sourab10forever Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 When MS Dhoni hit the six towards long-on to win the 2011 World Cup, it was the first time in cricket's history that the winning side was playing in front of its home crowd. I was reminded of this fact during the recently concluded football version of the same event, where home nations have won six out of 19 tournaments. Home advantage is a well-discussed and dissected facet of sport, and it holds true in almost all kinds of sports. The presence of supporters, of a familiar place and climate, of pressure on referees, are some reasons why home advantage works so well. In cricket, where external conditions like the weather and the pitch make so much of a difference, there is generally a tendency for home sides to win matches. So why have cricket's World Cups not yielded more winners at home?
Ram Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Australia would have won in 99, 2003 and 2007 even if the world cups were played in Mars. They were that good and the rest of the teams that sh!t. I wouldnt be terribly surprised if they are favorites for the 2015 edition also. Sri Lanka was one of the co-hosts of the 96 world cup.
BlueBee Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Maybe because cricket is not predictable. It can change with a good spell of bowling and a few hits to the fence. For example The match at Lord's, Ishant changed it with a hostile bowling spell.
RedFever Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Australia would have won in 99, 2003 and 2007 even if the world cups were played in Mars. They were that good and the rest of the teams that sh!t. I wouldnt be terribly surprised if they are favorites for the 2015 edition also. Sri Lanka was one of the co-hosts of the 96 world cup. 99 was a tossup between Australia and South Africa. 2003 and 2007, Aus were miles ahead of the rest.
mancalledsting Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 99 was a tossup between Australia and South Africa. 2003 and 2007, Aus were miles ahead of the rest. Pakistan were also amazing that tournament, Waqar couldn't even make the playing Xi
Austin 3:!6 Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Australia would have won in 99, 2003 and 2007 even if the world cups were played in Mars. They were that good and the rest of the teams that sh!t. I wouldnt be terribly surprised if they are favorites for the 2015 edition also. Sri Lanka was one of the co-hosts of the 96 world cup. India 2003 team was anything but sh!t.
maniac Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 99 was a tossup between Australia and South Africa. 2003 and 2007, Aus were miles ahead of the rest. Aus were not the favs in 99....it was s.a followed by pak.
Ram Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 India 2003 team was anything but sh!t. You are judging us by our performance against non-Aussie opponents. We played Aus twice in 2003 and both times they walloped us. If the final was a best of 5, they'd have beaten us 3-0. We were absolutely petrified of them back then and had ZERO chance against them.
Ram Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 99 was a tossup between Australia and South Africa. 2003 and 2007, Aus were miles ahead of the rest. Fair enough - Aus was not yet a domineering ODI force. They did pretty close to elimination several times in that edition. But my point is this - If the 2003/2007 WCs were played in Aus, they'd have likely won them. They are heavy favs in my opinion to win the 2015 edition also.
Muloghonto Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Australia would have won in 99, 2003 and 2007 even if the world cups were played in Mars. They were that good and the rest of the teams that sh!t. I wouldnt be terribly surprised if they are favorites for the 2015 edition also. Sri Lanka was one of the co-hosts of the 96 world cup. I disagree. The standout ODI team of the mid 90s to early 2000s was South Africa. Yes, they choked a lot but if we are talking about a side that just wins against almost anyone anywhere consistently over many many matches, that South Africa team was more dominant than the Aussie team- somehow just managed to crap the bed in those occasions. But otherwise i agree- pitches did not matter for these two teams back then.
rkt.india Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Australia would have won in 99, 2003 and 2007 even if the world cups were played in Mars. They were that good and the rest of the teams that sh!t. I wouldnt be terribly surprised if they are favorites for the 2015 edition also. Sri Lanka was one of the co-hosts of the 96 world cup. Australia were not that good in 1999. SA were the best team then in ODIs.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now