Every international team fixed matches in 1990s: Condon

[Trundler27]

kambli :facepalm: ... what an attention seeker this fella is. I'm pretty sure that regardless of whether the match was fixed or not, SL would have beaten us on that day..... They were surreal during that tourney and deserved to win the cup which they did.

[Yoda-esque]

Kambli :facepalm: I recollect that before the WC started, one of the Eden Gardens floodlights had fallen down and damaged the pitch,which is why it was relaid and hence crumbled quickly. That match was not fixed.You could see a guy of Tendlya's class struggling (by his own standards) on that pitch.Our team was a terrible one at the time and everything almost always depended on him.The loss to the Aussies was proof of that.The only soft dismissal was that of Azhar who lobbed a simple catch to Kumar Dharmasena of all people. Definitely no fixing.

[phaedrus]

the pitch was really bad in the second innings, no two ways about it. just goes on to show the class of tendulkar.

[punjabi_khota]

Kambli sounds like a kunt of highest order. Crying about casteism, crying in the SF, crying ABOUT the SF, crying about being dropped. ********* you got such a hot wife go **** her don't whine like a ***** every few months.

[Sid]

Has anyone here seen Kambli in his new role as a cricket expert in Star News.? He talks a lot of nonsense and is a joker who shouldnt be taken seriously. And regarding this match,wish we had Inzi instead of Sach,the former would have finished the game :hahaha:

[StatsRock]

You've done well to dig out some data but I wouldnt agree with all of it.

Well, a lot of incidents which went "unnoticed" due to the controversy surrounding the crowd anger, now look suspicious: 1. It was a D/N match. Eden started hosting D/L matches since Hero Cup, and India had played 3 D/Ns there, (including the famous Sachin 3-run over one), winning all the 3 batting first. Spinners had run riot in the second innings in all these matches as well.

True but you're looking at data from the past. The evidence of the previous month was too overpowering. vs Zim: SL 176 in 26 vs Ind: Reached 272-4 from 141-4 : Sri 0-51(9.4),Venky 1-53(10),MP 0-47(4),Ankola 0-28(5),AK 2-39(10) Look at that, SL had great batting depth. India's bowling in that game sucked vs Ken: almost 400 off 50 ovs vs Eng: 113-1 in 13 ovs Seriously, did you expect India's piss poor bowling to overcome SL batting in the backdrop of the above stats? I didnt.

2. We definitely expected the pitch to spin. We even opened with Kumble bowling first!

I am not sure if Kumble was given the new ball due to the turn or because the fasties were going to bleed runs. The decision to field was a team one. It was mentioned that only Sidhu wanted to bat first, rest wanted to field.

5. Now coming to the batting' date=' we were certainly going well at 98-1 when we lost Tendulkar (in the 23rd over). In a jiffy we lost Azhar and Manju, and were certainly struggling at 104-4 (26.2 overs). We had reasonable amount of overs left and it called for a bit of consolidation and get a partnership going. We certainly had players capable of doing that in Kambli, Jadeja and Mongia. But who comes in at 4 down? It is Javagal Srinath!! Who till that match had a bounty of 19 runs from 2 innings with a HS of 12*!!! [/quote'] I will add that the effect of scoreboard pressure in a WC semifinal chase is immense. Kind of like the 1987 WC semis where our scoring rate was great but we still screwed up. A match earlier, Warne had been sent in by Aus to hit up 24(14) and relieve the pressure. It's possible India expected Sri to do the same and cut the target down by 25.

[Precambrian]

You've done well to dig out some data but I wouldnt agree with all of it. True but you're looking at data from the past. The evidence of the previous month was too overpowering. vs Zim: SL 176 in 26 vs Ind: Reached 272-4 from 141-4 : Sri 0-51(9.4),Venky 1-53(10),MP 0-47(4),Ankola 0-28(5),AK 2-39(10) Look at that, SL had great batting depth. India's bowling in that game sucked vs Ken: almost 400 off 50 ovs vs Eng: 113-1 in 13 ovs Seriously, did you expect India's piss poor bowling to overcome SL batting in the backdrop of the above stats? I didnt.

Fair point, except that 1. India's bowling wasn't actually piss-poor. We had Srinath & Kumble, and the supporting crew of Venky Prasad, Kapoor while not spectacular weren't dire piss-poor either. 2. Even if for the sake of argument, we assume that India's bowling was indeed piss-poor, and that SL would've overhauled any total that we set, how's that going to change even if we batted second? You quote the example of the 400 made against Kenya, that was made batting first isn't it? Traditionally almost all world record totals have been created batting first. I cannot comprehend the logic that we decided to bat second just because Lankan batting was good enough to chase down 270 we made in an earlier ODI. If they could make 270 chasing at a canter, they might as well be expected to make 300+ in similar conditions batting first isn't it? 3. You are basically contradicting your stance with the below claim :

I will add that the effect of scoreboard pressure in a WC semifinal chase is immense. Kind of like the 1987 WC semis where our scoring rate was great but we still screwed up. A match earlier, Warne had been sent in by Aus to hit up 24(14) and relieve the pressure. It's possible India expected Sri to do the same and cut the target down by 25.

