Predictions for 2009 - Inbox at Cricinfo

England is a real mess at the moment. KP has resigned from the captaincy and there will be no Peter Moores. England is a shadow of the team that won the 2005 Ashes, although some of the heroes are still lingering around. Flintoff is still a force to be reckoned with, and KP is a genuine superstar batsman who can by dynamite against any opposition. However, their bowling attack is pretty flimsy, as is their choice of Bell at number three. Bell has never made a Test century unless another batsman has passed the mark before him, and while stylish, he just doesn't have any steel in his spine.

India and South Africa will define excellence in 2009, and while India are looking as good as ever, South Africa have the advantage due to their finely balanced bowling attack and the coming of age of several of their players (Namely De Villiers and Amla). India has a classy team, led by two fine fast bowlers in Zaheer and Ishant. Ishant has the mark of an all time great, and will continue to improve as long as he doesn't break down due to his somewhat frail physique. Their problem is their aging veterans, who are approaching their use by date (Namely Dravid, Laxman, and Tendulkar, although the latter two players have a year or two left in them).

Dhoni has a lot of charisma, and leads the team well, but India will not be able to challenge South Africa unless they win important series away from home. If they can beat the South African team outside of their comfort zone, then they will be the top side. In the meanwhile, they are probably one of the better limited overs sides around. And there is plenty of good young players coming through that could have a great affect on Indian cricket for the next few years. Look out for them at the 20/20 World Championship.

Sri Lanka have looked terrific since introducing Ajantha Mendis into their attack. While they will have to worry about how to replace Chaminda Vaas in the near future, they have a good team that can give any team a real shake on their day. They do tend to rely on Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakarra too much, but when they go strong, they will surprise. They could well provide India with some anxious moments if they tour there, especially if any turners make an appearance.

Pakistan, thankfully, are making some tours this year, including one to Australia. I'm glad they are getting some international cricket this year after a 2008 they'd rather forget. There will be no Mohammad Asif because of his idiotic drug taking, but Nasir Jamshed is a talented young opener, and they still have the services of Umar Gul, Sohail Tanvir and Yasir Arafat, not to mention the Britney Spears of cricket, Shoaib Ahktar.

New Zealand may bloom this year with their youthful team, but India is their first obstacle and their relatively pedestrian attack will struggle. A lot will fall onto Tim Southee, Kyle Mills, and the ever-reliable Daniel Vettori. Hopes will ride on the crop of young batsmen coming through (Jesse Ryder, Daniel Flynn and Ross Taylor) to find their feet this year. Keep your eyes on Flynn. He is a player who loves a scrap.

The West Indies had a long year, but the talent is there. Their fast bowling is a problem, but Jerome Taylor is still a damn good bowler. And Gayle, Sarwan, and the Shiv form a formidable batting trio. It is the rest of the team that needs to lift to match their depended-upon heroes. Another frustrating year looms.

Ah Bangladesh. The more things changed, the more things stayed the same. Any improvements were blown open by irresponsible batting, inadequate bowling, and a generally undisciplined approach, although they gave Sri Lanka a serious scare in their recent Test series by reaching a 4th innings total in excess of 400. Sakib Al Hasan looks to be an allrounder of immense promise, let's hope they nurture him well. Don't be surprised if they pull off a shock in the World 20/20.

Alrighty, looking at the schedule, I'll now make my predictions. The top Test run scorer of the year will be Virender Sehwag, although I reckon Michael Clarke will run him close this year. Both India and Australia have quite a few Test series this year. Sehwag always scores heavily, but Clarke is a batsman that is on the improve every year and his maturity has been evident this summer via several fighting knocks.

The top wicket-taker will be Mitchell Johnson. 'Johnno' had a good year in 2008 to finish equal second highest wicket taker, and I reckon he will enjoy the responsibility of being the number one. England will be facing an immensely improved and dangerous Johnson in England this year.

The top ODI run scorer will be, on a limb, either Gautum Gambhir or perhaps Kumar Sangakarra. Both are accomplished, and will face a glut of ODIs this year. The top ODI bowler is harder, but I'll go with Ajantha Mendis to elude second year syndrome and be a real force. Give us your opinions and let's get some lively discussion going.

@ Geoff, waq
Waq and co.
Like I said the dear pakis will only nitpick. I afraid the rubbish about picking say harbhajan and Pathan over Warne and McGrath is just that – absolute rubbish. And can only come from a nit picker. (No one with even a half arsed knowledge of cricket).
You will surely have 0.1 % of the general population who will be anti tendulkar, mostly for daft, personal reasons and the fact that they cannot see genius even if it slaps them in the face (or they refuse to do so, more for reasons of geographical basis than anything else). Even a humble, class act like Federer has his critics. You never know.
However, as compared to the 0.1% of the anti tendulkar general pop…u will have a relatively huge majority of pakis who are anti ten (and u can imagine why)
Geoff:
Before Sampras, Emerson had the Slam record. He played with wooden rackets, white balls (not hi-vi yellow), shitty tennis shoes etc etc etc.
Even Borg, Laver, Mac, Lendl et al didn’t win that many slams.
So? Its not how the “Don would go in a one dayer “. It his how playing hundreds of ODIs would impact his test game. And like I said, if the persons who have actually played the game at the highest level claim Tendulkar has a shot as the greatest, how much value does your opinion then have?
Most of the anti tendulkar tirade is by pakis, and /or people who have never held a cricket bat or have never played bowling more than 130 ks.
A good majority of the greatest batsman/observers of the modern generation have Tendulkar as the “Best they have ever seen”…Benaud, Woodcock, Lara, Ponting, Steve and mark Waugh, etc etc. (the bowlers will almost always have mixed opinions)
So…. what if Tendulkar had played some 50 Tests only,like the don (all relatively much fresher and injury free) and some first class games more for practice than anything? You can bet he’d have had far superior stats. No question.

