An unbeatable England one-day team

Vaughan
Flintoff
Bell
Pietersen
Strauss
Collingwood
Dalrymple
Prior
Tremlett
Panesar
AndersonUnbeatable so long as it stays where it belongs - in the realms of fantasy.

Hope you're all appreciating the blue box. As the most successful thing we've ever achieved in life, we couldn't wait another second before using it again.

Openers:

We've gone for Michael Vaughan because we said we would yesterday. We've also gone for Flintoff, but we'd like to make this clear: NOT as a pinch-hitter.

The Flintoff who opens the batting in our one-day team has been told not to go for the big shots. He's been told to try and bat through the innings. This might seem like a complete waste of one of England's biggest hitters, but if you get anywhere near 50 overs out of Flintoff, you're well on the way to a big total however he bats. He's incapable of scoring slowly.

It might also mean that he bats properly and doesn't just aim a big slog at his third ball and get out.

Middle order:

Nothing too radical. Bell's not a particularly quick scorer, but he can actually score, so he gets his place ahead of most of his rivals on that count.

It might seem weird having Strauss at five, but that's where he first started his one-day career and he was pretty handy. Plus we've run out of opening slots. Besides any batting position's tantamount to being an opener in an England one-day team.

Wicketkeeper:

We actually thought we'd go for Read because we think he deserves a few matches on the run in one form of the game or another. Then we remembered that we'd vaguely championed Matt Prior in a half-arsed way earlier in the year, so we thought we'd better be consistent. It's easier to find good pictures of Matt Prior too.

Spinners:
Don't forget Ian Blackwell. He actually bowled really well in India, going for very few runs. Plus, one day he HAS to manage a quick fifty for England. Having said that, we've gone for Jamie Dalrymple because he's actually made runs already and his bowling's all right. We've also gone for Monty Panesar because he's magic.

Seamers:

Chris Tremlett gets the nod, because he was good against Australia before his injury and because he's a giant and giant's are cool. James Anderson also plays because at least he's played more than eight games, even if he's a bit off at the minute.

Jon Lewis and Liam Plunkett wait in the wings. Sajid Mahmood aims for the wings, but misses by a clear eight feet.

Conclusion:

If this or any other England one-day side is half as successful as the blue box, it'll be a grand achievement.

World Cup squads littered with players who can't do much at the minute

The world's selectors are awash with optimism. This is partly explained by the fact that they can replace players in their squads if they're unable to play, thus rendering the squad-naming process a bit farcical.

That's the way we understand it anyway. We read words to that effect on the BBC website, so if we're wrong, you can speak to them rather than us. We get enough emails 'disagreeing' with us.

Australia have selected Adam Gilchrist, who will miss 'some games' to attend the birth of his third child. They've also selected Andrew Symonds who's currently injured.

Pakistan have named Umar Gul in their squad as well as Shoaib Akhtar, who's doubly injured - hamstring and knee. Shahid Afridi's also in their squad, despite being banned for the first two matches.

New Zealand have named Shane Bond, who, technically speaking, isn't currently injured, but, you know - it's Shane Bond.

England will most likely select James Anderson, Jon Lewis and Kevin Pietersen, all of whom are injured. Then there's the daddy of them all: Michael Vaughan. Hopefully surgeons will have replaced his entire skeleton and and all of his cartilage with something more robust, like pastry.

England World Cup squad awash with surprises

Mark Ealham earns a recall, as does Robert Croft. Alan Mullally's in from the cold and so's Ronnie Irani.

Not really, the closest thing to a surprise is Ravi Bopara's inclusion and just about everybody had tipped him to appear. Except us. But that's only because we couldn't be bothered and also didn't think you'd be interested.

Michael Vaughan (capt)
Ed Joyce
Ian Bell
Kevin Pietersen
Andrew Strauss
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Ravi Bopara
Paul Nixon
Jamie Dalrymple
Liam Plunkett
James Anderson
Sajid Mahmood
Jon Lewis
Monty Panesar

We're still coming to terms with our omission. We'll give it half an hour. If we're not over it by then, we'll give it another half hour.