If you believe that the scoreboard pressure in a WC semi is immense, why then take it up in the first place? And if shane warne made 24(14) and we decided to emulate him, why ask Srinath to do it when we had Jadeja who had smoked 49 off 25 balls just in the previous match? 4. Another cardinal mistake is comparing the Delhi ODI with the Kolkota one with no regard for the change in conditions and team structure. Particularly the conditions. the Delhi one was a day match... whereas Kolkota was a D/L. Now in Delhi, we were inserted by Sri Lanka to bat because it was early March, and early morning dampness is a factor hampering batting. See what the cricinfo report has to say :

They began batting in light mist' date=' after play was delayed 15 minutes by dew on the outfield, and took 25 overs to score 100.....the final 11 overs brought 105, thanks to Tendulkar. His run-a-ball 137, with five sixes and eight fours, [/quote'] So there is little incentive to pick batting on winning the toss in Delhi due to obvious reasons. Batting got easy as time progressed as demonstrated by the carnage by Tendlya and Azhar. Also do not forget that not every bowler in our side was mauled by Jaya & Co. The primary culprit was Prabhakar who conceded 47 off his 4 overs. Tendulkar and Kumble almost threatened to turn the tables regardless, and in the end SL won with 10 balls to spare. Now the conditions at Kolkota were chalk to Delhi's cheese. It was a turner of a pitch expected to only get worse as the day progressed. Also it was a D/N game. Past records at Kolkota clearly indicated a heavy advantage in favor of teams batting first in D/N games, as the team batting first plays in a sun-burnt afternoon pitch devoid of any moisture and other issues and get a fresher pitch. eg - Take the case of the Durban pitch when it comes to D/N. Regardless of what happened in the previous match, if it's a DN in Durban, the team winning the toss invariably bats first. There is a consistency in past record for a reason. Srinath scalped Jaya and Kalu in the first over. Assuming that it was a preplanned move, it just demonstrates that the pitch was perceived to be assisting spinners from word "go". :) Yes, and when it's turning square, I'd expect my batsmen to stand up than send in a bowler to tonk sixes.

[daryl1985]

That is enlightening

Sorry mate, i meant they sent in Srinath so early. That is fairly suspicious .

[panther]

of course it was fixed

[Jersey #10]

Tendulkar's innings in that match :hail:.. He struck bad luck to get out though

[Jersey #10]

TBH, the only reason we actually made the semifinals was due to Sachin and Kumble but mainly Sachin. He scored some 523 runs in 5 games and was the highest run scorer.

[mastana]

It took him 15 years to realise this? Salla ullu da patha, kanjar, itne saal kahan marwa raha tha apni. :finger:

[StatsRock]

I must say it's been a while since I had a discussion like this, thanks :two_thumbs_up: Isnt it fun to put things together to understand why something happened?

Fair point, except that 1. India's bowling wasn't actually piss-poor. We had Srinath & Kumble, and the supporting crew of Venky Prasad, Kapoor while not spectacular weren't dire piss-poor either.

Okay. But no bowling had been even remotely decent against Sri Lanka till the seminfinal :)

2. Even if for the sake of argument, we assume that India's bowling was indeed piss-poor, and that SL would've overhauled any total that we set, how's that going to change even if we batted second? You quote the example of the 400 made against Kenya, that was made batting first isn't it? Traditionally almost all world record totals have been created batting first. I cannot comprehend the logic that we decided to bat second just because Lankan batting was good enough to chase down 270 we made in an earlier ODI. If they could make 270 chasing at a canter, they might as well be expected to make 300+ in similar conditions batting first isn't it?

The difference is here is that Situation 1 is a reality, Situation 2 is a possibility. India were keen to try situation 2. It's the same as going to a different doctor for a 2nd opinion when there's every likelihood he will say what the first doctor said. But most of us would like to take another opinion, wouldnt we? There are some decisions taken purely out of fear. Such as WC2003 final, when we put Australia in thinking McGillespichel will wipe out our batting in the first hour of play. Same thing at the Oval 1999 vs Aus when we were fooled by the cloud cover and insert Australia to bat. I'm pretty sure India were banking on Tendu(458 runs before this game) steering them to victory like he did in Asia Cup 1995, or atleast staying there with about 50 left to win. Secondly, when you have a lineup thats proven to be a good chaser, there's a likelihood of them throwing their wickets out of overconfidence when batting first. Thirdly, I'm pretty sure India overestimated their ability against spin. I cant remember the last time before Mar 96 when they crumbled to spin chasing(Sharjah Nov 85 vs Pak?).

