With high regards for Prem Panicker, I beg to differ from him.
How could he imagine that a side good on paper is a favourite to win the title? If experience is the biggest teacher, then he SHOULD not go by favourites. Was Sri Lanka the best side when the WC 96 began? Or for that matter was India the best side at the start of WC 83?
I would say, a side of spirited, talented and coherent players, with an eagerness to perform, and play as a team is the favourite for the title. We are talking 20-20 here as opposed to test match cricket, where experience and past records would have mattered. For that matter I would say even Rajastan Royals can be an absoulte favourite.
VVS Laxman would have been the best bet if it had been a test tournament. But 20-20, no way!
RE:Favourites theory
by dudeman on Apr 23, 2008 12:58 PM Permalink
even if it had been a test tournamanet, VVS's team would have no chance whatsoever. Its pretty evident when u see the DC's bowling "attack" comprising of vaas,RP,symo,ojha etc that they wont make any impact in T20, i shudder to think what they would have done in tests with such bowling prowress
RE:Favourites theory
by shankar aurade on Apr 23, 2008 01:03 PM Permalink
now it is clear that Bowling is weak side of DC. In t-20 matches 3 side are imporatant. 1 Batting 2 bowling 3 the most important is strtergy.
RE:Favourites theory
by Shiva on Apr 23, 2008 01:03 PM Permalink
The people who chose the players might have been under the impression that 20 20 is after all a batsman's game and bowlers dont have much of a role to play. But as we saw yesterday, the opening spell by McGrath and Asif proved crucial. Bowlers are important in this format as one good over can make all the difference. But I'll also say you need luck even if you're a good bowler to not get hit for runs in this format.
