Instagram


Sohail Speaks Yasir's Blog Fazeer's Focus

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 81 to 152 of 152
  1. #81
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Venue
    FL
    Runs
    1,405
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    I seemed to have hurt some brothers. Nothing personal guys, just some hard facts.
    Hard facts like Sanath ''Master Blaster'' Jayasuriya ending the career of some Indian phaast bowler in the group match.

    A hilarious comment from an Indian fan :

    ''True.Steve Waugh writes in his book about how in the 96 WC, people became so obsessed with dismissing Jayasurya and Kalu that they ran the risk of ignoring a powerful middle order.

    I still remember how he finished off Manoj Prabhakar¡¯s career as a cricketer, and then again as a politician. In Manoj's new career as a politician, he arrived in Delhi¡¯s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi to canvas for votes. A crowd of students gathered and every time he opened his mouth to address them, they¡¯d chant, ¡°Jayasurya¡* Jayasurya..¡± Scarcely have i seen anything funnier.''

  2. #82
    Debut
    May 2010
    Venue
    Karachi, Pakistan
    Runs
    9,056
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As per the formats

    1992 world cup was the toughest as u have to play all the teams to be in top 4

    and then 1999 world cup because there was super 6 involved in it not only round matches and semis.

    5 matches of round robin league and then super six with where u carry 2 points each to next round of the team u have beaten.


    If u show ur batting skills u r dropped(FAWAD ALAM) and if u cry for ur place u r in(YOUNIS KHAN)

  3. #83
    Debut
    Dec 2013
    Venue
    Lahore
    Runs
    2,098
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The quality of '99 cannot and will not be surpassed just because you cannot get players of that quality together again.
    I liked '03 even though India and Australia, two teams I disliked the most ended up in the finals. That was when I realized Pakistan is going down and will not be as dominant as it was in a long long time.


    Misbah, Wahab, Junaid, Root, Williamson fan.
    T20 isn't Cricket

  4. #84
    Debut
    Feb 2014
    Venue
    Lahore
    Runs
    1,838
    Mentioned
    812 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vandokkum View Post
    I would have payed a million bucks to watch SA vs Pakistan final in 1999.. Donald Kallis Klusener Gibbs pollock Wasim Akhtar Anwar Inzamam all at their peak, mouth watering prospect
    Inzi at his peak? Be was in his worst form in that world cup.

  5. #85
    Debut
    Feb 2014
    Venue
    Lahore
    Runs
    1,838
    Mentioned
    812 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    On topic, of those I have watched, it has to be 99, the first one i watched. 92 was pretty good too.

  6. #86
    Debut
    Nov 2007
    Runs
    25,059
    Mentioned
    800 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    1983.

    Zimbabwe knocked Australia out in the group stage in effect
    India beat WI twice, including the massive upset in the final

  7. #87
    Debut
    Aug 2013
    Runs
    760
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    1992 was best world cup not only Pakistan won but i loved format all top teams playing against each other.

    1999 Pakistan had best ever team we had. A true dream tv and we lost final

    2011 India won which wasnt good ; But it was good world cup to watch


    2007 was worst world cup ever

  8. #88
    Debut
    Dec 2012
    Venue
    Indian Ocean
    Runs
    18,791
    Mentioned
    464 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by McGarrett View Post
    Hard facts like Sanath ''Master Blaster'' Jayasuriya ending the career of some Indian phaast bowler in the group match.

    A hilarious comment from an Indian fan :

    ''True.Steve Waugh writes in his book about how in the 96 WC, people became so obsessed with dismissing Jayasurya and Kalu that they ran the risk of ignoring a powerful middle order.

    I still remember how he finished off Manoj Prabhakar¡¯s career as a cricketer, and then again as a politician. In Manoj's new career as a politician, he arrived in Delhi¡¯s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi to canvas for votes. A crowd of students gathered and every time he opened his mouth to address them, they¡¯d chant, ¡°Jayasurya¡* Jayasurya..¡± Scarcely have i seen anything funnier.''
    Having your players dilute Indian fast bowlers is your claim to fame? Seriously?

    Also nobody rates Kaluwhatever.


    Have some Sehwag in your life.

  9. #89
    Debut
    Sep 2009
    Venue
    Great Pakistan
    Runs
    21,214
    Mentioned
    355 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    1 - 1992 [Best]
    2 - 1999
    3 - 2011
    4 - 1996
    5 - 2003 + 2007 [Worst]


    Hey Jazba Junoon to himat na haar.......

  10. #90
    Debut
    Dec 2012
    Venue
    Indian Ocean
    Runs
    18,791
    Mentioned
    464 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by imshally81 View Post
    1 - 1992 [Best]
    2 - 1999
    3 - 2011
    4 - 1996
    5 - 2003 + 2007 [Worst]
    1. Winners
    2. Finalists
    3. Semi-Finalists
    4. Quarter-Finalists
    5. Group Stages



    Have some Sehwag in your life.

  11. #91
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    2,062
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    1999 & 2003 was the best as it was an even contest between bat and ball and deservingly Oz won.

  12. #92
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Varun View Post

    Also nobody rates Kaluwhatever.
    \


    Classy

    It is hard for people to come to terms with the facts that they won the semi final thanks to the pitch and the final thanks to the dew factor.

  13. #93
    Debut
    Nov 2014
    Venue
    FL
    Runs
    1,405
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    \


    Classy


    It is hard for people to come to terms with the facts
    that they won the semi final thanks to the pitch and the final thanks to the dew factor.
    Yeah, it was hard for the ******* to come to terms with the thrashing. So , this happened

    Name:  0.jpg
Views: 333
Size:  31.8 KB

  14. #94
    Debut
    Feb 2005
    Venue
    Cybertron, Guest of Optimus Prime
    Runs
    23,398
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    personally,

    I loved these in this order 1992,1987,1999,2011.

    2003 was a rubbish world cup for me because Pakistan were dire. 1996 was an opportunity missed. If we had beaten India I think we would have won that. 2007 was one of the worst of all time.

  15. #95
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the Great Khan View Post
    personally,

    I loved these in this order 1992,1987,1999,2011.

    2003 was a rubbish world cup for me because Pakistan were dire. 1996 was an opportunity missed. If we had beaten India I think we would have won that. 2007 was one of the worst of all time.

    1996, 200, 2011 were there for the taking if not for India. They have cost you 3 world cups.

  16. #96
    Debut
    Feb 2005
    Venue
    Cybertron, Guest of Optimus Prime
    Runs
    23,398
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    1996, 200, 2011 were there for the taking if not for India. They have cost you 3 world cups.
    1996 more so than the others. Perhaps 2011 too but we just didn't have the batting in 2011. A bit of pressure and we crumbled which was entirely predictable with players like hafeez and kami in the side. 1996 was ours for the taking. We had the best side in the world cup barring probably the saffers. But then again we would have faced the aussies in the final. So not a foregone conclusion.

  17. #97
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    ^

    2007

  18. #98
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the Great Khan View Post
    1996 more so than the others. Perhaps 2011 too but we just didn't have the batting in 2011. A bit of pressure and we crumbled which was entirely predictable with players like hafeez and kami in the side. 1996 was ours for the taking. We had the best side in the world cup barring probably the saffers. But then again we would have faced the aussies in the final. So not a foregone conclusion.

    In the sense that, had the team gone past India. There wasn't a likely candidate to beat them from there on. Pakistan vs Aussies at Lahore, I would favour Pak to have given them a thrashing.

    Pakistan vs Lankans in 2011, Lankans are yet to beat Pakistan in a world cup.

    The 2007 was direct robbery. But then again, God knows what went through Misbah's head as he played that ridiculous scoop to a spinner.

  19. #99
    Debut
    Mar 2013
    Venue
    Casablanca
    Runs
    9,621
    Mentioned
    522 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I have high hopes from this WC! Expecting it to be competitive and entertaining and fascinating as well like 1999! Or even better!

  20. #100
    Debut
    Feb 2005
    Venue
    Cybertron, Guest of Optimus Prime
    Runs
    23,398
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    ^

    2007
    definatley one we should have won. No idea what Misbah was thinking!

  21. #101
    Debut
    Mar 2014
    Runs
    4,562
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sam_ahm View Post
    1992 WC was the one when I started watching cricket, and for me it was probably the best, although 1999 would come close as well. 1992 had the best of formats and was the fairest possible world cup till date, the way Pakistan bounced back was incredible, that heart breaking semifinal for the south africans and I will never forget Wasim Akram's bowling in the final, I became a fan of the legendary man! 1999 again had lots of fine memories, and it was a very very competitive WC with teams like Zimbabwe also in the frame, almost all the top teams barring Sri Lanka were very competitive in that WC.

    for me the worst was 2007, didn't enjoy that at all, more so because India and Pakistan were knocked out early, and after the death of Bob Woolmer the entire tournament just looked gloomy, I just wanted it to end as soon as possible.

    1996 actually wasn't that bad, as mentioned in one of the posts above, it actually had some cracking games, the AUS-WI semi final is an unforgettable one, so was the Quaterfinal between India and Pakistan and I will never forget the start India got in the semi final against Sri Lanka, Sanath and Kalu out in the first over and then India crumbling on a dust bowl!

    2011 was also a very entertaining WC, the highlight for me was the India-Pakistan semi-final and Kevin O Brien's knock against England, and the way Pakistan played throughout the tournament despite being hit by one of the biggest scandals in cricketing history and losing three of it's key players!
    Exactly this, word by word.

  22. #102
    Debut
    Dec 2012
    Runs
    713
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the Great Khan View Post
    definatley one we should have won. No idea what Misbah was thinking!
    I think here we are talking about odi world cups. Misbah's scoop was in t20 world cup.

  23. #103
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Sheffield
    Runs
    30,531
    Mentioned
    1019 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the Great Khan View Post
    1996 was an opportunity missed. If we had beaten India I think we would have won that.
    We shouldn't have conceded 287 in the first place. Ajay Jadeja went berserk at the end and Waqar went for 40 off his last 2 overs. When Waqar had an off-day, he would get absolutely walloped and went into Wahab Riaz spray gun mode. Wasim Akram's late pulling out was a big blow and after the match his Lahore house got stoned apparently.

    Even after that - we were well on track in our run-chase but the Aamer Sohail-Venkatesh Prasad for me was the defining moment of our World Cup and the defining moment in Sohail's career. Things going ever so well, we were miles ahead of the RRR and were on 113 after 15 overs which even by today's standards is a fantastic start. Some glorious shots and Bangalore was dead silent.

    The idiot then lets arrogance get the better of him, he opens his mouth, and tries to slash Prasad again - and got bowled. It was like a metaphor for Sohail's career.

    The brilliant middle-order consisting Ijaz Ahmed, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Saleem Malik and Javed Miandad - doesn't get better than that - they all choked.

    Should have won that World Cup.

  24. #104
    Debut
    Nov 2008
    Runs
    9,071
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    Only Azharuddin can tell what made him opt to bowl first on such a pitch in a big match against a team full of spinners. 15 overs into India's batting, the pitch had become a dust bowl. There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side. From that to crumbling in the semi final, it was totally bizzare.
    You are the one to speak of hard facts and then your statement above just made me cringe.

    Here are some hard facts for you.

    SRL had thrashed India TWICE in that World Cup. In the preliminary stage, they took the Indian team apart, Jaysuriya and Kalu made their opening fast bowler bowling spin after first 2-3 overs.

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65179.html

    I don't know what makes you think Indians would have killed them in the SEMI final just two weeks later after getting their butts handed to them on a platter by SRL.
    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65190.html


    I understand you are patriotic and like most of your countrymen will blame all Indians losses during AZHAR ERA ON MATChfixing ..


    BUT HAVE SOME SHAME.. PLEASE!!!!!!


    Kut khani hai to aa jao idher, khushbo laga ke!

  25. #105
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Yeah 1996 was supposed to be Pakistan's 2011. There was no other team more suited to conditions than Pakistan and none had better players. It just had to be India pulling the rabbit out of the hat once again against Pakistan in world cups.

  26. #106
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Sheffield
    Runs
    30,531
    Mentioned
    1019 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by McGarrett View Post
    Yeah, it was hard for the ******* to come to terms with the thrashing. So , this happened

    Name:  0.jpg
Views: 333
Size:  31.8 KB
    Eden Gardens was quite a frightening place in the 1990s - it resembled a Roman Coliseum. People would light up flares and set off fireworks.

    Check out 12:50 onwards in this clip - Jesus Christ - if that happened here in England, Health and Safety officials would have a seizure !


  27. #107
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Eden Gardens, once the craziest cricket venue by far. Now its just ridiculous

  28. #108
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stewie View Post

    I understand you are patriotic and like most of your countrymen will blame all Indians losses during AZHAR ERA ON MATChfixing ..




    Are you going to compare group games to knock outs? Wow

    Australia lost a group game to Pakistan in 1999 and destroyed them in the final (before India and RSA had destroyed them in super sixes making their final qualification seem rather absurd).

  29. #109
    Debut
    Nov 2008
    Runs
    9,071
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    Are you going to compare group games to knock outs? Wow

    Australia lost a group game to Pakistan in 1999 and destroyed them in the final (before India and RSA had destroyed them in super sixes making their final qualification seem rather absurd).
    Of course and it is very logical to just claim that "There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side" two weeks after they took apart the Indian team in their own back yard?

    By the way, SRL remained undefeated in that World Cup. So to a more sensible person, the more preposterous claim is going to be fairly easy to identify here.

    But it is ok, pappu. Lagey raho manter japney. koi to maaney ga


    Kut khani hai to aa jao idher, khushbo laga ke!

  30. #110
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    8,271
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I followed most of 1983, 1987, 1992, 2003 and 2011. 1996, 1999 and 2007 I did not watch much due to exams and busy job schedules. 1983, 1992 and 2003 are my favs. 1983 was the most competitive tournament, difficult playing conditions in the early English summer, strong teams, 60 overs a side games meant that you could not hope to win by merely containing your opponent, so bowling was usually very aggressive. Four all rounders clashed with each other at their peak in 1983, and there has never been a WC with such rich allrounders ever since.


    "This one doesn't take the cake, it takes the bakery" - Gavaskar

  31. #111
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    4,581
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If it were not for match fixing, poor pitches, bad umpires, the weather etc India would have won every world cup.

  32. #112
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    8,271
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance_cricketer View Post
    Only Azharuddin can tell what made him opt to bowl first on such a pitch in a big match against a team full of spinners. 15 overs into India's batting, the pitch had become a dust bowl. There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side. From that to crumbling in the semi final, it was totally bizzare.
    wow! SL were the best team in 1996, thanks to Sanath and Kalu who provided them fiery starts that their opponents had no answers for. India's misreading of the pitch due to which they opted to field after winning the toss - they fully deserved to lose after that pathetic batting collapse. If match fixing allegations are true, then they deserved to lose it even more. (no sir, the feel good match fixing allegations don't give your team an iota of a better account). The manner in which SL thrashed Aus in the final confirmed that they would have beaten India anyway.


    "This one doesn't take the cake, it takes the bakery" - Gavaskar

  33. #113
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    Where there is no war!
    Runs
    2,216
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    1987 one. Elimination of host countries meant an Ashes final.

  34. #114
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Venue
    Kashmiri Gate, Delhi
    Runs
    49,662
    Mentioned
    302 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vandokkum View Post
    If it were not for match fixing, poor pitches, bad umpires, the weather etc India would have won every world cup.

    The 1996 wc was truly their their for the taking after they beat the odds on favorites Pakistanis. There is no way in hell Lankans were a better side than Pakistan and on a fair surface in knock out match pressure, they wouldn't have beaten India either.

    I am aware a lot of Lankan fans would feel sad knowing this but that's the way it is. I just cannot lie.

  35. #115
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Venue
    Toronto (Dhaka)
    Runs
    24,286
    Mentioned
    1870 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    Seems that nobody has any idea on what went wrong in Eden '96.

    At toss, Azhar categorically said that he doesn't want Lankans to chase. It was a collective decision & it's idiotic to blame the Captain only - for a WC SF, a Captain doesn't decide what he 'll do after the toss.

    SRL approached that WC with an unique strategy - partly because of the players they had & partly because of the wickets of the WC. They knew, any team can get away with some tonking against new ball on that WC - 4 years later, defending champs SRL had a hiding on different condition. After the FSK massacre, SRL demolished ENG at Karachi chasing & Indian's were not comfortable to defend.

    2 critical blander actually cost IND the match - they miscalculated that both the matches SRL won were actually Day match - the openers got the best batting period after lunch while chasing. Second one was - IND tried to doctor the wicket to their best strength - 3 men spin attack. With Manoj out, IND had 2 pacers left & one of them actually is a better pacer on sluggish wicket with change of pace. The idea was to prepare a slowish wicket which 'll restrict free scoring Lankan top order, but IND having the best players of slow turners 'll chase the target.

    Eden wicket was stopped from watering for 2/3 days before the match, but it became over cooked. I have never seen Eden wicket like that - 2 years back, Kumble took 6/12 on a turner because that wicket was used for 3rd time in 4 days & it was basically like a 4th innings Test wicket. This WC SF was a fresh wicket, with Eden not hosting any match for 2 weeks.

    DECISION TO BOWL FIRST was an absolutely well planned idea - IND with 3.5 spinners in the side wanted to bowl with a dry ball on sluggish surface, & chase against a side with 3 spinners under rain like dew, but nobody could imagine that the wicket was doctored a dust bowl. Probir Mukherjee is the curator for Eden Gardens for almost 4 decades now & he said that it was an even wicket, but bowling second, teams 'll suffer from dew. I come from same part of world & I have some idea of what sort of dew it can be. Nobody 'll ever convince me that in a day-nighter, any team should bat first after winning toss at Dhaka or Kolkatta in Feb/Mar.

    Still, it would have worked - IND did get SRL at 0/2 with the destructive pair gone, but there comes the best ever sub 100 innings of WC - Harri understood that the wicket 'll get slower & scoring 'll be difficult, counterattacked to blow Indian confidence when the ball was coming on the bat. Had he played conventional innings from 0/2, SRL would have struggled to post 200..........

  36. #116
    Debut
    Dec 2014
    Venue
    Dublin
    Runs
    380
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    99 was the best


    The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried

  37. #117
    Debut
    Sep 2009
    Venue
    Great Pakistan
    Runs
    21,214
    Mentioned
    355 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Varun View Post
    1. Winners
    2. Finalists
    3. Semi-Finalists
    4. Quarter-Finalists
    5. Group Stages

    This is called Favoritism


    Hey Jazba Junoon to himat na haar.......

  38. #118
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    2,062
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Markhor View Post
    We shouldn't have conceded 287 in the first place. Ajay Jadeja went berserk at the end and Waqar went for 40 off his last 2 overs. When Waqar had an off-day, he would get absolutely walloped and went into Wahab Riaz spray gun mode. Wasim Akram's late pulling out was a big blow and after the match his Lahore house got stoned apparently.

    Even after that - we were well on track in our run-chase but the Aamer Sohail-Venkatesh Prasad for me was the defining moment of our World Cup and the defining moment in Sohail's career. Things going ever so well, we were miles ahead of the RRR and were on 113 after 15 overs which even by today's standards is a fantastic start. Some glorious shots and Bangalore was dead silent.

    The idiot then lets arrogance get the better of him, he opens his mouth, and tries to slash Prasad again - and got bowled. It was like a metaphor for Sohail's career.

    The brilliant middle-order consisting Ijaz Ahmed, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Saleem Malik and Javed Miandad - doesn't get better than that - they all choked.

    Should have won that World Cup.
    Agreed, Sohail - Prasad incident was the turning point of the match. How in the world can you allow your emotions get better off you in such a crucial time.

    Prasad happened to be the chief architect of India's wins in 96 and 99 against Pak. That was your world cup all the way. The best team Pakistan could present and that too in the home conditions.

  39. #119
    Debut
    Jan 2007
    Runs
    2,062
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the Great Khan View Post
    personally,

    I loved these in this order 1992,1987,1999,2011.

    2003 was a rubbish world cup for me because Pakistan were dire. 1996 was an opportunity missed. If we had beaten India I think we would have won that. 2007 was one of the worst of all time.
    no one is considering 75, 79 and 83.....?

  40. #120
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    12,457
    Mentioned
    1873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    75 and 79, because the World Cup was a precise summary of the relative strength of each team in both forms of the game.

    And the 1975 Final was the perfect ODI!


  41. #121
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Venue
    Dubai
    Runs
    15,152
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    75 and 79, because the World Cup was a precise summary of the relative strength of each team in both forms of the game.

    And the 1975 Final was the perfect ODI!

    The 99 , 2003 and 2007 World Cup which Australia won was also relative strength of the teams in ODI.


    And I get so high.. And I just can't feel it....

  42. #122
    Debut
    Sep 2013
    Runs
    4,545
    Mentioned
    213 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SL_Fan View Post
    Yeah that's why we gave you a good ol hiding in the group stages as well eh?

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65179.html

    Only won by what 6 wkts

    Boo hoo!
    My god. This reminds me of how backward cricketing approach was then.

    We scored 271 with only 3 wickets down. So many wickets in hand, but we didn't use it to hit.

    That idiot match-fixer Prabhakar wasted 36 balls....and of course we got hammered by a team with a more modern approach to cricket.

  43. #123
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    12,457
    Mentioned
    1873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    I feel like the Grandfather of PakPassion here.

    Anyone who respects the 2007 and 2011 World Cups is, in my opinion, dangerously unhinged.

    The 2007 was the worst sporting event that I have ever seen - interminably long and pointless, with a horrible conclusion which brought the sport into disrepute. The 2011 event was in some respects even worse: like 2015 it is an institutionalised fix to ensure that none of the big countries could be eliminated too soon for commercial reasons - a bit like keeping Japan and South Korea in the football World Cup until the final week for financial reasons.

    The first two World Cups were the best two. And they saw the best team in world cricket win. 1983 started the dire spectacle of the Cup being winnable by inferior teams which are not clearly the best in World Cricket in every format.

    1983, 1987, 1996 and 2011 are totally devalued because the winner was not the best team in the World.

    1992 sort of sits on the fence: Pakistan were probably neck-and-neck with West Indies as the best team in the world.

    1975, 1979, 1999, 2003 and 2007 have the greatest value because the world's best team won.

    It's like the difference between the EPL and the FA Cup. A cup is only really valid if the best team wins.

    The same is true in football. The World Cup has been won at various times by teams which were clearly not the best - 2006, 1974, 1966, 1954 spring to mind. Those World Cups remain defined by teams like Hungary 1954 and Holland 1974 rather than the actual champions.

    Here's a passage from the 1975 World Cup semi-final between Pakistan and the West Indies. These two emerging superpowers faced each other in the first three World Cups at the semi-final stage.


  44. #124
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    12,457
    Mentioned
    1873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    This was an even better West Indies v Pakistan World Cup semi-final, from 1979.

    West Indies scored a then-huge 293 - this was the superior, 60 overs variety of ODI, more like real cricket - and Pakistan reached 176-1 thanks to a huge partnership between Zaheer Abbas and Majid Khan, before falling away to lose.

    This was before Javed Miandad and Imran Khan were great cricketers, and they were actually carried by then-superior team-mates like Majid Khan, Zaheer Abbas and Asif Iqbal.



    And just watch how supple Clive Lloyd was in the field. You may only know him as the fat geriatric selector he now is, but his nickname used to be "Supercat"! He was as great a fielder in his time as Jonty Rhodes, just behind Colin Bland in the Pantheon.

  45. #125
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    12,457
    Mentioned
    1873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    Incidentally, any of you who respect the endless 2007, 2011 and 2015 World Cups, ask yourselves why they are so long?

    A good World Cup is a bit like the Champions Trophy. Every game has a clear purpose in terms of arriving at a winner, and the weaker countries get 3 games and then go home. That's how it works in football and both forms of rugby.

    But not cricket. The modern Cricket World Cup seems to have as its raison d'etre the idea of being TV wallpaper for Indian viewers for a month. Pakistan could actually lose against every proper opponent in the group - India, South Africa and West Indies - and yet still advance by defeating Zimbabwe, Ireland and the UAE.

    So it is not so much a sporting event as a seven week long advertising window.

    Six weeks of pointless crap, and then the interesting and exciting part of the tournament is over in a flash.

    It is simply disgusting. A travesty.

  46. #126
    Debut
    Dec 2009
    Venue
    Dubai
    Runs
    15,152
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    I feel like the Grandfather of PakPassion here.
    Must be because you are talking like a grandfather.

    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    Anyone who respects the 2007 and 2011 World Cups is, in my opinion, dangerously unhinged.

    The 2007 was the worst sporting event that I have ever seen - interminably long and pointless, with a horrible conclusion which brought the sport into disrepute. The 2011 event was in some respects even worse: like 2015 it is an institutionalised fix to ensure that none of the big countries could be eliminated too soon for commercial reasons - a bit like keeping Japan and South Korea in the football World Cup until the final week for financial reasons.
    Has 2011 got something to do with India won it? Who else do you think were deserving winners in 2011 ?

    Mohali Pakistan team. Lol

    And here you say 2007 was a farce, and later on you say 2007 best team Australia won.

    Clearly you are sounding like a tired guitar.

    [QUOTE=Junaids;7429623]The first two World Cups were the best two. And they saw the best team in world cricket win. 1983 started the dire spectacle of the Cup being winnable by inferior teams which are not clearly the best in World Cricket in every format.[QUOTE=Junaids;7429623]

    Here we go again. So West Indies which was beaten twice in ODI in 1983 World Cup deserved to win more than India who won against them twice in the same tournament.

    Only a blind man would miss your bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    1983, 1987, 1996 and 2011 are totally devalued because the winner was not the best team in the World.

    1992 sort of sits on the fence: Pakistan were probably neck-and-neck with West Indies as the best team in the world.
    Sure it was. Pakistan was best team in the world. No element of bias in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    1975, 1979, 1999, 2003 and 2007 have the greatest value because the world's best team won.

    It's like the difference between the EPL and the FA Cup. A cup is only really valid if the best team wins.

    The same is true in football. The World Cup has been won at various times by teams which were clearly not the best - 2006, 1974, 1966, 1954 spring to mind. Those World Cups remain defined by teams like Hungary 1954 and Holland 1974 rather than the actual champions.
    Make up your mind.