If you believe that the scoreboard pressure in a WC semi is immense, why then take it up in the first place? And if shane warne made 24(14) and we decided to emulate him, why ask Srinath to do it when we had Jadeja who had smoked 49 off 25 balls just in the previous match?

Because we had nothing to lose in Sri getting out whereas Jadeja was the last recognized bat. Same reason why you'd sent a nightwatchman.

Srinath scalped Jaya and Kalu in the first over. Assuming that it was a preplanned move, it just demonstrates that the pitch was perceived to be assisting spinners from word "go". :)

Of course India would have been aware of Eden's history of aiding spin. Still I am not sure how many of the players had the premonition that a Jayasuriya would take them to the cleaners. I tried to look up references as to what was the Indian thought process before/during the game. Here are a few links: 1. Azhar remarked before the game he wanted to bat first http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/8a4bda1770f3043b/ 2. Atleast one guy wrote before the game we need to bat second http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/284f7fe00a9be5d5/07277070ab36e25d Obviously, fear of the Lankan batting was the key factor behind the decision. It is nice to trust your abilities to do the job but usually when you face a formidable opponent, your foremost thought would be to try not to give him a chance to take out his strongest weapons.

[Ultimate_Game]

That game was a mystery especially for two main reasons... 1. India's decision to bat first - The opening ceremony for the tourney held at Eden Gardens had damaged the pitch and the pitch had to be relaid, and it's an open secret that a relaid pitch which most probably won't last is more conducive to batting first. Also, the track record at the stadium indicated that it's better to bat first, and if you add the track record of high pressure games, India should have batted first. It wasn't as if in 90s India's strength was chasing. That time India's formula to win the games was to bat first and put up a big score (mostly courtesy Tendulkar) and defend the same on the back of Srinath & Kumble. 2. Kumble bowling during the power-play overs - Indian gameplan may have been to unleash Kumble early to restrict explosive SL openers but with both openers out in the opening over of the match, India should have saved Kumble for the middle overs to do the damage on a turning track with the old ball. With Kumble bowling in the power-play overs with the new ball SL had no pressure in the middle overs as other bowlers were milked for easy runs. I wouldn't read too much into the Indian batting collapse after Tendulkar got out as that was a regular occurrence throughout the 90s.

[Utalk]

That Tendulkar knock is up there with the best ODI innings for me. His driving on the up was a joy to watch. Not many 23 year olds with that sort of stroke play are seen on a cricket pitch.

[Precambrian]

TBH, the only reason we actually made the semifinals was due to Sachin and Kumble but mainly Sachin. He scored some 523 runs in 5 games and was the highest run scorer.

Yes! Sachin accounted for an astonishing 34% of the total runs India scored in that World Cup. He scored his runs @ an avg of 87, while the rest combined averaged just 28

[rkt.india]

I was 12 year old at that time and I still remember every dismissal of Indian innings and it was really shocking that Azhar chose to field on a track which was supposed to take square turn by the time 2nd team bats and it was very obvious everywhere that any team wins the toss will bat first. I always had that feeling that there was something wrong in that game in the team.

[maniac]

Actually if you look at it under a microscope the WI- Aus SF game kinda looks Shady too...WI cruising at one point to suddenly lose the game.

[vamos_rafa]

Actually if you look at it under a microscope the WI- Aus SF game kinda looks Shady too...WI cruising at one point to suddenly lose the game.

Yaar aise to jitne bhi close mathches hue hai, al would seme shady now. Why did Gibbs drop Steve Waugh? Why did Lance Klusener attempt that single? Sports is about handling nerves, the team/person who does it, wins. Lets no dilute the essence of sports by doubting every memorable event.

[maniac]

That game was a mystery especially for two main reasons... 1. India's decision to bat first - The opening ceremony for the tourney held at Eden Gardens had damaged the pitch and the pitch had to be relaid, and it's an open secret that a relaid pitch which most probably won't last is more conducive to batting first. Also, the track record at the stadium indicated that it's better to bat first, and if you add the track record of high pressure games, India should have batted first. It wasn't as if in 90s India's strength was chasing. That time India's formula to win the games was to bat first and put up a big score (mostly courtesy Tendulkar) and defend the same on the back of Srinath & Kumble. 2. Kumble bowling during the power-play overs - Indian gameplan may have been to unleash Kumble early to restrict explosive SL openers but with both openers out in the opening over of the match, India should have saved Kumble for the middle overs to do the damage on a turning track with the old ball. With Kumble bowling in the power-play overs with the new ball SL had no pressure in the middle overs as other bowlers were milked for easy runs. I wouldn't read too much into the Indian batting collapse after Tendulkar got out as that was a regular occurrence throughout the 90s.

Good points and also the fact that through out the 90's we were very bad with chasing totals in general....