Were 1992 and 1996 World Cups fixed?

[Ultimate_Game]

We have seen people talk about match fixing in recent tourneys and games but in reality the most prominent cases of match fixing happened in 92 and 96 world cups. I mean we had all the main players playing those days - Pak had players like Saleem malik, Wasim Akram etc., SL had players like Hashan Tillekratne & co., Aus had Waugh and Warne who were later found to have "provided information to bookies" and India had Azhar, Jadeja & Prabhakar. No surprizes Tillekratne stated the Lankans were involved in match fixing since 1992!!! Let me elaborate in detail... 1. 1992 World Cup This has to be the ideal scenario for bookies. Pakistan were down and out and there were long odds on them winning the cup. What better than to make sure pakis win the tourney? I mean bookies would have made a killing of the win for sure. Look at the tourney in detail - Pakis were so poor they lost to nearly every team at the start and were even bundled out for 74 against Eng!!! Then we all know what happened and Pakis needed to beat NZ in the last league game and you should see the game to believe it. NZ were not even trying to win the game! They were laughing all the way while losing to Pakistan. And come semis they conveniently sat out Martin Crowe - the captain who would have made it difficult for Pakis. Then comes the final. Now I ask you to consider the facts - Pakis were blown away for 74 against Eng in the group game and after the World Cup pakis toured Eng and were blown away 4-1 in the odi series. So how come suddely pakis were able to get the better of Eng in the all important game? Plenty of ppl behind the scenes are privy to all that went on that time and if not for the fixing the semi final lineup wouldn't even have featured the WC winners! Plus anyone remember the Eng-Zim game where Eng couldn't even chase 130 odd against Zim? Conveniently the game happened when Eng had already qualified for the semis, else I am sure Eng may have sneaked in by 7 wkts :winky: 2. 1996 World Cup This was the time match fixing was at its peak in the world cups. All the major players in match fixing were present and this time SL were the dark horses for the bookies. So far SL hadn't done anything of note and just imagine how much bookies would have benefited from their win? As usual there were lot of under-hand deals including Azhar winning the toss and putting SL in to bat on a turner, SL themselves winning the toss in the final and deciding to bat. I mean who decided to field in a final when no team chasing had ever won the tourney? This was all done to lengthen the odds even more so bookies could benefit even more. And the game followed a similar pattern - Aus got off to a great start and then had an inexplicable collapse against Aravinda of all people!!! While chasing SL lost a couple of early wkts and Aussies put their feet off the pedal to ensure the "script" wasn't altered. I won't even go into Akram feigning "injury" and Aus "pulling off" the sem final win when the game was all but over with WI requiring 50 odd to win in 13 overs with 8 wkts in hand. Even SA would have struggled to "choke" from that position :giggle: I think ICC has to investigate these two world cups as most of the players influenced by bookies were prominent players that time and the WC results were certainly unexpected to say the least. I completely agree with the likes of Basit Ali, Rashid Latif, Hashan Tillekratne that match fixing was prevalent since 1992. Why do you think Tillekratne called out 1992 as the year fixing started - coz that was the first time a WC was scripted for the first time and bookies made even more money in 96. I completely agree with my Pak and Lankan friends who state that the World Cups are "fixed" and "politically" influenced and I call on ICC to investigate the 1992 and 1996 World Cups as we cricket fans deserve to know what actually happened.

[WC2011INDIA]

LOL. The padosis will argue that WC 1992 was not fixed. Instead, they will say that WC 2011 was fixed. :haha:

[Ultimate_Game]

LOL. The padosis will argue that WC 1992 was not fixed. Instead, they will say that WC 2011 was fixed. :haha:

Well I go by logic. In 2011 India were the hot favorites along with SA to win and bookies were favoring Ind/SA to go all the wayand Ind/SA win would have lost bookies lots of money. In which scenario do the bookies make more money? The answer is when "underdogs" win the game/tourney "upsetting" the favorite. So going by that theory bookies had more to gain from Pak and SL win in 92 and 96 than India's win in 2011. Pakis were not "cornered tigers", they were "bookies' tigers" and that's why they won. Unfortunately ICC hasn't done anything to investigate and has swept the whole sordid saga under the carpet.

[WC2011INDIA]

Well I go by logic. In 2011 India were the hot favorites along with SA to win and bookies were favoring Ind/SA to go all the wayand Ind/SA win would have lost bookies lots of money. In which scenario do the bookies make more money? The answer is when "underdogs" win the game/tourney "upsetting" the favorite. So going by that theory bookies had more to gain from Pak and SL win in 92 and 96 than India's win in 2011. Pakis were not "cornered tigers", they were "bookies' tigers" and that's why they won. Unfortunately ICC hasn't done anything to investigate and has swept the whole sordid saga under the carpet.

Dude, I know what you are saying. It's just that padosi forum will argue that WC 1992 was not fixed because well.....Pakistan won the WC. They are not going to admit that their country's only cricket world cup victory was because it was fixed.

