Why Australia Win
By Murli

The most open tournament in the history of the world cup has ended in the most predictable fashion. Fooled by its five consecutive losses running to the world cup, former players, experts and the ordinary fan on the street, et al showed unseemly haste in seeing ghosts in the all conquering Australians and proclaiming that any of the top five or six teams could upset the applecart down under. Well, hindsight may have zero value, but you don't have to rub it in, for Australia has been there, done that, and its hat trick of world cup wins is only yet another jewel in its crown. It has pummeled all its opponents - minnows, traditional enemies, challengers - equally, and mercilessly, without any bias towards either. It's time to pop the billion dollar question: What makes these guys so special, to the point of being pathologically incapable of losing?

•Who? Me Lose? Ha! That about sums up the attitude down under. If they lose, it is one off, literally once in a blue moon, when they have an off day. And usually, it's not because of the opposition. They lose not because the other team has played well, but because they played badly. In that sense, the Australians, as a rule, lose only to themselves. (The 434 historic run chase by the South Africans is an exception to the rule).

And when they win, as they do day in and day out, it is not because the opposition team has played badly. It is because they played well, they played to their potential. So it's also true that the Australians, as a rule, win against better opponents.

• They rise to the occasion. Glenn McGrath announced to the whole world that he would be retiring after the world cup. So did Brian Lara. Many others were in the final stages of their world cup career - Inzamam ul Haq, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly, Anil Kumble, Sanath Jayasuriya, to name a few. But none of these could make their farewell special. Save McGrath, who went on to be chosen the player of the tournament. Call it divine providence, luck, or pure coincidence, but it is an essentially Australian trait.

• They are big match players. In the previous world cup, Sachin Tendulkar played like a possessed man till the finals, but failed at the last frontier. In contrast, Adam Gilchrist, had a rather modest run up to the finals (356 runs in 10 matches), but saved his best for the all important finals, when he smashed the Sri Lankans out of the contest, with an attacking, belligerent 149 off --- balls.

• They don't experiment needlessly. A lot of people may not have noticed that Ricky Ponting does not tinker much with the team. They believe in the American saying, Why fix something which ain't broken? The opening was generally in the hands of Mathew Hayden and Gilchrist, and Ponting always followed up at No. 3. They didn't needlessly tinker with the batting order or the bowling combination, when they won or even lost. There's an important lesson in this for India. As coach, Greg Chappell was obsessed with his experiments, even when they proved to be disastrous for the team.

If any team can afford to experiment, it has to be Australia. And they don't do it so often like us, they do it sparingly! You don't find Ponting opening the innings, at the first hint of trouble at the top (they did have an opening problem when Mathew Hayden suffered a prolonged loss in form earlier). And just because Brett Lee can tonk a few hefty blows and is capable of drumming up a half century, you won't find him coming one drop as pinch hitter - even in an inconsequential match.