How would you rate Pak's 1992 WC win?

[zen]

Was Pak's ODI WC win in 1992 due to luck (peaking at the right time) or persistence paying off? 

 

In 1992 WC, NZ was setting the stadium on fire esp. with Crowe's batting and captaincy - Greatbatch attacking the bowling in the first 15, Deepak Patel opening the bowling at times, and so on. SA, the new entrant, was surprising everyone - likes of Jonty Rhodes were electric on the field (such level of fielding has never been seen before). At one point, it appeared as if these two could meet in the final. England had notched up some wins by playing competitive cricket consistently. 

 

In the background, Pak was silently rising. One of the games that it could have lost was washed out as well so it got a point from it (bowled out for 74 v Eng). It came to a point where they had to beat NZ, who were in for a bad game, and Aus having to beat WI. Both things happened and Pak eventually went on to win the WC. It was as if luck had smiled on the green outfit. 

 

On the other hand of the spectrum, Pak had been doing well consistently at world events. If we look at the 1983 to 1992 period:

 

• 1983 WC: Lost to WI in SF
• 1985 in AUS: Beat WI in SF but lost to Ind in F
• 1987 WC: Looked the best team but like NZ in 1992 WC had a bad game at the wrong time in SF v Aus 
• 1989 Nehru Cup: Finally, Pak managed to win in by beating WI in the final. It looked like the only team to be able to beat WI and it did it 
• 1992 WC: Beat NZ in SF and Eng in F 

 

 

Looking back, would you classify Pak's win in 1992 WC as luck (peaking at the right time, escaping a loss to Eng, WI losing to Aus, ...) or persistence paying off or both? 

 

[maniac]

They had luck but you cannot question how motivated and pumped up they were in those last 2 games that mattered.

 

As the saying goes luck can take you only that far.

 

The only problem I have is calling it the greatest underdog win when 1983 and to some extent 1996 were much bigger back to the wall memorable wins.

[zen]

8 minutes ago, maniac said:

They had luck but you cannot question how motivated and pumped up they were in those last 2 games that mattered.

 

As the saying goes luck can take you only that far.

 

The only problem I have is calling it the greatest underdog win when 1983 and to some extent 1996 were much bigger back to the wall memorable wins.

The reason some feel that could be  as Pak came back to win from nowhere. Ind in 83 had beaten WI and Aus in the group stages. Eng in SF. The major upset was beating WI in the final.  SL was playing at a different level in 1996. Many thought that SL's bubble could burst like Pak in 87 and NZ in 92 but it never did. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by zen

[zen]

Below is one the best moments from the WC:

 

 

SA is a team that provides some great moments too at such events like the above in 1992, Klusener in 96, and ABDV in 2015. 

[cricketfan28]

No.Good Info.

[Suhaan]

It was all about luck,Pak were set to pack their bags after that Eng game in group stage

But miraculously they got free points and had two good days,that is typical pakistan win

A flawless pakistan win would be 2009 t20 wc, Pakistan played like champs and won it

Edited August 18, 2020 by Suhaan

[MechEng]

On 8/15/2020 at 10:56 PM, maniac said:

They had luck but you cannot question how motivated and pumped up they were in those last 2 games that mattered.

 

As the saying goes luck can take you only that far.

 

The only problem I have is calling it the greatest underdog win when 1983 and to some extent 1996 were much bigger back to the wall memorable wins.

1983 finals was a pressure free game. Everyone assumed Windies will win it, Windies got complacent, India played it like any other game.

[nevada]

On 8/15/2020 at 10:56 PM, maniac said:

They had luck but you cannot question how motivated and pumped up they were in those last 2 games that mattered.

 

As the saying goes luck can take you only that far.

 

The only problem I have is calling it the greatest underdog win when 1983 and to some extent 1996 were much bigger back to the wall memorable wins.

Agreed. Luck can only take you so far. Pak getting to the knockouts was due to luck but they won the big moments in the semifinal and the final. Inzy grabbed victory from the jaws of defeat in the SF and Akram was unbelievable in the final. Interestingly, Tamper Khan batted ultra slow and almost ruined his team's chances in the semi final and final. Imagine the outrage if Inzy hadn't stepped up in a big way and turned things around.

[Gollum]

Luck, umpiring was in their favor in the final (Javed was out early on, Botham wrongly given out) and of course reverse swing. 

[adi B]

Definitely the worst squad (close contest with the 87 Aus squad)to win the WC ,definitely the most luckiest (How many defeats were they ? 3? And a washout escape).

 

[neel roy]

4 hours ago, adi B said:

Definitely the worst squad (close contest with the 87 Aus squad)to win the WC ,definitely the most luckiest (How many defeats were they ? 3? And a washout escape).

 

England lost 3 games  in 2020 wcup same as NZ in group stages. But both played final and in literal sense both won it. 

[SK_IH]

4 hours ago, adi B said:

Definitely the worst squad (close contest with the 87 Aus squad)to win the WC ,definitely the most luckiest (How many defeats were they ? 3? And a washout escape).

 

I beg to differ here, that Pakistan side was pretty good and a dangerous side. I think they won good amount of limited overs tournament in the run up to that world cup. They got a reprieve with rain but then defeated unbeaten NZ twice, Aus in a must win and favourites Eng in the finals.  Their team had the quality to bounce back after the early reversals.

You need certain luck or fortune to win tournaments. 

 

[adi B]

24 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

I beg to differ here, that Pakistan side was pretty good and a dangerous side. I think they won good amount of limited overs tournament in the run up to that world cup. They got a reprieve with rain but then defeated unbeaten NZ twice, Aus in a must win and favourites Eng in the finals.  Their team had the quality to bounce back after the early reversals.

You need certain luck or fortune to win tournaments. 

 

If waqar was there ,I'd have agreed but without waqar There squad wasnt that great ,actually the field was pretty weak in 92 WC. 

On luck ,I'd say had it not rained for another couple of hours ,they'd be out of the world cup finishing 6th on the table . Also they beat Nzl when they were on top and already won 7 of 7 and dropped their intensity in the final game 

Edited August 18, 2020 by adi B

[SK_IH]

1 hour ago, adi B said:

If waqar was there ,I'd have agreed but without waqar There squad wasnt that great ,actually the field was pretty weak in 92 WC. 

On luck ,I'd say had it not rained for another couple of hours ,they'd be out of the world cup finishing 6th on the table . Also they beat Nzl when they were on top and already won 7 of 7 and dropped their intensity in the final game 

I think if you go by pure stats & quality, then we may have to consider 83 side of India as weakest side ever to win the World cup.

But I don't think that's a good exercise to rate them as such, if the team delivers on the days of reckoning they deserve to win the world cup. Luck can help you to stay afloat in the tournaments but only performances will win you the tournaments.

Edited August 18, 2020 by SK_IH