[Ultimate_Game]

Dude' date=' I know what you are saying. It's just that padosi forum will argue that WC 1992 was not fixed because well.....Pakistan won the WC. They are not going to admit that their country's only cricket world cup victory was because it was fixed.[/quote'] Don't really care what padosis think or say. The fact that period (beginning to end 90s) had the most players who were on bookies' payrolls and the fact that match fixing wasn't monitored by ICC made it an easy thing to pull off. How else can you have two "underdogs" win back to back world cups? In Pakistan's case they were blown away by Eng for 74 and immediately after the WC they toured Eng and were again thrashed 4-1. So questions have to be asked what happened in the final. Did they suddenly "peak" for that game? Or maybe there were oother factors responsible for that peak :winky:

[Stuge]

no .Every match is FIXED .. Matchfixing aur world cup icc/bookie ke hath main hai jahapana, jise na aap badalsakte hai na mein. cricketers to rangmanch ki katputlia hai, jiski door kab koi bookie kab keech lee nahin pata . end of dicussion :P

[ganeshran]

Dont you know.. only the games that India wins are fixed. :hitler: :hitler: Pakistan and Sri lankan players only fix when threatened by bookies or under political pressure Appuhami :shout:

[THX_1138]

can someone shed some more light on this: why did martin crowe sit out the 1992 semifinal, and didnt new zealand still manage a good score? say 250 plus which if i recall correctly was considered particularly challenging back then.

[Asim]

LOL. The padosis will argue that WC 1992 was not fixed. Instead, they will say that WC 2011 was fixed. :haha:

Not really, infact each world cup except of 2011 was fixed :--D

[jashan83]

Some idiots have made us doubt each and everything. If 92 was fixed same logic goes for 83. Even India lost a series badly to WI after the world cup like Pak lost to Eng. Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Ranatunga are some of the very dynamic personalities in cricket. They lead by example and performed during those tournament. You cannot fix and perform. I hope if fixing is there, it should come out once for all. This little simmering really hurts the game and make us doubt each and everything

[Sachinism]

Well I go by logic. In 2011 India were the hot favorites along with SA to win and bookies were favoring Ind/SA to go all the wayand Ind/SA win would have lost bookies lots of money. In which scenario do the bookies make more money? The answer is when "underdogs" win the game/tourney "upsetting" the favorite. So going by that theory bookies had more to gain from Pak and SL win in 92 and 96 than India's win in 2011. Pakis were not "cornered tigers", they were "bookies' tigers" and that's why they won. Unfortunately ICC hasn't done anything to investigate and has swept the whole sordid saga under the carpet.

Maybe India only decided to do some spot fixing Netherlands and Ireland games were strange

[Sidhoni]

Maybe India only decided to do some spot fixing Netherlands and Ireland games were strange

b4 the semifinal clash, a news channel showed clips of a bookie sitting in the dressing room.! :omg:

[Ultimate_Game]

Some idiots have made us doubt each and everything. If 92 was fixed same logic goes for 83. Even India lost a series badly to WI after the world cup like Pak lost to Eng. Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Ranatunga are some of the very dynamic personalities in cricket. They lead by example and performed during those tournament. You cannot fix and perform. I hope if fixing is there, it should come out once for all. This little simmering really hurts the game and make us doubt each and everything

I don't have too many doubts about 1983. Just before the world cup India beat WI in WI in a odi (IIRC the last odi game India played before the world cup) and beat WI in a group game as well as the final. Thus India beat WI in 3 games out of 4 (India lost 1 group game to WI). Thus the final win wasn't out of the blue and definitely nowhere close to 1992 where Pakistan pulled a rabbit out of the hat.

[Mamu]

I will play the Devils Advocate and support Pakistan in 1992. Nope, I am still the same person, haven't changed one bit :cantstop: For people who followed that WC -- you will know that Pakistan went into the Play Offs -- just because of rain. Had it not rained during their last league encounter -- they were out of the tourney, in which they were down and out. Now you cannot state that bookies predicted rain - do you?

[Ultimate_Game]

I will play the Devils Advocate and support Pakistan in 1992. Nope, I am still the same person, haven't changed one bit :cantstop: For people who followed that WC -- you will know that Pakistan went into the Play Offs -- just because of rain. Had it not rained during their last league encounter -- they were out of the tourney, in which they were down and out. Now you cannot state that bookies predicted rain - do you?

I am particularly referring to the last league game against NZ. You should see the game or catch highlights. Kiwis were least bothered about losing that game - they in fact wanted to let Pakistan win the match! And in semis Martin Crowe sitting out the whole 2nd innings when he probably could have maybe fielded somewhere in the circle. Pakis winning the tourney was probably one of the biggest upsets and guess who made the most out of it? Bookies. That was the time when all the match fixing stars were in the teams just like the 96 tourney and they could get away with anything as the world was not aware of it. I believe Tillekratne when he said fixing was rife in 1992. And even the likes of Rashid Latif & Basit Ali played round about the same time and we all know what they had to say about fixing during their time. Put all these factors together and it was Imran's "Betting Tigers" who won the cup

[Pak_Forever]

I will play the Devils Advocate and support Pakistan in 1992. Nope, I am still the same person, haven't changed one bit :cantstop: For people who followed that WC -- you will know that Pakistan went into the Play Offs -- just because of rain. Had it not rained during their last league encounter -- they were out of the tourney, in which they were down and out. Now you cannot state that bookies predicted rain - do you?

Is that really you Mamu :woot:

[achilles]

Don't know, don't care. Past is past. We are the World Champs today. And we rule the world :isalute: