-one ever doubted they could dominate when batting first on a flat deck. Their whole game is based around belting bowlers on roads. What the losses to Australia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan exposed was their lack of flexibility and fight with the bat. Those defeats raised questions about their ability to bat under real pressure when chasing and, more than anything, about their willingness to adapt to conditions and scrap for runs when the pitch isn’t great for batting.
Those questions remain unanswered. England decided a long, long time ago they were going to slog their way to their first World Cup triumph. At no stage in the last four years did they trial any other method. Even in the deadest of rubbers in the most meaningless of random bilateral series England never tried to hone different batting strategies. As a result they have just one way of winning. If they get to bat first on roads in both the semi-final and the final, they will win this tournament. But if England instead have to bat second or play on a bowler-friendly pitch, their chances of victory will plummet.
(Andy Kearns/Getty Images)
India: a muddled middle order
India have seemed unsure for more than a year now about their best middle-order combination. While ballistic all-rounder Hardik Pandya is a lock at No. 7, India have had issues between four and six in the order. Seven players – MS Dhoni, Dinesh Karthik, Kedar Jadhav, Rishabh Pant, KL Rahul, Ambati Rayudu and Vijay Shankar – have rotated through those three batting positions in recent times.
Now Rayudu has retired, Jadhav has been dropped, Shankar has gone home injured and Rahul is opening. That leaves Dhoni, Pant and Karthik as the three players expected to bat between four and six in India’s next match, though in which order, who knows?
Dhoni has been attracting widespread criticism for the overly cautious manner in which he and Jadhav went about India’s chase against England on Sunday. That pair came together with India needing 71 from 31 balls, a difficult target but by no means impossible for two such talented batsmen. Instead of going for the win they mostly just knocked singles around. It was a curious situation which has triggered endless speculation since. Some pundits in India believe it was the reason for Jadhav’s axing.
Whatever the case, there is no doubt India’s middle order continues to be the only soft spot in an otherwise commanding unit.
(Henry Browne/Getty Images)
New Zealand: top-order woes
With 481 runs in this World Cup, Kiwi skipper Kane Williamson has outscored teammates Martin Guptill, Colin Munro and Henry Nicholls, who combined have made 299 runs at 21. Of even greater concern is the fact those three batsmen have been New Zealand’s openers in this tournament.
Compare that to the returns of the other opening combinations which will feature in the semi-finals. Australia’s Aaron Finch and David Warner have churned out 1020 runs at 68. India’s Rohit Sharma and KL Rahul have piled up 793 runs at 66. And England’s Jason Roy and Jonny Bairstow have made 803 runs at 57.
Amid the heavy pressure of a knockout match having a reliable opening combination is crucial. Bowling to New Zealand right now is a tantalising prospect for the new-ball quicks from Australia, India and England. The inability of their openers to even survive the new ball, let alone prosper against it, has placed an enormous burden on Williamson and fellow star Ross Taylor at three and four respectively.
As good as that pair are, if New Zealand again find themselves two down for not many in the semi-final, it would be very hard to see them avoiding defeat. The Kiwis have lost their last three matches, scoring just 186, 157 and 237 in those matches. Their batting is a mess.
Fox
Roar Guru
Pakistan were ranked no2 in the world in ODI cricket not so long ago as well my friend
Asthon
Roar Rookie
a bit off topic. but has anyone heard the old man ian chappell speak? age must getting on a bit. His views would explain some of greg chappell’s bias selections over the last 5 years. they openly and clearly dislike some players over others.
Mitcher
Guest
Woeful reach for a test reference in a World Cup ODI discussion.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Hi Peter. I don’t disagree. Maxwell was expected to do better with his bowling. but even though he hasn’t, it still seems to be working re overall team balance/structure.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Which is good enough because it allows them to play a specialist, test quality top 4, have Maxwell tonking and Carey underwriting it all at 7
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Yea, they played more poorly than NZ, or another way to put it, NZ played better than them.
Fox
Roar Guru
Then every top order player benefits do they not ? Not just Guptil and I don’t think Sri Lanka and Pakistan are borderline minnows in ODI crickets or test cricket over the last 10 years when guys like Sangakara and so on were playing – Sri Lanka is not the team the once were but Pakistan are no slouches at all in either format and especially at home as the Australian test side found out when they toured there.
Nik
Roar Rookie
Aren't the knock out matches being played on unused strips? They still may behave the same like it did in Eng vs Ind and Eng vs NZ matches. Since 1975 in the 11 WC editions only 9 times has a team batting second won a SF. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=2;class=2;filter=advanced;final_type=3;orderby=start;result=1;template=results;trophy=12;type=team
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Runs against the top teams are what matters most, particularly in tournaments. There is very little value to making runs against borderline minnows in random bi-lateral series.