Australia: 2007 World Cup winners

We said that Australia hadn't really been tested. Now they have and they've triumphed. We're more than happy to give them credit. Actually, we've been vomiting blood all morning at the prospect of lauding them, but we're still going to do it because we like to at least pretend that we're fair.

We've had to split this into two because we've just realised that we've written too much for one post.

Australia's World Cup winning batsmen
Australia's World Cup winning bowlers

Australia were far and away the best side in this tournament. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the aftermath as well. The inevitable cull will be a lesson in cold-hearted planning for all the other nations. Australia's success is no accident.

Brad Hogg is sure to go, but bigger names like Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist won't be appearing at the next World Cup. Will they get another one-day game? Expect a rash of jump-before-pushed retirements shortly.

Australia's World Cup winning batsmen

Australia went through the entire World Cup without once requiring Mike Hussey, their most rounded one-day batsman. The only time he batted, it was because he was shoved up the order so that he could keep his eye in.

If a batting line-up can win all of their matches and have someone like him in reserve, it's some batting line-up. It's a batting line-up that boasts Brad Hogg at number eight - a man who averages 34 in first-class cricket.

We genuinely believed the Australians would struggle when confronted with Vaas, Malinga and Murali, but only Malinga took wickets and he still went for more than six an over. The way Australia's batsmen went about their task in the World Cup final was exemplary. The openers first sized up the situation and when Adam Gilchrist took off, Hayden and Ponting both recognised that they didn't need to do anything special. A risk-taker and an accomplice - the perfect one-day combination.

Australia: 2007 World Cup winners

Australia's World Cup winning bowlers

We're reserving any 'all-time greatest' tag, because we weren't convinced by Australia's bowling attack. They inevitably had huge totals to defend, so their opponents had to take risks. Having said that, this is effectively criticising the efficiency of the team. Shouldn't an all-time greatest side be efficient?

Perhaps we should be more specific. Raving Metrosexual, Shane Watson, is a terrible bowler compared to his team mates. It's not that he's incompetent. It's just that he doesn't do anything with the ball. He doesn't move it; he rarely changes pace. He's asking for trouble. The greatest-ever one-day side would have a better fifth bowler.

Shaun Tait was crucial in many of the games with his ability to take wickets, but he's one in particular who you wouldn't want to bowl if you were defending a smaller total. It's strange to say considering his success, but not many teams other than Australia could accommodate him.

Brad Hogg's similar. He takes a lot of wickets, but perhaps on the back of batsmen trying to force the pace. However, we're led to believe that nobody picked his wrong 'un. We know this because every single commentator said this during every single Australia match. Presumably they're all correct.

Australia: 2007 World Cup winners

2007 World Cup: Angry or amazed?

Clearly we're angry. This World Cup was the worst yet the moment we heard what had happened to Bob Woolmer. Take that out of the equation and it was still a disaster.

One of the main problems was the sheer predictability of the whole thing. At almost every stage of the tournament, you could be relatively certain who was going to progress to the next round. Stretch proceedings out over weeks and weeks and weeks and this flaw is magnified.

If Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and South Africa are going to contest the semi finals, as seemed evident about a month ago, let's see them. Instead there was a protracted period of going through the motions.

There were only a few matches in the entire tournament which actually mattered. The final was probably the most closely-contested of these, which effectively means that out of 51 games, not one was meaningfully exciting. The best match was England against the West Indies when both teams had already been knocked out.

The Cricket World Cup is often referred to as a showcase, but it was treated as anything but. The concept is surely that the tournament functions as an advert for cricket. Instead it was treated as a window of opportunity during which as much money as possible could be made. If the World Cup's a good one, then it will create new cricket-followers. These people will support the game over the whole of the next four years and beyond. Cashing-in is short-sighted and damaging.

