Jump to content
BeautifulGame

Best Subcontinent team to win World Cup

Best Subcontinent team to win World cup  

53 members have voted

  1. 1. Best Subcontinent team to win World cup

    • 1983 - India under Kapil Dev
      8
    • 1992 - Pakistan under Imran Khan
      3
    • 1996 - SriLanka under Ranatunga
      15
    • 2011 - India under Dhoni
      27


Recommended Posts

My 2 pence -

 

Indian team of 1983 and Pakistani team of 1992 could have lost the finals on any other day, in the same tournament,playing with the same set of players, against the same opposition and perhaps even against a weaker opposition.

Although, cant entirely call the win a fluke, still they were clearly not the best.

 

Srilanka team of 96 and Indian team of 2011 would win the cup in the same tournament, any other day against any other opposition.

 

Srilankan team were pioneers in power hitting and running between the wicket. But between the 2 of them, the Indian team of 2011 would win 9 out of 10 matches, simply because of superior batsmen, fast bowlers and decent spinners.

Edited by Rightarmfast

Share this post


Link to post

From being led by the most charismatic captain of all time complete with the tiger t shirt at the toss to having the best left arm fast bowler of all time in the ranks . You just cannot look past the pakistani side of 92.

 

Winning the worldcup in the toughest conditions of Australia in front of a packed MCG crowd of 90.000 .

That team produced legends that went on to have great careers and a sucessful decade for pakistan .

The 96 srilankan team was good too but they won in asian conditions.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, the don said:

From being led by the most charismatic captain of all time complete with the tiger t shirt at the toss to having the best left arm fast bowler of all time in the ranks . You just cannot look past the pakistani side of 92.

 

Winning the worldcup in the toughest conditions of Australia in front of a packed MCG crowd of 90.000 .

That team produced legends that went on to have great careers and a sucessful decade for pakistan .

The 96 srilankan team was good too but they won in asian conditions.

 

 

 

 

Funny how one of our average fast bowler is better than one of the best left arm fast bowler of all time.

 

Sir Aggy > Akram

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, laaloo said:

Funny how one of our average fast bowler is better than one of the best left arm fast bowler of all time.

 

Sir Aggy > Akram

Agarkar wasn't average.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, the don said:

From being led by the most charismatic captain of all time complete with the tiger t shirt at the toss to having the best left arm fast bowler of all time in the ranks . You just cannot look past the pakistani side of 92.

 

Winning the worldcup in the toughest conditions of Australia in front of a packed MCG crowd of 90.000 .

That team produced legends that went on to have great careers and a sucessful decade for pakistan .

The 96 srilankan team was good too but they won in asian conditions.

 

 

 

 

By that logic the 1983 WC winning Indian team is the best ever coz they beat ATG WI team with likes of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd, Dujon, Marshall, Roberts, Holding etc. not just in the finals but in the group stages too. That WI team was a veritable who's who of cricketing legends and Kapil's Devils tamed them twice!

 

By the way did I mention that Indian team was the only team to beat that great WI team in a WC and they did it twice. Let it sink in... Rest of the world (including Pak) wins against WI in a WC - 0 (across 3 WCs from 75  to 83); the Indian 1983 WC Team wins against WI in a WC - 2!

Edited by Ultimate_Game

Share this post


Link to post

I dont know why people hv chosen Ranatunga over Imran. Remember SL was lucky enough they didnt meet AUS and WI in 1st round. So it was a lucky tournament for them unlike talent. here but PAK won in outside subcontinent. It was a harder torney compare to 96 I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Lala said:

I dont know why people hv chosen Ranatunga over Imran. Remember SL was lucky enough they didnt meet AUS and WI in 1st round. So it was a lucky tournament for them unlike talent. here but PAK won in outside subcontinent. It was a harder torney compare to 96 I guess.

