KEY POINTS:
Given the choice, I wonder if New Zealand would prefer to be facing Australia rather than Sri Lanka in next week's World Cup semifinals.
Let's be clear about it; if they're going to win the trophy, they have to beat them both; but perhaps they'd prefer it in
a different order.
First things first: Australia will clean out South Africa in the other semifinal. I can't see any way South Africa will get past the Aussies.
Their best chance will be chasing and hope that Graeme Smith, Jacques Kallis and Herschelle Gibbs go on a batting blitz.
South Africa's bowling strengths - consistency and perseverance - are also their weaknesses. Five right arm fast-medium bowlers offers no variety. they have next to no chance against an Australian team who are full of confidence and in strong form.
But I worry about whether New Zealand will reach the final against them.
For some reason, none of our batsmen are happy facing bowlers with unusual actions. Muttiah Muralitharan is always a handful, but Lasith Malinga's slingy action, allied to his speed and his low delivery point, worries our batsmen.
Malinga has been going round the world for a couple of years and still our batsmen look distinctly uncomfortable against him. Throw in the experienced Chaminda Vaas, who has been good value in the tournament, and New Zealand face an awkward day in Kingston next Wednesday.
There was a time when we expected to beat Sri Lanka in maybe eight out of every 10 ODIs. Consider that they have won seven of their last nine against New Zealand.
The Sri Lankans were rated a good chance to make the final before the tournament began.
The conditions suit them and they have timed their run really well.
If we were playing Australia, New Zealand would be happier.
They know how to beat the Aussies, know what type of cricket to expect.
The 3-0 Chappell-Hadlee Series beating actually did Australia some good.
They might not admit it, but it will have sharpened their minds on what lay ahead.
New Zealand can beat Sri Lanka, but they'll worry about whether New Zealand will reach the final .
* Brian Lara or Sachin Tendulkar? Lara's retirement this weekend from all international cricket ends one of the two great batting careers in my time in the game.
Separating them is difficult and you might want either of them batting for your life depending on the circumstances.
Their test statistics are remarkably similar.
Lara made 11,953 runs from 131 tests at 52.88; Tendulkar has hit 10,668 from 135 tests at 54.7. Lara hit 34 centuries; Tendulkar 35.
But here's one way to differentiate between them.
Tendulkar would often get a century, but rarely reached 200. Lara had the ability to bat on and on and on.
Lara always gave you a chance, but if you looked up at the scoreboard and he'd reached 70 you started to wonder what 300 would look like up there against his name. Tendulkar might bat four hours; Lara could sail on a full day and still want more.
He was the only batsman who could make you think that way, and even if the bowlers didn't enjoy it, in a perverse way I liked the idea of a bloke pigging out, sailing past 300, 400, even 500 as he did.