Fox
Roar Guru
I think that is being a little unfair to Guptil Ronan but he has played far more ODI games against Australia 24 games = 4 x 50’s 1x 100 Av 34……South Africa 18 games 1 x 50 2 x 100’s Av. 33.73 ….India 30 4x 50’s 1 x 100 Av. 26.68 …..Pakistan 24 games 7 x 50’s 1 x 100 Av 45.33, …..Sri Lanka 23 = 5 x 50’s 2 x 100’s av. 43.80 ….Zimbabwe – 9 games 5x 50’s 1x 100 Av. 95 ( bit like Warners average against Afghanistan after 3 games) , Windies 13 games 2 x 50’s , 2x 100’s, Av. 53.45 or Bangladesh 12 games 3x 100’s 1 x 50 av. 57.3 Warner averages over 40 against SA 19 games and India 16 games but only 33.21 against England 20 games – he has played the 3rd most games against Sri Lanka 17 only Av. 36.71 and in 7 games against Windies he only averages 36.33 proving what? That their attacks are no push overs either and condition matter as well. I am not saying he is a good as Warner as batsman – that would be silly when you also consider his test record but Guptil is still very capable of tearing any attack apart on his day but sure it is always tougher against the better attacks and conditions matter as well. And when you consider that commentators regularly state that averaging 30-35 is still pretty good for any batsmen opening in ODI’s then only his average against India is below par IMO
Tyrone
Guest
Australia has only lost one game because there is always someone that will stand and deliver with the bat when things have looked bleek. Whether it has been Finch or Warner steadying the ship from the get go or Kawaja knocking it round or Carey coming out for a slog, they have found a way from looking terrible to looking like there's a chance. On the flip side their bowlers have also found a way. If one is failing another will find a way to hit the right spots and get the ball talking . So yeah our all rounders haven't shined yet but if they are needed they will find a way.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Guptill has always had issues making runs against the top sides in ODIs though. From 72 matches against Aus/Ind/SA (the 3 best teams of his generation) he averages just 30. Guptill has filled his boots against the 3 weakest sides he's faced regularly (Zim/Bang/Windies) piling up almost 2,000 runs at 65.
Fox
Roar Guru
Yeah that's the only reason a side ranked 3rd in the world made it to the semi's - and last cups runner-up - spare me
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
As Pakistan and South Africa played poorly, New Zealand got the opportunity to advance in to the Semi-finals.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Not sure he has strung 10 overs together this WC. Happy with an ER of 6 if striking at 2 or 3 wkts per 10 overs. Or zero wkts if an ER of 4.5 if building wicket-taking pressure elsewhere. Maxwell isn’t do anything this WC other than allowing Aus to get through their allotted 10 overs for their “5th bowler”
Fox
Roar Guru
Fair preview – Rumours are that NZ will move a natural opener like Latham to the top and drop Nichols down to his natural position and test no5 – gee you think NZ – honestly – I mean Latham scored at nearly a run a ball in his knock against England. England got very lucky indeed with Williamson’s dismissal and Taylor committed suicide and NZ missed Fergusson in the attack and England got the best of the conditions in the first 30 overs before the pitch started playing differently as even Owen Morgan acknowledged and then look how many wickets they lost in double quick time. So I am not reading too much in the England defeat. Guptil is one of the best openers in ODI cricket but has had some rotten luck and some poor form but he can’t be this unlucky or bad forever and if he fires look out opponents – and I have hunch he will come good. The good news for NZ is Latham has found some form and Neesham has been excellent with the ball and pretty decent with the bat. I don’t think any of these sides will be pushovers in the semis but it would seem winning the toss and batting first is half the battle on these wickets – which is not great for the contest IMO
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Context is key here. It has been widely acknowledged that the Kiwis batted way too conservatively against all the Aussie bowlers, including Maxwell, which flattered him, figures wise. But against India and England he won't get that luxury - he was targeted and bled 0-60 from nine overs in the two matches against those sides. If they made it, and Maxwell was their only all-rounder, could Australia afford for him to take 0-67 from his 10 overs in the final?
Peter Warrington
Guest
he doesn't. Carey is ironclad. Maxwell is a 7 batting at 5 so the 5 can bat at 7 it is working every time it's Stoinis at 6 that is the waste of space. might as well play Hando there now. yay!@ and bowl Maxwell and Finch for the 10. In Carey, and Jacob Townsend, and Jack Graham, we trust!
Peter Warrington
Guest
the umps robbed him against Sri Lanka. awful decision. i may have overstated the stats but there are many, many games where both teams scored over 300, and others where the aggregate was over 600. more importantly, australia have been above, at, or just below 300 in every game bar NZ (where Maxwell went at 4.5) so the underlying proposition that his bowling is manageable in that context - if the required run rate for the opposition is above 6 and Maxy, our worst bowler, goes at 6, we are doing OK (averages will have people below the average and people above, after all)
IndianCricketFan
Guest
I hope you're right Simoc coz that will mean pitches next week after a good 3 weeks of sun should be better.