    2007 was good or best team won or not?

    1975 WI won your personal favorite team of the past
    1979 WI won your personal favorite team of the past
    1983 India won - selective bias of not liking Indian team of the past
    1987 Australia won - wonder what's the reason for not liking this cup.
    1992 Pakistan won - Pakistan and WI were best team in the world - lmaoooo
    1996 Sri Lanka won - again not liking Sri Lankan team because of Murli factor
    1999 Australia won - accepted
    2003 Australia won - accepted
    2007 Australia won - in the middle, and you are confused yourself if it was good or not, because Sri Lanka made the final which you think is a farce
    2011 India won - off course useless World Cup
    2015 Depends on Pakistan or WI winning, and it will be best Cup ever for you.

    Shockingly poor post without context.

    At then end of the day, no one cares what Hungary did or what kind of team they had. We all know it was great but they didn't win. End of story.

    Teams that win get the credit.

    Not teams that look good on paper.

    Similarly , bowlers and batsmen who perform are winners, not which look aesthetically pleasing to the eye to your personal myopic world.

    Shockingly poor I repeat.


    And I get so high.. And I just can't feel it....

  47. #127
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    12,457
    Mentioned
    1873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    Where to start, Dr Bassim?

    The 2007 World Cup was an awful tournament. Far too long for its purpose, overpriced for the locals, just a disaster. But it had one saving grace - the best team won.

    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know much about football. I don't mean to sound patronising when I say that.

    In 1954 West Germany won the World Cup with what they later admitted was the assistance of performance-enhancing drugs in the Final. They had earlier in the tournament lost 8-3 to Hungary but prevailed 3-2 in the Final. Many of the players died premature deaths from hepatic damage which is assumed to be linked to the industrial doses of drugs that they used. Everyone remembers the Hungarians as the "Magnificent Magyars" but hardly anyone could name a German player from that tournament.

    1974 was a similar story. We know know that both West Germany and Holland were doping, but again, people remember Johan Cruyff, and his "Cruyff turn" against Sweden, not West Germany.

    The beauty of the early World Cups is that Tests and 60 over ODIs were basically the same game, especially in England. If you were the best team in the world you were best in both formats. You have to leap forward to after 2011 for that to cease to hold true - the 1999 and 2003 and 2007 Australian Test and ODI teams were virtually identical.

    I don't mind India winning, because I have no allegiance to any one Asian country more than the others.

    What I object to - and I objected to it in 1996 too - is when a team can win a World Cup with an absolutely crap bowling "attack". It makes a mockery of the sport, just as Greece's ultra-defensive football victory at Euro'2004 did.

  48. #128
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Venue
    Toronto (Dhaka)
    Runs
    24,286
    Mentioned
    1870 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CricketAnalyst View Post
    My god. This reminds me of how backward cricketing approach was then.

    We scored 271 with only 3 wickets down. So many wickets in hand, but we didn't use it to hit.

    That idiot match-fixer Prabhakar wasted 36 balls....and of course we got hammered by a team with a more modern approach to cricket.

    Manoj came as an opener & he was asked to do what he did - it was an early start at FSK. If you analyze ball by ball a 137 runs innings in that match, particularly from 80 to 100, when team had 8 wickets in hand, you 'll realize what is called playing for century..........

  49. #129
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    8,271
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    I feel like the Grandfather of PakPassion here.

    Anyone who respects the 2007 and 2011 World Cups is, in my opinion, dangerously unhinged.

    The 2007 was the worst sporting event that I have ever seen - interminably long and pointless, with a horrible conclusion which brought the sport into disrepute. The 2011 event was in some respects even worse: like 2015 it is an institutionalised fix to ensure that none of the big countries could be eliminated too soon for commercial reasons - a bit like keeping Japan and South Korea in the football World Cup until the final week for financial reasons.

    The first two World Cups were the best two. And they saw the best team in world cricket win. 1983 started the dire spectacle of the Cup being winnable by inferior teams which are not clearly the best in World Cricket in every format.

    1983, 1987, 1996 and 2011 are totally devalued because the winner was not the best team in the World.

    1992 sort of sits on the fence: Pakistan were probably neck-and-neck with West Indies as the best team in the world.

    1975, 1979, 1999, 2003 and 2007 have the greatest value because the world's best team won.

    It's like the difference between the EPL and the FA Cup. A cup is only really valid if the best team wins.

    The same is true in football. The World Cup has been won at various times by teams which were clearly not the best - 2006, 1974, 1966, 1954 spring to mind. Those World Cups remain defined by teams like Hungary 1954 and Holland 1974 rather than the actual champions.

    Here's a passage from the 1975 World Cup semi-final between Pakistan and the West Indies. These two emerging superpowers faced each other in the first three World Cups at the semi-final stage.

    What a bad way to judge a tournament. You are labelled the strongest team on the basis of your performance in the WC, not the other way around. If you don't win, you were not the best - plain and simple. WI did not win 83 because they choked twice against India, how did they deserve it any more than saying that SA deserved to win the world cup inspite of choking every single time?


    "This one doesn't take the cake, it takes the bakery" - Gavaskar

  50. #130
    Debut
    Dec 2011
    Runs
    1,714
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMHS View Post
    Manoj came as an opener & he was asked to do what he did - it was an early start at FSK. If you analyze ball by ball a 137 runs innings in that match, particularly from 80 to 100, when team had 8 wickets in hand, you 'll realize what is called playing for century..........
    Stop taking digs again and again at Tendulkar , it shows that you are nothing more than a hateful bigot with an agenda. A 137 balls 137 innings was more than enough in that era .

    For someone who belongs to most worthless ever Cricket Nation , your standards are pretty high.

    None of the Indians in my lifetime ever had any complaints with Tendulkar in the match. So whats is your problem for going crying like a broken record against Tendulkar ? Any Jealousy ?

  51. #131
    Debut
    Mar 2004
    Venue
    Manchester, UK
    Runs
    104,207
    Mentioned
    664 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    1999 was best by far because the group stages and super sixes were very competative and not to many dead rubber games, we then had one of the best world up semi finals ever as well between S.A and Australia.

  52. #132
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Venue
    Toronto (Dhaka)
    Runs
    24,286
    Mentioned
    1870 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    I have little memory of 1987, hardly anything I can recall, must have read lot which actually makes me visualize lot more than I saw. Before that, it's archive.

