Best Subcontinent team to win World Cup

[sandeep]

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.  

[speedster]

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

[Ultimate_Game]

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 April 3, 2017 by Ultimate_Game

[putrevus]

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 April 3, 2017 by putrevus

[the don]

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.

 

[putrevus]

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 April 3, 2017 by putrevus

[Ultimate_Game]

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.

[sandeep]

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.  

[the don]

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.

[sandeep]

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.  

[the don]

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 .

 

[the don]

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 ?? 

[Chalks]

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).

[TheWall]

1992 can only be remembered for SA's bad luck and Pakistan's good luck.. courtesy: D/L method....

 

To be frank SA is the real winner of 1992 world cup....

[Gambit]

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.

[sandeep]

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. 

[Rightarmfast]

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.

[Singh bling]

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

[Ultimate_Game]

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.

[kira]

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  

 

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