Well, don’t think uve read my comments properly?
Your direct linear extrapolation has no validity.
If so and so avg so much, therefore so and so would avg this. This not math, this is sport.
As regards the jingoistic nonsense again you conveniently ignore the fact that it is the Aussie legends, more than anyone, who have categorically said that tendulkar is the "best they have ever seen"
Some, like Woodcock, have also seen bradman.
Further, like the Nasser Hussein article, if world class test players also say that tendulkar is "arguably the greatest ever"(note I am referring to all non Indian, non "jingoistic" sources) then where on earth do you and your little arm chair arguments stand?
Read my second comment also. The don was a genius, tendulkar is a genius.
Tendulkar has NEVER got hit by a fast bowler in his prime, in the nineties. NEVER. Only when very young (as in 16!) or later besieged by umpteen injuries and poor form has this happened. So much for playing without helmets. We all know how the don fared during body line.
And tendulkar has played some of the greatest fast bowlers EVER. And lo and behold, guess what? Donald, and Akram, both state tendulkar is the best.
I would love to have seen the don against Donald, Akram, Shoaib and Warne. With hundreds of ODIs under his belt, with modern tech dissecting his technique, brilliant catchers, “neutral” umpires, almost unbearable pressure as in tendulkars case…
Tell you what, tendulkar would have done better.
Cheers.

I think south africa have had a few luckey breaks in their recent series against australia. They did deserve atleast a series draw, and I was happy to learn that they had one the series 2-0.

The 3 teams to watch ths year in my opinion would be South Africa England and New Zealand.

South africa are the up-and-coming number one test nation in the world and history is always a fun thing to watch.

I'm interested in England because of the whole coach and captain issues. I also find a few of their players really interesting to watch. A Strauss A Cook A flintoff and KP.

New Zealand will be an interesting team to watch because of their younger players, most of which have huge talent an potential. Watching the side get much needed experiance this year will be a great thing to watch. I also want to see D Vettori develop as the words best left hand slow bowler, a good solid captain to follow in S Flemings footsteps.

And Gaurav one more thing..

Bangladesh only became a nation in 1971 so I doubt they were playing test cricket in the 20's & 30's. Check your history mate it seems a tiny bit skewiff.

And if the Don were playing today with all the fitness, nutrition, ball machines and modern pitch & bat technology at his disposal I think he would be averaging over 100 in test cricket not under it.

Sad thing is back then people played sport all the time as a past-time. No TV's, a few radios here and there.. nothing to do but play cricket. And he did for hours every day hitting a golf ball with a stump against a round brick water tank stand. Who has that kind of training today? Nobody. Kids these days have too many distractions. We'll never see anything like the Don again and that is probably good for the game. But ANYONE who says that ANYBODY remotely compares is living in a kind of cricketing dream land.

Geoff and All Bradman supporters,

When I said Bangladesh existed in 1930s, I meant the "minnows of 1930s". Minnows existed in all eras. If you see Gary Sobers average - he plundered runs against India and 8 out of 26 hundreds were against India. Against Australia he averaged only 43????

Same for Bradman, one series a year, same old bowlers, same team, same grounds, same, same same. Come and plunder runs.

His average would have come down a lot if he played 150 test matches and played 400 ODIs. Its a physical and mental toll. Too much pressure day in day out.

Look at the standard of fielding in those days. Couch potatoes used to field. Rotund bellies used to score runs. People aged 45 and 50 used to play TEST CRICKET!! look at that standard man.

What I want to point out is - Had Bradman been born in today's era, he would have been similar to a Lara or Sachin or Sobers or Richards.. average of 50 or 60 or 65 .. that doesn't mean much at this level.

Geoff
Geoff, like I said as per your limited linear logic Emerson with 13 slams is practically twice as good a player as say Mac (7). Do you get it? No,don’t think so.
Am afraid you still have to learn a bit about sport as opposed to math.

I suggest you read this:
(May, just may, open your mind a bit)
"Only Sachin Tendulkar can equal Don Bradman" by John Woodcock.
The link:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article5365967.ece
There's also the well known story which goes:
It was 1992. The 18-year-old was up on his toes, carving bowlers like cuts of prime Australian beef to all parts of Perth's WACA ground. The murmurs around the press box grew. The boy had ability, potential, even the makings of a world-class batsman. John Woodcock could bear it no longer. The cricket correspondent of the London Times, wearing his 70s well, stood up, put out his hands and called for silence. "Gentlemen," he declared, "he is the best batsman I have seen in my life." A pause later: "And unlike most of you, I have seen Bradman."