    Coming to WCs, I think 1975 & 1979 were too short - only 3 matches in group, then SF & F. '75 wasn't a great tournament because, they put top 3 sides in same group & WI beat PAK in group match (Not in SF, AUS-ENG, WI-NZ made the semi) by last wicket partnership of 64. I think, AUS was the best team then (they beat WI in group game, I believe), followed by WI & PAK. AUS lost to Lloyd's batting & Viv's fielding - 6 (or 5) run-outs for WI, otherwise AUS were cruising

    1979, everybody was playing for 2nd spot - that WI side was almost unbeatable. At the end, I think, top 2 sides met in the Final - PAK had a great team, but lost to ENG in Group match & then faced WI in SF. Apart from those 3, rest sides were not up to the mark & IND lost to SRL. But this WC 'll be remembered for 2 things - WI-PAK SF, a great match on the quality aspect & Viv's 138*, undoubtedly the best ever WC innings to me. I believe, Garner had the best figure for a WC Final as well (5/17 ?)

    1983 was an upset Final, but noway undeserving. IND beat WI in Group match & defended 181 in a 60 overs Final - no rain, no DWL, plain & simple they took 10 wickets after Lloyd put them on a green top. If any team that didn't deserve to be in top 4, it was PAK - anyone can check their bowling attack for that WC '83. Imran played only as a batsman & it was his leadership that took an extremely unbalanced side to SF. Barring Javed, Qadir & half Imran, most PAK greats were expired sell by date, were playing by names, while none of the youngsters made any career later. Every WC has given PAK some players who had great career later .... none from 1983.

    1987 was the year when both the hosts bolted it in SF. Led by two of the best ever ODI all-rounders, both IND, PAK (& WI) had the best team but none made it to the finals, in fact WI failed in group stage. No complaints - ENG beat them twice in Group stage. That was one of the best & open WC for the balanced amount of talent available. It was a great experience for me, for someone left Aussie schools just a year or so back & learned my first cricket lessons from the best school cricket systems in world. & it was a great sorrow for me - 2 men that made me cricket fanatic left the WC (though Imran made a comeback, by Viv should have played in 1992).

    I am not sure, how PAK was the best team in 1992 - around that time, PAK indeed was one of the best Test sides, but in ODI, WI, AUS & ENG were ahead of PAK, particularly in AUS. Still, they should have been among top 3, but lost 5 starters in about a year time before WC - Saeed, Qadir, Waquar, Akram Raza & Salim Yousuf; in fact Salim Zafar, Tauseef & Manzoor Elahi also should have been in the mix. Great visionary leaders make their team & make fortune with whatever they have. On head to head - even this 2015 team is better than that team, but they had KHAN. That was a great WC format, last WC before being r*p*d by Cricket Globalization - every match had a meaning. No other WC introduced the amount of future greats like that one in 1992 - Lara, SRT, MWaugh, Donald, Ambi, Bishop, Cairns, Srinath, Sanath, Mushi, Hick, Cronje, De Villiers, Hooper.............. BUT, that WC 'll always remain controversial for the Rain law. It was procedural justice though - PAK got away with ENG, lost to SAF, who had the bad luck against ENG, but, they had to pay higher penalty as it was SF.

    Should ENG deserve to win - ABSOLUTELY. If I were in charge, I would have made SAF's life measurable for few matches - this is why people should watch the match & study key elements. SAF always comes with "street smart" ideas, but then bolt things when it becomes more than bat-ball. After 30 overs ENG was 150 for 1 or so, then SAF took 85 minutes to bowl 15 overs & left ENG stranded at 250/5 in 45 overs - full 50 overs, they would have chased 310................


    1996 was the worst WC that I have ever seen. It had every ugly things - boycott, crowd disturbance, horrible format, under prepared tracks, dew factor ..what not. Only positive was, probably the best team for the condition won it & they introduced something that changed the LO cricket strategy for ever (barring PAK) & the innings of some one Brian Charles. This format is ideal for encouraging match fixings.............

    1999 was the best WC, by far. It had everything - quality of the team, quality of players, balance between bat & ball, format. I don't think any other WC has seen or 'll ever see so many greats in a single tournament. Putting names 'll make this 2 pages, but PAK, AUS, SAF, IND, SRL, even WI, ENG, ZIM & NZ 'll have most of their all-time best ODI team playing in this WC & most of them at their peak. That WC had 3 teams, which could have won the cup walking in some other tournaments.

    At the end, I believe 1, 2 & 3 came in proper order - SAF looked shiny, but they had 2 bites on Aussie cherry to eliminate them, failed - 3rd is fair enough. PAK had the best team for the condition with Afridi, Razzak, Mahmood, Akram, Saq making a bottomless tail - but they bolted for their lifetime nemesis - we can't chase, so whatever, bat first. PAK had 7/8 people well aware of English weather/conditions/wickets - if they still thought on a gloomy, overcast Lords morning in early June, it was a better idea to test their skills against Aussie pacers, I have not much to complain. I must have lived 2 years in different London early summer. This WC 'll not score a perfect 10 from me though - some Pakistani players made money & someone undeserving, enjoyed the fortune.................

    2003 was the same format of 1999, had a great pool of talent as well, albeit a bit aged. But, 3 things devalued it big time - the boycott which led Kenya to SF, Shane's doping failure & the contest - it was boys against men. Like 1979, everybody was fighting for the 2nd spot. IND was the 2nd best team in the WC - they lost to those frightening Aussies once by 9 wickets (inside 25 overs) & once by almost 100 runs, one can understand. On papers PAK had a top team, but most greats in decline & I successfully won a bet that a team led by WY 'll not go to 2nd round (I would have sticked to that, had even 4 teams been allowed to advance). Besides, players practiced a bit WWF during training session as well - this was one of the failure of Mussarraff's military regime, he (& Gen Zia) was too soft. Some those players were convicted fixers, fought in between & bolted a WC - should have been given 3rd degree ........

    I don't have a single word praising 2007 - it was pathetic. Only positive for me was BD advancing to 2nd round, though I am not sure should I take it positively or negatively in broader perspectives. May be the second positive was that the best team won & top 3 teams made the SF. And it had an unfortunate death of one of the great contributors to ODI cricket.

    2011 was unique for me - went to see a WC match at my home (wish I hadn't gone for the WI match - thought we are going to QF beating a disintegrated WI side - Man posses, God.....). That WC was decent, at the end, I think the best side, led by the best Captain won it, though the format sucks. Ugly side of the format was exposed in this WC - MSD had a pathetic WC before SF & Final, Gul & Afridi had a great WC before the first match that mattered. If morons make a WC 7 match affair, this 'll be common. 2011 loses lot more point for the format....


    Over all, if I am to score for the WCs, my score (& rank) 'll be

    1999 - 9.99
    1992 - 9
    1987 - 8.5
    2003 - 8
    1979 - 7
    1983 - 6
    1975 - 5.5
    2011 - 2
    2007 - 0
    1996 - (-) 1

  53. #133
    Debut
    Mar 2004
    Venue
    Manchester, UK
    Runs
    104,207
    Mentioned
    664 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    1999 was best by far because the group stages and super sixes were very competative and not to many dead rubber games, we then had one of the best world up semi finals ever as well between S.A and Australia.

