`Sachin Tendulkar, you bet’

They are offering heavy bets on him scoring between 250 to270 runs to emerge as the topbatsman, inspite of his recent back injury. Tendulkar, is also labelled as the batsman to watch by cricket writers here.

"Sachin Tendulkar will be the batsman of the tournament, South African Shaun Pollock, the bowler, Ricky Ponting, the electric Tasmanian, will be the star fielder even ahead of Jonty Rhodes," The Daily Telegraph said in a banner story yesterday.

The Telegraph said: "Australia will be the winner, India the dark horse and New Zealand will be most likely the slayers of giants."The tabloid Mirror, however, favoured the South Africans."Why Australians and not South Africa?" the paper asked and said the Africans had approached the 1999 World Cup with the diligence of marathon runners. "They have outstanding batsmen like (Jacques) Kallis, (Daryll) Cullinan, they field superbly close to bat and in the deep and Bob Woolmer, their outstanding coach, will spot anything the players miss," The Mirror declared.

Even The Telegraph conceded the South Africans had done everything sincethe last World Cup to win this one.

The cricket writers here, however, continue to bet on Australia, saying: "Dog tired they may be, after an autumn, winter, spring of relentless cricket, but they remain a team to beat.

The bookies and writers differ on India’s spin wizard Anil Kumble. While bookies are offering 40-1 odds on the leggie emerging as the top wicket-taker, cricket writers differ saying the bowler to watch was Pakistan’s Shoaib Akhtar.pCan Simpson do it for India? The former Australian opener and coach Bob Simpson, whom the Indian Board has hired as a consultant to the Indian team, has made some interesting tactical revelations which helped Australia win the 1987 World Cup in India. Simpson, who was the coach of the team at that time, writes in an Australian cricket magazine that they had won only 45 per cent of one day games till 1986. The reasons: “Because we had thought little about tactics and even less about utilising our talent.”

What did he do to correct that fault? “One pointgrabbed my attention. In a high percentage of matches, the team taking the most number of singles won the match… That made sense. If you take a run a ball you scored 300 runs per innings. Sounds simple. But it took time and effort.”

Simpson says that he looked for other methods and “most importantly, employing greater mental aggression and tactical thinking when batting. “Our bowlers also introduced a new dimension to the game with their changes of pace — particularly at the death. O’ Donnell and Waugh were the innovators and developed a range of well concealed slower deliveries never seen before.”

It all sounds good and shows how useful Simpson was for the Australians. But has he given the Indians too a lesson or two in tactics?