Pak was lucky that rain saved them from elimination in 1992 as well.  All winning teams need a bit of luck.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ultimate_Game said:

By that logic the 1983 WC winning Indian team is the best ever coz they beat ATG WI team with likes of Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd, Dujon, Marshall, Roberts, Holding etc. not just in the finals but in the group stages too. That WI team was a veritable who's who of cricketing legends and Kapil's Devils tamed them twice!

 

By the way did I mention that Indian team was the only team to beat that great WI team in a WC and they did it twice. Let it sink in... Rest of the world (including Pak) wins against WI in a WC - 0 (across 3 WCs from 75  to 83); the Indian 1983 WC Team wins against WI in a WC - 2!

That was certainly a huge achievement . 

Did that team go on to achieve success together like the post 92 pak or the 96 srilankan sides or was that tournament a one off grand achievement ?? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lala said:

I dont know why people hv chosen Ranatunga over Imran. Remember SL was lucky enough they didnt meet AUS and WI in 1st round. So it was a lucky tournament for them unlike talent. here but PAK won in outside subcontinent. It was a harder torney compare to 96 I guess.

Cant win a worldcup without luck .

Edited by the don

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, the don said:

That was certainly a huge achievement . 

Did that team go on to achieve success together like the post 92 pak or the 96 srilankan sides or was that tournament a one off grand achievement ?? 

 

Pretty much the same team won the "World Series" of Cricket in 1984-85.  They beat Australia, England, Pakistan to win that - not sure in Windies were part of that tournament.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, sandeep said:

Pretty much the same team won the "World Series" of Cricket in 1984-85.  They beat Australia, England, Pakistan to win that - not sure in Windies were part of that tournament.  

Windies were a part of the tournament, they lost in the semi-finals.  The other success  for the Indian team during that time was the Asia Cup in 84

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, the don said:

That was certainly a huge achievement . 

Did that team go on to achieve success together like the post 92 pak or the 96 srilankan sides or was that tournament a one off grand achievement ?? 

 

That team went on to win Benson & Hedges World Championship Cup, which was sort of a mini world cup. You would know that as India beat Pakistan in the final and won that tourney by remaining unbeaten. That team also won the 1984 Asia Cup. All in all that subcontinental team did more than any other subcontinental team in terms of winning at the global stage and beating major teams.

 

Essentially the team won 3 global tourneys on three different continents beating all-comers. Definitely much more than the 92 WC team did.

Edited by Ultimate_Game

Share this post


Link to post

What exactly did 1992 world cup winning (which was the flukiest world cup winner by the way) did win after that world cup, they never won anything significant after that cup.They might won in England but winning in England in 1990s was a cake walk for any decent team.

 

1983 Indian team won in Australia in 1985 by beating everyone and won a series in England and should have won series in Australia  in 1985 as well if not for rain in last session in Melbourne. They dominated Australia thru out that test series. Kapil Dev never gets credit for his captaincy, he single handedly turn bunch of novices into world cup winners.

 

People are underestimating the greatness of that 1983 WI team they have 7 hall of famers and most of them would walk into any all time world elevens.Desmond Haynes should be a hall of famer along with Dujon.Show me one cricket team in history of the game which was more talented. They would wipe Aussies of 2000s without any sweat.They just got cocky for their own good.

 

1996 Srilankan team won on batting strength,they were great they really redefined odi cricket but 2011 Indian team will beat them 9 times out 10 , it would do the same to all other Asian world cup winning teams including 1983.

 

2011 Indian team can go toe to toe with any team in history of game anywhere in the world and beat them.Their batting strength was awesome.It has to be best Asian team.

 

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, putrevus said:

What exactly did 1992 world cup winning (which was the flukiest world cup winner by the way) did win after that world cup, they never won anything significant after that cup.They might won in England but winning in England in 1990s was a cake walk for any decent team.

