Crookbond Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Didn't watch the match live,but from scorecard it appears that they scored 25 runs in 17 balls after Rhodes got out before rain came :hmmm: Might not have been easy but seemed possible This is exactly what I came in to write. I wouldn't have written SA off and momentum was with them, too.
maniac Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Brian Mcmillian was built like a beast but not known for his power hitting and also he was part of that famous Hero Cup Choke too. But never know.....Yes S.A were unlucky but it was still say 60-40,but yes agree S.A had the edge there.
maniac Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 England had too many tundlers in their line up....S.A would have definetely blown away Pak in the final...also back then they did not have the "C" baggage either.
Marut Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Didn't watch the match live,but from scorecard it appears that they scored 25 runs in 17 balls after Rhodes got out before rain came :hmmm: Might not have been easy but seemed possible They needed 48 to win from the last five (30 balls) at the fall of Rhodes, which was a stiff target in 1992. They got 25 off 17 before the rain, leaving them to get 23 off 13. They weren't even chasing 48 at the required run rate after the fall of Rhodes. One wicket at this point (which was likely to fall) would bring in the tail - Snell, Pringle and Donald. Of these only Snell could hold a bat. SA have proven chokers in every WC since then, there is no reason to think they would not have choked in that 92 chase. Much better SA teams have failed to clear the hurdle. The 1999 SA team sums up how a great team cannot win the WC without taking off its mental hurdles - they needed just 38 from five in this match yet failed in the end with a heap of run outs. 2007 and 2011 were progressively worse.
rkt.india Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Even before the rain rule came into play' date=' SA had lost the match. I watched a lot of cricket in my teens and McMillan/Richardson were never going to pull 23 from 13 balls anyway.[/quote'] yes. Cricket that time was very different than today.
The Outsider Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 This is exactly what I came in to write. I wouldn't have written SA off and momentum was with them' date=' too.[/quote'] Arre yaar, go and watch how McMillan used to play! The typical portrait painted today is of a hefty, burly man looking to hit anything into the crowd. The reality is McMillan was a very limited stroke player and Richardson was the cheeky player in More mould. There's simply no way SA would have won that match.
Harsh Thakor Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 They needed 48 to win from the last five (30 balls) at the fall of Rhodes, which was a stiff target in 1992. They got 25 off 17 before the rain, leaving them to get 23 off 13. They weren't even chasing 48 at the required run rate after the fall of Rhodes. One wicket at this point (which was likely to fall) would bring in the tail - Snell, Pringle and Donald. Of these only Snell could hold a bat. SA have proven chokers in every WC since then, there is no reason to think they would not have choked in that 92 chase. Much better SA teams have failed to clear the hurdle. The 1999 SA team sums up how a great team cannot win the WC without taking off its mental hurdles - they needed just 38 from five in this match yet failed in the end with a heap of run outs. 2007 and 2011 were progressively worse. Personally,I give England the marginal edge to have won but still applaud South Africa for such gallant effort.
Harsh Thakor Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 England had too many tundlers in their line up....S.A would have definetely blown away Pak in the final...also back then they did not have the "C" baggage either. I don;t agree.Pakistan had more match-winners and better big match temperament or experience for the final.Remember South Africa's habit of choking in big games.
Harsh Thakor Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 OP definitely weird definition of unlucky. How in world Pakistan in 1975 was unlucky, Australia/ West indies were in same group and they were miles ahead of Pakistan in every facet. I would say 1987 Pakistan team the best team in that cup and were unlucky not win that cup. IMO 1992 NZ and 1996 SA would be most unlucky teams. In 1992 NZ essentially had locked up everything and had to nothing to play for in their last group match which they lost. and in the semis Crowe's injury and not being on the field as a captain was major difference. In 1996 SA had won every group match only to face a legend Lara on his good day. 1999 SA I would not call them most unlucky, yes they deserved to win their semis but they lost twice in that cup leading to semis including to Zimbabwe. Pakistan all but conquered the eventual champion's West Indies at one stage having the game all but won.Against Australia they looked like coasting home at one stage chasing target of 279.Man to man Pakistan was arguably the strongest side with the best batting line -up.
Harsh Thakor Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 South Africa never had a bad team actually' date=' but their choking always costed them big.[/quote'] No team ever so unlucky not to win world cup as South Africa who just lack the crucial match-wining killer instinct.A psychological factor more than anything.Pakistan had that very attribute in 1992.
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