The most infuriating example of this was the ticket-pricing policy and the way the fans were treated. Tickets were often the equivalent of two weeks' wages for locals and they were hoping to fill 20,000 seater stadia on islands with a population of 80,000. There's no other word for that but stupidity.

Once inside the ground, instruments were barred, as were alcohol and even plastic bottles. You also weren't permitted to leave the ground and re-enter. If a match is joyless for an undersized crowd, the TV can't hide this. An enthusiastic and raucous crowd can conceal all manner of sins on the field.

At least the final didn't end in shambolic circumstances with both teams needlessly retaking the field for a couple of overs when the match had already been decided - as happened when England won the 2005 Ashes. Oh, wait...

Sarcastic handclap everyone: [Clap]...[clap]...

Adam Gilchrists's World Cup Final hundred

In an uninspiring tournament defined by incompetent administration and limp performances, at least the final was decided by something exceptional.

There are a number of fine players in this Australian side, but Adam Gilchrist is the one on whom everything is built. He's been keeping wicket and scoring bucketloads of runs for as long as we can remember, but has he ever played a better one-day innings than this?

In any circumstances 149 off 104 balls is something. In a World Cup final it's ten times as good. There's infinitely more pressure, but there's infinitely more impact as well. (Infinity multiplied by infinity equals ten, it seems. Our maths isn't all that good.)

It was a good pitch for batting, but Adam Gilchrist reduced both Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting to sleepy-looking bystanders. The middle of Gilchrist's bat must take more of a pounding than any other in world cricket, because that's invariably where the ball makes contact.

It's a fantastically simple method: Swing bat, middle it. Runs ensue.

And that's what he did. He won the World Cup for Australia with that method.

Australia v Sri Lanka - World Cup final 2007

Finally - FINALLY - we might get a match which isn't totally one-sided AND where the outcome actually matters. So far we've had even-but-meaningless contests or one-sided drubbings.

Australia drubbed South Africa so comprehensively yesterday, we don't really have anything to say about it. Australia were far, far better than South Africa - what can you add to that? It means Australia will play Sri Lanka in the final, which is the final we predicted (to ourself) after the first round of matches back in December or whenever it was.

Our money's literally on Sri Lanka, but Australia are favourites. Sri Lanka were far and away the best of the rest during the tournament and deserve their place, but, to us, Australia seem to have a stronger middle and lower order which should mean a decent total even if the top order fail for once. Sri Lanka's innings will be more dependent on one of the top four batting through.

Still, Australia haven't yet been tested. You can take this as a sign that they're miles better than everyone else, or alternatively you can take it that in spite of 500 matches, we still haven't seen them up against anyone decent. How can that be?

Australia beat Sri Lanka in the group stages, but Sri Lanka rested virtually their entire bowling attack for that game. Australia also missed out on facing another great bowler of merit during the group stages - Shane Bond. It'll be interesting to see how their top order cope with Lasith Malinga's pace, Chaminda Vaas's nous and Murali's retina-scorching brilliance.

So Australia's batsmen finally get tested; we finally have a decent game in the offing; and it's finally the final. It's been a long and uninspiring tournament. Hopefully the final match won't be representative of that.

South Africa's and Australia's mental scars

It's the World Cup semi final between Australia and South Africa today. Everything we read seems to revolve around South Africa's mental scarring from the 1999 World Cup semi final.

In summary: Pressure mounts, bit of crazy running, scores tied, Australia win because they finished higher in the group stages or because they'd previously beaten South Africa. One or the other - we can't be bothered checking which.

What no-one seems to be mentioning is Australia's mental scarring after South Africa chased down 435 in a one-day game last year. That led to Ricky Ponting predicting that the future of one-day cricket was a team of six-hitters. Australians always cite that game when discussing modern one-day cricket. We think they're rattled.

So South Africa will be nervous about chasing a total and Australia will be nervous defending one. Looks like South Africa will be batting first.

With so much mental scarring on display there'll scarcely be a single fully-functioning human brain in the two sides put together. It is Australia against South Africa after all. (We're joking - there are literally dozens of intelligent thinkers from those two fair nations. Dozens.)

Muttiah Muralitharan - four World Cup semi final wickets to go with the rest

It was nice to see the second-nicest man in cricket get a hundred in the World Cup semi final. Murali is of course the top man - in so many ways.

If anyone else had taken four wickets in a World Cup semi final, they'd be hoisted onto shoulders, showered with rose petals and then held there while someone painstakingly captured the moment with an oil painting. Muttiah Muralitharan takes four wickets and it isn't even news.

He's supposed to take four wickets in the World Cup semi final because he's a genius (a genial genius). To have been good enough to create that level of expectation is one thing. To live up to it so consistently as for it to become commonplace is another entirely. If we manage to get through a Saturday night without falling asleep at some point, people are impressed with us. That's the level of expectation that we've created.

Mahela Jayawardene's World Cup semi final hundred

Mahela Jayawardene's run of scores in the last World Cup reads as follows: one, five, nine, one, duck, duck and five.

That's 21 runs at the heady average of 3.5. By any stretch Mahela Jayawardene failed at the last World Cup.

During this current World Cup, Mahela Jayawardene has now hit 530 runs at 66.25. By any stretch it's a success.

Yesterday's 115 not out in the World Cup semi final was magnificent. His arrival at the crease seemed to coincide with the period of the match when players from both sides were paralysed with the enormity of the situation. Jayawardene said after the match that yes, it was a World Cup semi-final, but it was still just a game of cricket. Good thinking, that man.

He batted slowly for what seemed like an age, before lashing out in time-honoured World Cup tradition. It was the archetypal one-day innings. He reached his 50 from 76 balls - he'd hit three fours at this point. 33 balls later, he'd added 65 more runs made largely out of seven further fours and three sixes. This is how to bat in one-day cricket.

Mahela Jayawardene's been batting brilliantly for quite a while now. It's just unfortunate he's been overshadowed by Ricky Ponting and Mohammad Yousuf for most of that time. It would be hard to overshadow him if he wins the World Cup with another hundred though. Even an oversized replica of Matthew Hayden's chest positioned directly in front of the sun couldn't produce enough shadow for that. Not that there are any such plans, as far as we're aware.

World Cup match features supporters AND excitement

The World Cup's actually started! There was a crowd; an atmosphere; a tight finish; and at the end of it all, one side were knocked out of the World Cup.

So were the other side of course, because this was a dead rubber, both England and the West Indies already being unable to progress. They still provided the best match yet though. It was the first time it's really felt like the World Cup to us. It's all been a bit damp.

How much of that has been to do with the crowds? 'Crowd' is perhaps the wrong word, because it implies congestion. Supporters have been strewn around these stadia as if it's Derbyshire Seconds against Kent Seconds on a rainy Monday in April. This should never happen again at a World Cup. Ever.

The majority of yesterday's supporters came to pay tribute to King Brian Charles Lara in his final match. He was run out for 18, which was sad in a way, but is anyone going to remember that moment when they think of him in the future? We're not. We'll remember the best of Brian Lara.

We wonder as well whether this match will be the one we remember from this World Cup, despite its pointlessness. In many ways it was a classic one-day match: A number of players contributed; there were sixes and chaotic run-outs; and with two balls to go, you still didn't know who was going to win.

Where so many matches have been inexorable marches for the winner, this was a joyous battle between both sides. Hopefully the semi finals and final will be more along these lines.

Foetid England are out of the World Cup

THRASHED by South Africa. It was a defeat redolent of all that's limp and useless about this England one-day side.

Their batting was deliberate, ponderous and misguided at first, before the middle order capitulated under the hypnotic spell weaved by Andrew Hall - ANDREW HALL!

Just as England's openers had sent a message to the South African bowlers (please put us out of our misery) so South Africa's openers sent a message to England's bowlers (you've already lost).

Has there been one single moment of joy for an England supporter during this World Cup? The tournament's been miserable anyway, but England have redefined that word with incompetence so relentless and inexorable it was like dying slowly from the most minor disease imaginable.