 

1983 Indian team won in Australia in 1985 by beating everyone and won a series in England and should have won series in Australia  in 1985 as well if not for rain in last session in Melbourne. They dominated Australia thru out that test series. Kapil Dev never gets credit for his captaincy, he single handedly turn bunch of novices into world cup winners.

 

People are underestimating the greatness of that 1983 WI team they have 7 hall of famers and most of them would walk into any all time world elevens.Desmond Haynes should be a hall of famer along with Dujon.Show me one cricket team in history of the game which was more talented. They would wipe Aussies of 2000s without any sweat.They just got cocky for their own good.

 

1996 Srilankan team won on batting strength,they were great they really redefined odi cricket but 2011 Indian team will beat them 9 times out 10 , it would do the same to all other Asian world cup winning teams including 1983.

 

2011 Indian team can go toe to toe with any team in history of game anywhere in the world and beat them.Their batting strength was awesome.It has to be best Asian team.

 

The post 92 pakistan team won pretty much most of the ODI series they played at the time . Test cricket is a different format but they won a test almost everywhere .90s was a very sucessful decade for pakistan built around the side Imran left behind.

 

Why do you rate the 2011 indian side higher when the 83 side by your own admission achieved greater things ??

 

Lol @flukiest world cup winner . 92 was arguably the toughest format where you had to play every side in addition to beating the best two sides in the knokouts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, the don said:

The post 92 pakistan team won pretty much most of the ODI series they played at the time . Test cricket is a different format but they won a test almost everywhere .90s was a very sucessful decade for pakistan built around the side Imran left behind.

 

Why do you rate the 2011 indian side higher when the 83 side by your own admission achieved greater things ??

 

Lol @flukiest world cup winner . 92 was arguably the toughest format where you had to play every side in addition to beating the best two sides in the knokouts.

 

How is that format toughest when a  team winning 4 matches  barely makes it semis plays a team which is best team in world cup by winning 7 out of 8 matches . There is a reason why that format has never been adopted again. Round robin format is a stupid format for a world cup .It punishes the best teams for having one bad game before finals.

 

When team which wins world cup has less wins than the team which loses in semi finals that makes whole tournament a big sham. World cup should never be determined by luck and Pakistan had no business making semis let alone win the cup.

 

1983 win will be always judged higher because of difficulties it had to overcome.The talent level between WI and India was not even comparison.But that team will not stand a chance to beat 2011 team.2011 team was filled with players who knew how to win which was not the case in 1983.

 

 

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, the don said:

The post 92 pakistan team won pretty much most of the ODI series they played at the time . Test cricket is a different format but they won a test almost everywhere .90s was a very sucessful decade for pakistan built around the side Imran left behind.

 

Why do you rate the 2011 indian side higher when the 83 side by your own admission achieved greater things ??

 

Lol @flukiest world cup winner . 92 was arguably the toughest format where you had to play every side in addition to beating the best two sides in the knokouts.

 

The reason for it is that 2011 WC team followed up the WC win with CT 2013 win and had one of the deepest batting lineup with likes of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dhoni, Yuvraj and backed up by the likes of Kohli, Gambhir and Raina. essentially there's no weak link at all with every batsman in top 7 capable of winning the match on his own. The 2011 WC team could bat you out of the game batting first up or chase anything you put up. That's why IMO 2011 WC winning team edges the 1983 WC winning team.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, putrevus said:

How is that format toughest when a  team winning 4 matches  barely makes it semis plays a team which is best team in world cup by winning 7 out of 8 matches . There is a reason why that format has never been adopted again. Round robin format is a stupid format for a world cup .It punishes the best teams for having one bad game before finals.

 

When team which wins world cup has less wins than the team which loses in semi finals that makes whole tournament a big sham. World cup should never be determined by luck and Pakistan had no business making semis let alone win the cup.

 

1983 win will be always judged higher because of difficulties it had to overcome.The talent level between WI and India was not even comparison.But that team will not stand a chance to beat 2011 team.2011 team was filled with players who knew how to win which was not the case in 1983.

