Player of the World Cup?

They definitely can. But I was under the impression that '99 was Klusener's year.

Originally posted by Mojo They definitely can. But I was under the impression that '99 was Klusener's year.

  So it was !!!  Warne got man of the match in the final.........tis sad how the ole braincells just keep dying!

At this stage of the tournament i think the most likely are:

Scott Styris is doing really well too.

Originally posted by Mojo I think Kallis is currently the top pick at this stage. He's scored a huge amount of runs with a mighty average, and he's picked up a few wickets along the way too.  If his form continues this way, there's little doubt that he'll take it.

 Not if SA fail to make the semis Mojo !

Just looking at the list , Two teams that stand out in bowling department, Australia with 54 wickets shared by 4 bowlers and Lankans 41 by 3 bowlers, similarly Ausies top in the batting with three batsmen in top ten and Kiwis & Africans with 2 each. Lankans should improve a bit in their batting from the look of things, but their wins looks more on an Above average performance by most batsmen. Kiwis and Africans should find a few strike bowlers very quickly to have a say in the final stages. Infact its really bad not see the likes of BOnd and Ntini not amongst the top and probably Lara, Gayle  and Sangakara missing batting line, These were the pre tournament favourites by many!

Originally posted by bond2322 Bond not amongst the top?   Firstly he will jump to 7th on the wicket taking list. Remember he didn't play against Kenya which cost him say 2-3 wickets given his current average so far in this WC.   He has the lowest economy rate by far and being a fast bowler this is hard to achieve. His average is also the lowest out of anyone on that list.   Still think he hasn't lived up to expectations?

Where is this table?

M Muralitharan (SL)

7

64.4

1

257

15

3/32

17.13

3.97

25.8

0

0

Murali has gone for more runs, taken less wickets, has a worse average, has a much worse strike rate and is marginaly more economical. I cant see biased in any way, shape or form. Mcgrath has simply out bowled him in this tournament.

Edited by tonks007 - 16 April 2007 at 7:30am

Well judging by the statistics in my previous post, i cant see how you could compare Murali and McGrath in this tournament. What's with this "bias" every time an aussie recieves some form of accolade or doing something really well? Is it really that difficult to just accept the fact that they are really that good?

I don't know what your arguing about. Surely they won't award the player of the tournament based upon what some commentators think?

Originally posted by bond2322 I don't know what your arguing about. Surely they won't award the player of the tournament based upon what some commentators think?

Sadly looks like it tonks! Matthew Hayden was about 5th in the list if you still think the list is fare with 8 points if I can remeber correctly!

I did actually write that he is marginally more economical. How is it McGrath's problem that he is playing "minnows" more than Sri Lanka? As i wrote, McGrath is just simply out bowling Murali in this tournament. Yes, i do believe stats dont tell you everything but going by these stats which is obviously what you are going off, there is no comparison.

I think the table incriminates itself by having McGrath up there leading by so many points.

As you said, who cares what they? I dont know what games there watching cause Styris should be daylight in front!

why is word "bo-ll-oc-ks" is filtered?