Which was the best world cup ever from a cricketing point of view?

[rtmohanlal]

for me it is 1983 ...... the GOAT team with 2 titles already , getting defeated by a very  lower ranked side. It wasn't a fluke either. The base was laid at Albion  by the captain himself by defeating Windies for the 1st time ever. That started a 5 match streak (3-2 to India) which ended with the GOAT team getting uprooted in 83 final. 

 

Then comes 1996 ... minnows   becoming champions in 4 years time.

 

3rd was 87 world cup. Pakistan and India(since it was conducted in sub continent for the first time)  along  with Windies(no: 1 ranked) were the favourites. But Aussies under Border surprised every body  by winning in pucca alien conditions.

 

Others were all predictable.Nothing surprising in them

 

[Pollack]

2003 or 1999 

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, Pollack said:

2003 or 1999 

2003 was great because it was among the most bowler friendly World Cups.

[Mariyam]

2011.

 

That world cup has the unique distinction of having me watch an entire WC game (only because I was at the stadium). Apart from the final of the 2011 WC, I haven't seen any other ODI match completely. 

 

Hence 2011 is the best WC. I haven't blessed the other world cups with my presence/attention.

[maniac]

1996 and 2003 had those games that were boycotted like the ones in Srilanka and Zimbabwe. Just didn’t feel right even though 2003 had exceptional quality in terms of cricket.

 

1992 and 1996 didn’t feel like the strongest team won not to take anything away from Pak or Srilanka. They deserved to win for playing out of their skins .but their wins didn’t feel that monumental.

 

1983 felt like a fairy tale obviously most of us here didn’t watch it.

 

I rate 1999 and 2011 very high in terms of the quality of the games. 2015 was alright.

 

1987 was pretty good as well.

 

2007 is the worst tournament ever period.

[MechEng]

26 minutes ago, maniac said:

1996 and 2003 had those games that were boycotted like the ones in Srilanka and Zimbabwe. Just didn’t feel right even though 2003 had exceptional quality in terms of cricket.

 

1992 and 1996 didn’t feel like the strongest team won not to take anything away from Pak or Srilanka. They deserved to win for playing out of their skins .but their wins didn’t feel that monumental.

 

1983 felt like a fairy tale obviously most of us here didn’t watch it.

 

I rate 1999 and 2011 very high in terms of the quality of the games. 2015 was alright.

 

1987 was pretty good as well.

 

2007 is the worst tournament ever period.

I guess 2003 was so special for 2 reasons - (1) Ganguly was the captain and India beat Australia in 2001 tests, so fans had hope that this team can win the world cup, before that it was all about Sachin scoring runs, nobody expected the cup like how nobody expects us to get another gold in Olympics.

 

(2) 2nd reason being that cricket was still a predominantly gora influenced sport, BCCI was not powerful then and game was hardly commercialized. So winning the world cup was the biggest motivation for any international cricketer then, except England maybe.

Edited June 15, 2019 by MechEng

[rtmohanlal]

for me quality is the most defined by the scenario where all teams compete  more or less uniformly irrespective of their rankings or paper strengths.' Minnows or lower ranked teams lifting the cup ' thus defines the ultimate quality for me. 

[Adi BB]

1999 and 2003 WC had quality teams on quality pitches ,2011 WC had drama and high octane matches involving India ,rest were mostly one sided matches but still a good WC.

2015 and 2007 were so boring on all counts 

[Adi BB]

On 6/13/2019 at 10:39 PM, Forever Indian said:

2019 has beat them all.

 

It has added a new dimension to it - the suspense of if a match will happen or not!

So true , it's a triple threat match of country vs country vs rain 

[Adi BB]

On 5/30/2019 at 11:01 PM, Gollum said:

2003 shouldn't be in the reckoning cos a few teams refused to play in Zimbabwe and Kenya. Kenya in a WC SF, ultimate joke. And quality of a tournament depends a great deal on SFs and F...2 out of 3 were blowouts in that edition, especially that boring final. 

 

My vote among non-Majid Khan ones: 1987

2003 WC may not have quality KO matches but the group stage was a cracker!

It had so many tense and quality matches on good cricket wkts .

Ind vs pak, eng vs aus,ind vs eng, wi vs saf,saf vs nzl,saf vs srl ,srl vs nzl were good matches 

[Vijy]

all the ones with majid khan in them obviously.