 

 

Don't bother wasting your time.  Pakistan was better because....... it just was.  Logic and facts jaaye bhaad mein.  

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, putrevus said:

How is that format toughest when a  team winning 4 matches  barely makes it semis plays a team which is best team in world cup by winning 7 out of 8 matches . There is a reason why that format has never been adopted again. Round robin format is a stupid format for a world cup .It punishes the best teams for having one bad game before finals.

 

When team which wins world cup has less wins than the team which loses in semi finals that makes whole tournament a big sham. World cup should never be determined by luck and Pakistan had no business making semis let alone win the cup.

 

1983 win will be always judged higher because of difficulties it had to overcome.The talent level between WI and India was not even comparison.But that team will not stand a chance to beat 2011 team.2011 team was filled with players who knew how to win which was not the case in 1983.

 

 

How is it a fluke format when the top 4 teams make the semi finals after playing each other once ?? 

Infact with the quarterfinals you have the top 8 qualifying making the group stage pretty pointless and the worldcup essentialy a knockout .

Similarly the 2007 format was pretty bad as well .

i dont mind the quarterfinals but personally i thought the 92 format was the best . Lets just disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

Its a fluke format when South Africa got screwed and Pak benefited due to crazy rain rules.   Pak played brilliant once it got to semis, but let's be honest - They weren't better than South Africa in the league stage - and the 4 best teams in fact, didn't make it to the sem-finals.  

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

The reason for it is that 2011 WC team followed up the WC win with CT 2013 win and had one of the deepest batting lineup with likes of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Dhoni, Yuvraj and backed up by the likes of Kohli, Gambhir and Raina. essentially there's no weak link at all with every batsman in top 7 capable of winning the match on his own. The 2011 WC team could bat you out of the game batting first up or chase anything you put up. That's why IMO 2011 WC winning team edges the 1983 WC winning team.

Dhoni took the Indian odi side to the next level perhaps the most potent ODI lineup in Indian history following on from the work done by Ganguly .

Something about indian ODI cricket changed in 2003 .

Champions trophy will be fun .

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Its a fluke format when South Africa got screwed and Pak benefited due to crazy rain rules.   Pak played brilliant once it got to semis, but let's be honest - They weren't better than South Africa in the league stage - and the 4 best teams in fact, didn't make it to the sem-finals.  

Why are you blaming duckworth lewis on the format ?? 

Wasnt the england VS southafrica game the semi final ?? 

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, the don said:

How is it a fluke format when the top 4 teams make the semi finals after playing each other once ?? 

Infact with the quarterfinals you have the top 8 qualifying making the group stage pretty pointless and the worldcup essentialy a knockout .

Similarly the 2007 format was pretty bad as well .

i dont mind the quarterfinals but personally i thought the 92 format was the best . Lets just disagree.

 

It's a fluke because Jazbatistan lost (and lost BADLY) to South Africa, West Indies and India, and were bowled out for 75 by England. If it wasn't for the rain in the England game, which they most certainly would have lost, they weren't making the semi final.

 

When you're relying on rain to make the semis, your team obviously isn't very good. A world cup win is a world cup win, but in the context of this discussion it seems pretty unconvincing.

 

It was easily the flukiest of all 4 subcontinent wins.

Share this post


Link to post

In 1996, Lanka benefitted from Australia and West Indies forfeiting their games in Colombo because of the terror attacks there the previous month. On the flipside, they revolutionized the game by opening with two power hitters Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana, and carried some powerful momentum from their Australian tour (where they matched Australia almost blow-for-blow in a memorable, and at times controversial ODI tri-series. It was in the middle of that series where Kalu was promoted to open with Jaya).

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Gambit said:

In a 10 match series between SL 1996 and Pakistan 1992, Pakistan will probably win 7 times out of 10. However, Pakistan 1992 does not come anywhere close to the bossing SL 1996 did to the other teams.

