Realisticly, you still have to say it'll be the Aussies, but of course they're not exactly in the best of form going into it.
They are the strongest team. Even after Australia lost half a dozen games in a row before the world cup, my bookie never changed their odds. 2:1 the whole time. The bookies usually know best.
As for the other contenders, though South Africa are ranked number one in the world at the moment, their style of cricket is not suited to the low/slow wickets of the Caribbean. SA are extremely difficult to beat on fast tracks. They're a vastly poorer team on slow wickets.
West Indies rely too much on Gayle and Lara. If Gayle fires, you've got to play out of your skin to beat them, but there are lots of failures for every swashbuckling run-a-ball century. Probably not enough depth to win.
Sri Lanka maybe. Muri is going to a nightmare on those pitches. They have lots of good players without relying on stars. Vaas, Slinga Malinga, Atapattu, Sangakkara, Dilshan, Juyasuriya etc. They were 14:1 when they won in 96. Worth a small wager.
England has some great individual players, but they just can't get their shit together as a team. They'll easily win a game against the world number one or two, and then follow up the next week with 120 all out (after been 119/1).
India and Pakistan, more "probably not" than "possibly so". Neither are playing particularly good cricket at the moment, but the pitches are going to suit all the sub-continent teams.
New Zealand are a good outside bet. Consistent bowlers, very good on those types of wickets, and a dangerous middle order. They always seem to rise to the occasion of the World Cup. That Oram cat hits the ball further than just about anyone in world cricket.
Scotland have no chance. Grim is not in their team.
Anyway I'm probably rambling to myself. So good night, and thank you.