As the World Cup approached, England's spearhead retired and virtually everyone agreed that England would be a better side for it. At the same time, England's captain returned and almost as many people thought they'd be a worse side for that.

The only time England have looked like winning games in the last six months was when their best player was injured. Everything's backwards about this team. We're glad it's dead now.

Ireland beat Bangladesh

We believe that Ireland beat Bangladesh yesterday.

* Irony alert *

We're disgusted that this can happen. The organisers of the World Cup have to take some responsibility for allowing this. They should have ensured that the draw, the scheduling and the conditions all prevented Ireland from beating a Test team.

The whole point of the World Cup is that we see the best teams. If the best teams lose, it just ruins it for everybody. Nobody wants to see a World Cup with upsets such as this. The minnows have no place in the World Cup. There's too much at stake.

The next thing you know, Australia won't win the tournament. It'll be a dark day for the ICC when that happens. A dark day indeed.

How the Super 8s work

The way the Super 8s work is that all eight teams play each other once and the top four go through to the semi finals.

Where two teams have played each other already in the previous round, that result is used and they don't play again, so effectively this round's already started.

We've been staring at this post for about ten minutes now and we've nothing to add to make it any better. Is it just us, or is our World Cup coverage painfully below par? Maybe we're still smarting from Rob Key's omission from England's World Cup squad.

World Cup opening ceremony featured stilts as well

Hot damn! There were people on stilts as well as Sean Paul. The World Cup opening fandango must have been amazing.

We love people on stilts. We saw someone skiing on stilts recently and THAT was impressive.

Things we love:

People on stilts
Staring into space vacantly
Not having anything to do
Rob Key
Tea

Sean Paul appears at World Cup opening ceremony

The World Cup's started! Hurray!

Not that there's actually any cricket yet. The first match is tomorrow. There was an opening ceremony though, so officially we're away.

We're sad that we missed the opening ceremony because Sean Paul appeared. We like Sean Paul because we literally have NO CLUE what he's singing. You might think that this isn't sufficient grounds for liking someone and that we're being sarcastic or something, but we're not. We do like him and we like him because we don't understand him.

That's a picture of Sean in his cricket whites - maybe. Whether he plays cricket or not, we do know that Sean Paul used to play international water polo. That's a cast-iron, solid-gold FACT.

"Buss anotha bokkle a moe"

Quite, Sean. Quite.

The World Cup site stirs

Just a quick note to remind you all about our World Cup site.

We've got the right squads up for the main teams now (we stop before Zimbabwe), although we haven't written a full profile for every single player. We've somehow managed to avoid writing anything about Sachin Tendulkar for example. That's quite a big error.

The site still doesn't look too smart either. We can't see that changing in time for the World Cup. You might also be wondering what the point of having a World Cup site is, when we already write a cricket site.

1: It was originally for the player profiles. We should probably put up a fixture list and the group tables and things as well, but again, we can't see that happening.

2: It's kind of an overflow site. We know how annoyed you all get when we write more than three updates in a day. This way the proper posts can go here and all the dross can clog up the World Cup site.

We've been learning 'the hard sell' from our friend who talked the distributor of his CD out of selling it for any kind of profit.

Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif to miss World Cup

Strangely, Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif don't seem to be recovering from injury as speedily as they have in the past. That's the reason why they won't be appearing in the World Cup.

Just to clarify, it's not the drugs thing, it's the injury thing. Nandrolone's ability to aid a player's recovery is not a factor here, because of course Shoaib and Asif weren't found guilty of taking said substance. No wait, they were, but they were let off because they said that they thought it was a kind of boiled sweet.

Both players have opted not to submit drug tests like their team mates, presumably on the grounds that they knew they wouldn't be fit in time for the World Cup.

Either way, they're not banned, they're injured. The beneficiaries will be Mohammad Sami and Yasir Arafat, who confusingly turns out for Scotland half the time.