Gambo, How about Pak 92 vs 2011 India?  I think its 65-35 India, that Pak team had pretty ordinary batting, and relied on low percentage innings from Inzi to bail them out. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Gambo, How about Pak 92 vs 2011 India?  I think its 65-35 India, that Pak team had pretty ordinary batting, and relied on low percentage innings from Inzi to bail them out. 

Pak 92 would be demolished by Indian 2011 team. With or without bottlecaps, Imran was a spent force in 92. Wasim and Waqar for all their might were not good enough for 2011 team. That too without bottlecaps.

Share this post


Link to post

96 and 2011 formats were not good enough to test the teams.In 2011 Dhoni himself said that he don't want closing fielders because he can't risk them in group stages

 

1992 was good format but still there was scope of coming back.1983 was the most difficult format 2 games against windies and Aus plus Zimbabwe too was not that easy to beat. each game was almost a must win to qualify for Semi's 

Based on above I will say 1983 team passed the most difficult test

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, sandeep said:

Its a fluke format when South Africa got screwed and Pak benefited due to crazy rain rules.   Pak played brilliant once it got to semis, but let's be honest - They weren't better than South Africa in the league stage - and the 4 best teams in fact, didn't make it to the sem-finals.  

 

17 hours ago, the don said:

Why are you blaming duckworth lewis on the format ?? 

Wasnt the england VS southafrica game the semi final ?? 

It wasn't the D/L rule. It was a weird "Minimum run scoring overs taken out" rule, i.e. the overs which had minimum runs scored in them (generally maidens or 1s) were taken out and made the 2nd team an unrealistic target. E.g., say Team A scored 235 with 5 maidens and 6 overs with just 1 run scored. Team B was 120/2 after 30 overs when rain arrived and 10 overs had to be reduced. The target for team B would now be 230 in 40 overs as 5 maidens and 5 single run overs were removed from team A's total! Thus a match in hand for Team B (125 needed in 20 overs with 8 wkts in hand) was literally gifted to team A as Team B now had to score an unrealistic 110 runs in 10 overs. This idiotic rule is what paved the way for D/L system, which is a million times better but still not the perfect system.

 

I recall India being royally hosed due to rain and the rain rule. We lost a point against SL which were minnows at the time and a free 2 points for all teams and lost 2 points against Aussies coz of the rain rule which reduced 3 overs from the overs total without reducing a run from the target. The reason 92 WC format is panned is not for the format, which in itself was good, but due to the impact the rain rule had over the matches and the tourney. and the weird rain rule which literally turned results of the matches on its head. It was almost a lottery. The 83, 96 and 2011 WC didn't have any luck associated at all and the winners were the best teams of the tourney who won it themselves without relying on luck or winning the lottery of the rain rule.

Share this post


Link to post

How can anyone rate the 1992 world cup? It was a scam, south africa were robbed, I would be very ashamed if India ever won a world cup like the cornered pussies in 1992, the most undeserving champions ever, no wonder that format was dropped forever. The game between england and south africa was so flawed that they had to devise a new duck worth lewis system to avoid such situations in the future. Everything about the 1992 world cup was dropped, changed or forgotten for ever, even that ugly glass trophy was dropped :laugh1: 

 

It must be hard for the pakistani fans to digest but the only world cup they ever won was the most forgetful world cup ever

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Pak 92 would be demolished by Indian 2011 team. With or without bottlecaps, Imran was a spent force in 92. Wasim and Waqar for all their might were not good enough for 2011 team. That too without bottlecaps.

Pak 92 team would be dominated ,brutalized and victimized by the 2011 Indian team, the beating would be so bad that phateechar khan would come out with a cornered mouse t-shirt and apologize to the whole world for even thinking about beating the Indian team in his dream.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, sandeep said:

Gambo, How about Pak 92 vs 2011 India?  I think its 65-35 India, that Pak team had pretty ordinary batting, and relied on low percentage innings from Inzi to bail them out. 

Pak 92 couldn't even beat India 92  :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Pak 92 would be demolished by Indian 2011 team. With or without bottlecaps, Imran was a spent force in 92. Wasim and Waqar for all their might were not good enough for 2011 team. That too without bottlecaps.

Waqar didn't play in 92 WC - he was out with a back injury. They had Akram and Aaqib Javed backed up by Mushtaq and part time spin of Aamir Sohail. Definitely not one of the better bowling attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, sandeep said:

Gambo, How about Pak 92 vs 2011 India?  I think its 65-35 India, that Pak team had pretty ordinary batting, and relied on low percentage innings from Inzi to bail them out. 

As you pointed out, their batting lacked firepower and at best could make 270 or so. But if Wasim and Waqar (including him although he was ruled out of the WC) turned it on, not many in the 2011 lineup would be able to cope. All things considered, I would back 2011 India to beat them 60% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Waqar didn't play in 92 WC - he was out with a back injury. They had Akram and Aaqib Javed backed up by Mushtaq and part time spin of Aamir Sohail. Definitely not one of the better bowling attacks.

Without Waqar, and with Amir Sohail as part time spinner, I think the Indian 2011 team would make mince meat out of the 92 team. And with better cameras and camera angles, Imran and Wasim would have anyways been nullified with their bottlecap techqniques.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Gambit said:

As you pointed out, their batting lacked firepower and at best could make 270 or so. But if Wasim and Waqar (including him although he was ruled out of the WC) turned it on, not many in the 2011 lineup would be able to cope. All things considered, I would back 2011 India to beat them 60% of the time.

I know it is hypothetical hence , with the 35 over ball change the effectiveness of Waqar and even Akram would have been hugely reduced though in death overs.

Share this post


Link to post
On 03/04/2017 at 6:08 PM, Lala said:

I dont know why people hv chosen Ranatunga over Imran. Remember SL was lucky enough they didnt meet AUS and WI in 1st round. So it was a lucky tournament for them unlike talent. here but PAK won in outside subcontinent. It was a harder torney compare to 96 I guess.

They completely dwarfed Aussies when they met. They were team of series. While most talk about Kalu and Jayasurya powerplay, but for me, its their spin bowling which complimented it, no one could figure out how to play against their spin attack. IIRC, everyone in their side was a spinner. They could just change the attack at will. Dsilva JayaSurya Murali Kalu, Vaas,, Ranatunga deservedly won the trophy.

 

Only team, i watched in action and better than them, in terms of rest of the teams in series was 2003 Aussie team. India in England was a combination of some gritty performance and little luck. On paper, Pakistan is worst side to have won a world cup. in the tournament, there was S Africa, England, Australia who wiould have beaten that Pakistani side most other day. Both India and Kiwis were equal, if not better side.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

SL 1996 - They just revolutionized the art of batting in the first 15 overs.Basically, the bowlers were terrified by Jayasuriya and Kalu.

I remember both Defrietas and Prabhakar being reduced to bowling offspin.SL played such a fearless brand of cricket during that WC.Even Mahanama and Gurusinghe , who were considered tame by LOI standards were scoring really quick.Aravinda and Ranatunga were both in great form.I made a bet with my friends that SL would be winning the WC and they laughed at me .This was after they lost the ill-tempered series in Australia and Ranatunga basically supported his team mates.The steel was there for all to see and they proved in in the next couple of months.

 

India 2011 almost lost against England,lost against SA,were less than impressive against the minnows.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Yoda-esque said:

SL 1996 - They just revolutionized the art of batting in the first 15 overs.Basically, the bowlers were terrified by Jayasuriya and Kalu.

I remember both Defrietas and Prabhakar being reduced to bowling offspin.SL played such a fearless brand of cricket during that WC.Even Mahanama and Gurusinghe , who were considered tame by LOI standards were scoring really quick.Aravinda and Ranatunga were both in great form.I made a bet with my friends that SL would be winning the WC and they laughed at me .This was after they lost the ill-tempered series in Australia and Ranatunga basically supported his team mates.The steel was there for all to see and they proved in in the next couple of months.

 

India 2011 almost lost against England,lost against SA,were less than impressive against the minnows.

 

But SL 96 was a team built to win on the subcontinent.  Doubt they would even be competitive in England, Australia or South Africa.  2011 India was good enough on both sides of the ball to be in the mix.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/2/2017 at 7:08 AM, BeautifulGame said:

 

That was when our form was awful .We had just scrapped past Holland.

 

The final was after 9 consecutive wins .We had the tournament top scorer who thrives in setting target and the best player in the world then.

 

And this was a world Cup final were 6 of the previous seven winners batted first.

 

It was just a moronic decision .

Pathetic to bowl first but don't know how decisions were taken back then, whether it was captain's decison to decide to bowl first or whether it was a push from the management to bat first. 

 

 

Usually if a a team loses a game, blame shouldn't go to captain based on him deciding to bat or bowl first, but here regardless of the result, if it was Ganguly's decision to bowl first, it was just pathetic and childish and very unlike his character which is displayed and hyped by fans and media still about how he was a brave captain. As you pointed out, after a great run in world cup since the game against Pakistan, we had the momentum and shouldn't have been reluctant to bat first in the biggest match of our life then. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

Pathetic to bowl first but don't know how decisions were taken back then, whether it was captain's decison to decide to bowl first or whether it was a push from the management to bat first. 

 

 

Usually if a a team loses a game, blame shouldn't go to captain based on him deciding to bat or bowl first, but here regardless of the result, if it was Ganguly's decision to bowl first, it was just pathetic and childish and very unlike his character which is displayed and hyped by fans and media still about how he was a brave captain. As you pointed out, after a great run in world cup since the game against Pakistan, we had the momentum and shouldn't have been reluctant to bat first in the biggest match of our life then. 

I have bashed Gangu for his poor captaincy and tactics a lot in the past.  But I don't blame him too much for this one.  You have to remember that we lost that league game very badly against Oz with a bit of movement in the air.  Even on the finals game, 1s hour there was something available for the bowlers.  Gangu went with the "safe" choice.  The wrong one, but one with a logical argument behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, sandeep said:

But SL 96 was a team built to win on the subcontinent.  Doubt they would even be competitive in England, Australia or South Africa.  2011 India was good enough on both sides of the ball to be in the mix.  

Not really, SL won matches against Australia and WI in the B&H cup a month earlier.They lost both finals to Australia but the first final was a close affair with the Aussie crowd booing Murali and Darrell Hair calling out Murali for No balls.

After that , they proceeded to defeat Pak at Sharjah,India 3-0 in a home series,won against SA at Nairobi and had a win against NZ in NZ.

And who can forget that series in Singapore where Jayasuriya was in stupendous form.I think he hit 75 runs in 25 balls or something.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I have bashed Gangu for his poor captaincy and tactics a lot in the past.  But I don't blame him too much for this one.  You have to remember that we lost that league game very badly against Oz with a bit of movement in the air.  Even on the finals game, 1s hour there was something available for the bowlers.  Gangu went with the "safe" choice.  The wrong one, but one with a logical argument behind it.

Ya but this is where it is wrong, we shouldn't go by how we played against Australia a month ago. We were playing pathetic cricket then as we had just just come out of NZ tour if you remember where we struggled to put on runs and later even performer badly against Zim, Netherlands too. But ever since we played Pakistan, things changed and we were not depending on any player, even in semis when we lost early wickets against Kenya, or against NZ, our middle order helped us win easily. 

 

We were batting well and had the momentum and should have opted to bat in the big final instead of waiting to chase under lights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×