  54. #134
    Debut
    Apr 2011
    Venue
    Toronto (Dhaka)
    Runs
    24,286
    Mentioned
    1870 Post(s)
    Tagged
    10 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by King Cobra View Post
    Stop taking digs again and again at Tendulkar , it shows that you are nothing more than a hateful bigot with an agenda. A 137 balls 137 innings was more than enough in that era .

    For someone who belongs to most worthless ever Cricket Nation , your standards are pretty high.

    None of the Indians in my lifetime ever had any complaints with Tendulkar in the match. So whats is your problem for going crying like a broken record against Tendulkar ? Any Jealousy ?

    I shouldn't have responded to this, for idiots like you.

    SRT scored 79 of 79 balls, & 35 of last 10 which means, it took him 48 balls to move from 79 to 101, when team had 8 wickets & finished with 7 wickets at hand, losing the match with 8 balls & 6 wickets left.

  55. #135
    Debut
    Jan 2011
    Runs
    507
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    Anyone who respects the 2007 and 2011 World Cups is, in my opinion, dangerously unhinged.
    [snip]
    The first two World Cups were the best two. And they saw the best team in world cricket win. 1983 started the dire spectacle of the Cup being winnable by inferior teams which are not clearly the best in World Cricket in every format.

    1983, 1987, 1996 and 2011 are totally devalued because the winner was not the best team in the World
    If tournaments were to be won on seeding alone, then what's the point on playing the games? I'd understand if your point was that the best performing team in the tournament didn't win the cup, but that's also subjective opinion, and one which discounts the importance of doing well in the knockout do-or-die games, and handling the pressure situations.

    In any case, India performed very well in the 1983 WC. Pakistan did ok too, considering the bowling they had (Imran didn't bowl if I remember correctly, as he had just returned from a long injury period). The year after this tournament, India won pretty much a mini World Cup in Australia, where they beat Pakistan in final. I remember there was a time just after the 82 mauling that India got in Pakistan, where India in ODIs would beat Pakistan anywhere in the world. This was also one of the biggest reasons, why the Sharjah victory and the last ball six by Miandad was so revered. Not only did Pakistan came back in the game from no where, but that they beat India after a very long period in an ODI and in doing so won their first ODI multi-nation competition.

    Anyway, to come back to topic, 1983 and 1987 editions did not have bad formats at all. The teams in the group stages were in double league, where every team would play the other teams twice. Only the top two would qualify to the semi-finals. In 1987 Pakistan's group had SL which at the time were complete pushovers. The games with Pakistan were so one-sided, that Miandad bowled just to finish the games quickly (and he didn't even take his hat off while bowling). Having said that the tussle between Pak, WI and Eng was great and produced many exciting and also crucial games. Who can forget Qadir's 10 runs in last three balls against Walsh in the WI game, or Allan Lamb at Gujranwala guiding a perfect chase against the WI in front of packed crowd in the dying lights. It was an awesome tournament, and one which Pakistan should have won.

    The problem with 1996, 2011 and 2015 isn't that 7 sudden death games suddenly come out at the end to decide the winner, rather that too many games (42) are played to arrive at the knockout stage, and those games are largely meaningless when it comes to their impact on knock-out stage. If the group stage was smaller (four groups of four team, and two from each would qualify... 24 games), or if the quarterfinal stage is eliminated to give these 42 group games more importance, it'd change the situation drastically.

  56. #136
    Debut
    Jan 2013
    Runs
    12,457
    Mentioned
    1873 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianWillow View Post
    What a bad way to judge a tournament. You are labelled the strongest team on the basis of your performance in the WC, not the other way around. If you don't win, you were not the best - plain and simple. WI did not win 83 because they choked twice against India, how did they deserve it any more than saying that SA deserved to win the world cup inspite of choking every single time?
    Actually, no.

    The difference between a Cup and a League is that often in a Cup the best team doesn't win.

    In 1983 there were 10 ODIs between West Indies and India, and West Indies won 8 of them, almost all by crushing margins.

    The World Cup was bookended for both teams by bilateral Test and ODI series. The first took place in the Caribbean and the West Indies won both the Test and ODI series.

    India then won the World Cup and then hosted the West Indies, who won the Test series in India 3-0 and the ODI series in India 5-0.

    I had no idea until today that there were people who thought that India were better than the West Indies in 1983.

  57. #137
    Debut
    Mar 2012
    Runs
    1,580
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    Where to start, Dr Bassim?

    The 2007 World Cup was an awful tournament. Far too long for its purpose, overpriced for the locals, just a disaster. But it had one saving grace - the best team won.

    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know much about football. I don't mean to sound patronising when I say that.

    In 1954 West Germany won the World Cup with what they later admitted was the assistance of performance-enhancing drugs in the Final. They had earlier in the tournament lost 8-3 to Hungary but prevailed 3-2 in the Final. Many of the players died premature deaths from hepatic damage which is assumed to be linked to the industrial doses of drugs that they used. Everyone remembers the Hungarians as the "Magnificent Magyars" but hardly anyone could name a German player from that tournament.

    1974 was a similar story. We know know that both West Germany and Holland were doping, but again, people remember Johan Cruyff, and his "Cruyff turn" against Sweden, not West Germany.

    The beauty of the early World Cups is that Tests and 60 over ODIs were basically the same game, especially in England. If you were the best team in the world you were best in both formats. You have to leap forward to after 2011 for that to cease to hold true - the 1999 and 2003 and 2007 Australian Test and ODI teams were virtually identical.

    I don't mind India winning, because I have no allegiance to any one Asian country more than the others.

    What I object to - and I objected to it in 1996 too - is when a team can win a World Cup with an absolutely crap bowling "attack". It makes a mockery of the sport, just as Greece's ultra-defensive football victory at Euro'2004 did.
    West Germany lost 8-3 to Hungary becoz they rest most of their key players as that match was meaningless to them becoz of the ridiculous format .

  58. #138
    Debut
    Aug 2014
    Runs
    2,696
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The quiditch world cup

  59. #139
    Debut
    Dec 2008
    Venue
    UAE
    Runs
    55,663
    Mentioned
    184 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    1999 & 2011 were both pretty good.


    Proud Shehri of Misbah Ka Pakistan

  60. #140
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    29,778
    Mentioned
    999 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Really enjoyed the 2011 WC. Only thing that probably brought it down was the dominance of the subcon teams.


    لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله

  61. #141
    Debut
    Jul 2009
    Venue
    Islamabad
    Runs
    22,790
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    having QF in a tournament with 8 good teams isnt good, 2003 and 1999 format was ideal should never have been altered

  62. #142
    Debut
    Jun 2010
    Runs
    8,271
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Junaids View Post
    Actually, no.

    The difference between a Cup and a League is that often in a Cup the best team doesn't win.

    In 1983 there were 10 ODIs between West Indies and India, and West Indies won 8 of them, almost all by crushing margins.

    The World Cup was bookended for both teams by bilateral Test and ODI series. The first took place in the Caribbean and the West Indies won both the Test and ODI series.

    India then won the World Cup and then hosted the West Indies, who won the Test series in India 3-0 and the ODI series in India 5-0.

    I had no idea until today that there were people who thought that India were better than the West Indies in 1983.
    WI lost twice to India during WC 83, and they lost only to India. No team other than India beat the WI during WC 83. If you think the result wasn't a fair one, so be it.

    Indian bowlers, with their nagging military medium pace were very difficult to score off, in the swinging conditions of the early English summer - this was one of the secrets of the Indian win. WI later beat India in different conditions and pitches. You are comparing Indian team and WI team men for men and trying to conclude that WI team was better on paper. But cricket is not paid on paper, India led by Kapil played very fiercely as a team during WC 83. I remember an interview with Viv Richards when he was asked whether the Indian win was totally unexpected, and Richards actually said he never thought that way, and he said in Kapil dev India had a very unusual and capable all rounder and the WIndians really feared Kapil during the WC.

    The matches before the WC or after it have no bearing on the WC winner. India was better during WC 83 and won. It is always the team which performs better during the tournament that wins. This is how it happens all the time. South Africa is a strong team in all world cups and they never win, and no one ever claims that they deserved to win.


    "This one doesn't take the cake, it takes the bakery" - Gavaskar

  63. #143
    Debut
    Mar 2012
    Venue
    The Invincible Fort
    Runs
    17,305
    Mentioned
    981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    17 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sam_ahm View Post
    1992 WC was the one when I started watching cricket, and for me it was probably the best, although 1999 would come close as well. 1992 had the best of formats and was the fairest possible world cup till date, the way Pakistan bounced back was incredible, that heart breaking semifinal for the south africans and I will never forget Wasim Akram's bowling in the final, I became a fan of the legendary man! 1999 again had lots of fine memories, and it was a very very competitive WC with teams like Zimbabwe also in the frame, almost all the top teams barring Sri Lanka were very competitive in that WC.

    for me the worst was 2007, didn't enjoy that at all, more so because India and Pakistan were knocked out early, and after the death of Bob Woolmer the entire tournament just looked gloomy, I just wanted it to end as soon as possible.

    1996 actually wasn't that bad, as mentioned in one of the posts above, it actually had some cracking games, the AUS-WI semi final is an unforgettable one, so was the Quaterfinal between India and Pakistan and I will never forget the start India got in the semi final against Sri Lanka, Sanath and Kalu out in the first over and then India crumbling on a dust bowl!

    2011 was also a very entertaining WC, the highlight for me was the India-Pakistan semi-final and Kevin O Brien's knock against England, and the way Pakistan played throughout the tournament despite being hit by one of the biggest scandals in cricketing history and losing three of it's key players!
    Haha wow. Have to agree. Word for word!


    Full credit to Micky Arthur for realizing Babar Azam was born to bat at 3 in all formats.

  64. #144
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    20,326
    Mentioned
    522 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr_Bassim View Post
    Nothing beats a 99 World Cup.

    I would have said 92 but the way South Africa was robbed, as Random Aussie said, was a mockery of system.

    I still don't understand why they don't use the 99 format? Super Sixes. Points carried over from group stages. All the matches are interesting and everyone is glued for every match.

    I think it has something to do with ( now sue me for this Indian fans) the fact that India cannot be guaranteed a semi final sport if Super sixes come into picture as that means winning at least three matches in group stage and one match in Super six Stage or if you don't win 3 in group stage, then win 2 in group stage and 2 in Super Six Stage which would be incredibly difficult against NZ and Australia.

    In 1999, India missed out the Semi final spot and I think after that , they ensured that Super Six would never happen again.

    Now at least India is assured of quarter final spot, and because they won't probably top the group,they will likely play SL in quarter finals and semi-final is assured for India.

    I know I am reaching a bit, but since the 99 format has been ditched, I believe it's to do with India not making the semi final. Same as in 2007 where shock losses caused India to be out of the tournament even before it started.
    Sorry to say boss but the same format was used in 2003 with India reaching the final.And yes its defn the best format.


    In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
    -Virat Kohli

  65. #145
    Debut
    May 2014
    Venue
    chennai
    Runs
    20,326
    Mentioned
    522 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    99 for some great performances from Pak,Aus,SA and every team looked below par.But 2003 WC for the coming of age for Indian ODI cricket.


    In cricket, my superhero is Sachin Tendulkar. He has always been my hero.
    -Virat Kohli

  66. #146
    Debut
    Aug 2010
    Venue
    Sheffield
    Runs
    30,531
    Mentioned
    1019 Post(s)
    Tagged
    12 Thread(s)
    It's that time to go down memory lane again as we move closer to the World Cup.

    It's 99 > 96 > 92 > 87 > 83 > 75 > 11 > 79 > 03 > 15 > 07 for me.
    Last edited by Markhor; 14th March 2019 at 02:39.

  67. #147
    Debut
    Aug 2018
    Runs
    61
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1992, 2015, 1999 in that order

  68. #148
    Debut
    Sep 2016
    Runs
    4,556
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The first world cup I watched was 2007 but that was trash however going off highlights of old world cups I would say '92 and '99 (barring the final).


    "i'M sOrRy, i'M nOt sUpPosED tO teLl yoU tHiS"

  69. #149
    Debut
    Jul 2016
    Runs
    3,117
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2019

  70. #150
    Debut
    Feb 2012
    Venue
    Mississauga, Canada
    Runs
    29,778
    Mentioned
    999 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    The 2011 WC was far more entertaining than the 2015 edition.

  71. #151
    Debut
    Jan 2018
    Runs
    580
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    2011 wc. Pakistan should have won. They were terrific.

    2015 wc was the most boring and very predictable. We knew aus would win.

  72. #152
    Debut
    Feb 2015
    Venue
    Canada
    Runs
    5,897
    Mentioned
    445 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    2015 was definitely the worst, followed by 2007. This World Cup has the potential to be one of the best, granted that the pitches aren't absolute roads like last time. There are many teams who have a shot at winning this tournament, ICC just need to make good pitches so that matches are close. 250 should be a defend-able score, 270+ should be above par.


    Does cricket survive off of it's money or does it survive for it's money?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •