In 1983 I was living in a college at Melbourne University. One morning I wandered blearily into the kitchen, grabbed a restorative orange juice and proceeded to the toaster, whereupon Johnny "Animal" Mann accosted me with, "Can you believe it? Zimbabwe!"

Well, I wasn't going to fall for that. College was a place where gullibility was ruthlessly punished. What the Animal was insinuating - that Australia, with a batting line-up boasting Hughes, Border, Hookes, Yallop, Wood, Wessels and Marsh - had somehow failed to chase down the paltry target of 240 set by Zimbabwe, was ridiculous. I gave that suggestion short shrift and took my toast out to the dining room.

Immediately I noticed the mournful, hangdog air among the males present. They were really going all-out with this set-up. "You're wasting your time, boys," I said. "I'm not falling for this one in a million years."

The silence, the looks on their faces, sent a stab of premonition down my spine, and my grin died. It could not be, not in a thousand years, but it was - apparently - true. Australia had been beaten by Zimbabwe in a World Cup match.

I won't forget that moment. It was our cricketing nadir. Well, it was, until we careered way past that extremity of humiliation in the process of the 2010-11 Ashes surrender. And now, when Australia is attempting to retain its last piece of international silverware, the opening match of the 2011 World Cup carries with it a painful reminder of what can happen in cricket when the better side doesn't play with the intensity it should.

The worst of it was that the 1983 debacle at Trent Bridge was a good 16 years before Zimbabwe's golden era, when to lose to it in a one-day international was no disgrace at all. This was Zimbabwe's first win over a Test-playing nation in any form of the game. It was a team of no-names: our future Ashes nemesis Duncan Fletcher (pictured, above) gave portents of how much he would later enjoy humiliating Australians with an inspirational match, scoring 69 not out and taking 4 for 42. But nobody head heard of him.

It is a similar story with Elton Chigumbura's young squad, trying to rebuild after a decade of turmoil in Zimbabwean cricket that matches the slow political, economic and social death the seemingly cursed country has undergone under the world's nose, another victim of a mad despot. The troubles of the Australian team - which amount to nothing more than wilfully tossing away the respect of the cricketing world - seem piddling in contrast.

At least the Australian ODI team - not all of which, of course, can be tarred with the brush of a supine Ashes shellacking - comes into the 2011 World Cup on the back of winning form, coming off a 6-1 demolition of an increasingly patched-up English squad in the series in January and February.

(It's interesting that Australia managed to take this series so emphatically. I look back on February 2007, when a matter of days after being thrashed 5-0 in the Ashes series, England bounced back to win the Commonwealth Bank ODI series, beating Australia 2-0 in the finals series. At the time I thought little of it, just another example of Australia's lax approach in dead rubbers. Evidently, though, the win was viewed very differently in England, as a turning point, an instant injection of positivity back into their cricket and a welcome reminder that Australian cricket teams could be beaten. Now that the teams have swapped positions, we should be so lucky that the 6-1 result just earned has a similar effect.)

But back to the World Cup. After the diabolically poor way the Test team played over the summer, it is certainly strange to be going into a format in which Australia carries the No. 1 ranking. However, after two forgettable practice match outings, I don't think we are entitled to the No. 1 seeding. I would put India, Sri Lanka and South Africa ahead of us on tournament eve.

The reason is a combination of Ashes hangover - which showed the world how far we are from what we like to think of as our customary high standards - and injury worries. Losing Michael Hussey is a big blow, and the unavailability of Nathan Hauritz and Xavier Doherty has brought Jason Krejza out of the wilderness. In addition, Ricky Ponting, Steve Smith and Brad Haddin all boarded the plane to India with injuries, and have had to work on rehabilitation before the tournament begins.

The Cup holders have decided that pace is the key to its retention, with Brett Lee and Shaun Tait leading an attack that also features Mitchell Johnson and Doug Bollinger and Shane Watson.

The reliance on pace worries me, given the expected dead sub-continental tracks. Lee has been quoted saying that pace negates unresponsive pitches: "If you have a bowler like Shaun Tait bowling around 160kmh at the batsman's toes, it doesn't matter where you are playing. It is still going to hit the batsmen on the full." That is true. But the corollary of that statement is that if you have a bowler like Shaun Tait bowling around 160kmh onto the batsman's pads or out in the width channel, it is going for four - and quicker than it came.

Can we afford to have Lee, Tait - not to mention Johnson - in the same team? If you're Tim Nielsen, Michael Slater or Ian Healy, you will say, "oh, yeah, Binga and the Wild Thing are gunna be pushing 160, knocking over stumps and having batsmen jumping around all over the place. It's gunna be great to watch."

Maybe so. But none of the games are going to be played at Perth.

When Australia's "strike" bowlers are on song, yes, it is a devastating attack. When they are not, there is an awful lot of rubbish flying around. If the tracks have no juice and Australia bowls in the heat of the afternoon, it could find itself chasing 300 more often than it wants to.

This is doubly a risk given that Jason Krezja and Steve Smith will carry spinning duties - neither of whom are tight dart-throwers that will tie sides down. Krejza is a potential wicket-taker but has to be that, because he is expensive. Smith is the same, which makes the tight spin option of David Hussey (and maybe Michael Clarke) extremely important. The inexperienced John Hastings will partner Shane Watson in the change-of-pace section of the attack, which will have a big job to do if the strike bowlers have ended up as mere spokes of someone's wagon wheel - which could easily happen. Dragging back a runaway start is going to be difficult.

That's the uneasy feeling I have about this World Cup. Raw pace is good if it comes off, but dumb if sought for its own sake. Tait, Lee and Johnson do not inspire me with confidence - especially if played in the same team.

I'm not so concerned about the batting, particularly after it chased down that mammoth target of 334 at the SCG earlier in the month. While sub-continental conditions are always problematic, I think the rest courtesy of a broken finger will have done Ricky Ponting a power of good. God knows he needed it: watching Mitchell Johnson and the rest of his bowlers fling the Ashes away in a torrent of profligate garbage would have had even Mother Theresa swearing and cursing, let alone an intense, brooding, combustible ball of frustration like Ponting. He looked in need of a rest and now he has had it. Good, because he has to deliver if we are to progress in this World Cup. I like Paine, I think he should actually be the wicketkeeper, but if not I think he should play as an opening batsman. I think Punter, Pup and Paine could be the core of our run-getting at this World Cup: I don't think it's wise to rely on Watson, Haddin and Hussey, although I certainly hope they contribute - and Ferguson, if he gets a chance.

The great unknown is the moving ball. Our Test batsmen could not handle it in the summer just gone, and given that litany of lamentability, the conditions in the sub-continent don't inspire much confidence in me - especially if we find ourselves batting at night.

Australia should make the knockout stages. In the group stage, Sri Lanka on 5 March in Colombo and Pakistan on 19 March at the same venue are the problem games, although we cannot take New Zealand lightly on 25 February at Nagpur. I am discounting the prospect of another shock from Zimbabwe - but then I did 28 years ago, as well.

I'll say it now and get it over with: I don't think we can win this tournament. But I'll be very happy if proven wrong.