According to Andy Flintoff (the Lancashire & England cricketer),
England should beat Australia at cricket on Sunday, March 2, according
to the 'Law of Averages'.

My belief is that the Law of the Jungle will prevail which says that
the Oz will thrash England once again.

QUICK! Before Sunday, tell me 'Am I right?' or should Andy get 5
stars?

Hello probonopublico and thank you for the question.

Andy Flintoff said:
"Australia have had the wood on us for some time now and the law of
averages says we've got to win some time and hopefully that will start
on Sunday."
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=115873&command=displayContent&sourceNode=115872&contentPK=4419105

"The situation as far as England are concerned is that they could beat
Australia"
"Can they do so? All logic, all form, all recent history says they
cannot. But when have any of those factors made an iota of difference
to the outcome of a cricket match?"
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/CURRENT/149283_WC2003_28FEB2003.html

-----------------------------

The odds: 
"Australia to win, 1/4"  "England to win 5/2" 
http://www2.coral.co.uk/online/go_bet.DisplaySuperGroup?id=20&p_sportid=18&p_sg=1.World%20Cup%202003
Cricket is a funny old game and anything could happen, but I would put
my money on Australia to win (even though I would like England to
win!)

Since the start of the cricket world cup in 1975 Australia have won
twice to England's zero, Australia have been runners up twice and so
have England.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:rN83quF8huMC:www.top-education.com/sports/worldcups.htm++%22Australia+beat+England+by+7+runs.%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Test record                  One day international record 
Australia                    Australia

Played..........636          Played..........531 
Won.............282          Won.............309 
Lost............173          Lost............202 
Drawn...........179          Tied..............7 
Tied..............2          No result........13 



Test record                  One day international record 
England                      England

Played..........804          Played..........373 
Won.............271          Won.............182 
Lost............236          Lost............177 
Drawn...........297          Tied..............2 
Tied..............0          No result........12 

http://www.cricketbase.com/stumpslive


---------------------------------

My prediction:

probonopublico is invited to become a Google Answers researcher, gets
five stars, a healthy tip, and finally discovers what happened to Kurt
Jahnke.

Andy Flintoff goes unrated, and gets a request for a refund
(unfortunately)

--------------------------------

For those who are interested:
March 2nd, Australia v England, Port Elizabeth, 0800 GMT

--------------------------------

"Cricket History
The origins of the game of cricket are lost in the mists of time.
There is a reference in the household accounts of Edward I in 1300 of
a game like cricket being played in Kent."

"The Rules of Cricket 
as Explained to a foreign visitor

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. 

Each man that's in the side that's in, goes out, and when he's out, he
comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.

When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's
been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out. 

When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that's
the end of the game."
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/pastimes/cricket.htm

---------------------------------

So, to directly answer your question, yes, I'm afraid you are correct.

Thanks for the question.

Disclaimer:
THX1138 will not be responsible for any monies/business/personal
effects lost due to any gambling/betting/gaming based on the outcome
of the Australia v England world cup game to be played at Port
Elizabeth, 0800 GMT.
However 50% of any winnings earned by gambling/betting/gaming on the
above mentioned match.....will be accepted :)

Search strategy:
"cricket world cup"
://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=cricket+world+cup&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

And personal knowledge!

Hi, Again, thx1138

Great stuff, as usual. Are you still bumming around on Copacabana?

And what about that elwtee? Certainly one to watch.

My thanks to you both.

Bryan

then there is the "other" consideration. that being that in fact the
law of averages so often quoted and referred to does not exist. there
is no such thing, in math, as the law of averages. now there is
something called the law of large numbers, which could be what someone
is attempting to invoke when referencing a law of averages but alas,
the law of large numbers does not apply in this case either.

the law of large numbers basically says that if we know the result,
say the average of a large array of numbers, if we progress a
significant distance into the sequence and calculate an interim
average and then compare that to the known result, using the
divergence between the current and final result, we can become
predictive of the future sequence in the array as that result will be
necessary to achieve the known final result. more plainly, if we have
a million numbers that average 50 and we take an average after the
first 750,000 inputs and it is 48 it becomes statistically more likely
that each of the remaining numbers will be greater than 50. now that
doesn't say that each of the last 250,000 numbers will all be over 50
just statistically more likely that any one will be over 50.

the problem with attempting to predetermine the winner of a sporting
event based on prior history is this: 1) the law of averages doesn't
exist so we can't apply it. 2) the law of large numbers requires two
things, a large number of inputs and a known final result to reference
against the interim experience. as neither of these conditions exist
the law of large numbers cannot be applied.
3) while information indicating that team x has beaten team y 80 of
the last 100 meetings may indicate an intrinsic bias for team x,
possibly x is a professional team and y is a semi-professional team,
it really offers little if any insight into the relative merits of the
two teams as currently configured. the fact that x beat y soundly 25
years ago really offers nothing about the current event. assuming
therefore that there is no intrinsic bias or irrational inequality
that is pervasive from year to year that favors one team or the other,
then it must be assumed that each prior interaction is an independent
event with no bearing on the outcome of this meeting.

therefore, all other things being equal, it is most likely to assume
that issues unrelated to historical results will be most influential
in the outcome of this event. relative capabilities of the opposing
players, field conditions, game time management decisions and so on
will be the determining factors.

to the extent that i assume you mean the law of the jungle to imply a
sort of survial of the fittest or let the best man win, i would think
that the jungle law is the operative factor here. if there was a law
of averages as implied in your question and if it could be calculated
with specificity then sports wagering would be the domain of the
university math major and they would quickly have all the money.
unfortunately, invoking abc sports, "the thrill of victory and the
agony of defeat" are endeavors that are all too human in their
interaction and outcome.

Phew!

That was close.

But you called it right.