A strange thing about the ICC World Cup Final

[gani999]

There was a guy on youtube who pointed this out and it is indeed remarkable. Every world cup final so far has featured at least one of the big three - Australia, England or India.

1975 - West Indies vs Australia
1978- West Indies vs England
1983 - West Indies vs India
1987 - England vs Australia
1992 - Pakistan vs England
1996 - Sri Lanka vs Australia
1999 - Pakistan vs Australia
2003 - Australia vs India
2007 - Sri Lanka vs Australia
2011 - Sri Lanka vs India
2015 - New Zealand vs Australia
2019 - New Zealand vs England
And even in this year's edition, India and Australia have made it to the semis. At least one of them is sure to feature in the final.
Coincidence? Conspiracy theories??

Discuss.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

There was only Big 2 till 2003,England and Australia. They called the shots.
So this hypothesis is not valid.

 

[gani999]

There was only Big 2 till 2003,England and Australia. They called the shots.
So this hypothesis is not valid.

Sorry, but India was always one of the big three, in viewership and popularity earlier, and in money now.
In the 1970s and 1980s there wasn't much money in the game, even in England and Australia. There's a reason why those players went for rebel tours to South Africa, or participated in Packer's World Series Cricket. They were paid peanuts, and worked day jobs.

Ever since big money started coming into the game in the 1990s, India has been at the forefront here too.

So it is not a hypothesis, it's a fact.

 

[Major]

Yeh i found this to be interesting aswell. Its not a coincidence. The big three is obviously the countries that spent money on their cricket and fixed their structure. Offcourse they will make it to the finals consisstently

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Sorry, but India was always one of the big three, in viewership and popularity earlier, and in money now.
In the 1970s and 1980s there wasn't much money in the game, even in England and Australia. There's a reason why those players went for rebel tours to South Africa, or participated in Packer's World Series Cricket. They were paid peanuts, and worked day jobs.

Ever since big money started coming into the game in the 1990s, India has been at the forefront here too.

So it is not a hypothesis, it's a fact.

Big 3 is a term meant for power and influence. Only England and Australia had the power till Dalmiya came along and shook things up.

 

[latecut]

India was a cricketing nobody till 1983. Australia and England were the big two till then. West Indies because of their strong team got respected.

1983 win (a fluke win) changed matters dramatically.

 

[gazza619]

Yes it is a conspiracy.

On merit Pakistan and Bangladesh should have been the finalists this year

 

[Bhaijaan]

New Zealand vs Southern Afrikaan could spoil it this year.

 

[hitthestump]

Interesting coincidence but that’s all it is. Big 3 has no relevance to entering finals. India’s team was terrible for ages, so was England’s.

 

[gani999]

New Zealand vs Southern Afrikaan could spoil it this year.

If they do, it will be one less conspiracy theory doing the rounds...

 

[sweep_shot]

Not surprising. Cricket is seriously played by only a handful of countries; Australia and India are two of the top teams historically.

 

[pakistani pride]

India was a cricketing nobody till 1983. Australia and England were the big two till then. West Indies because of their strong team got respected.

1983 win (a fluke win) changed matters dramatically.

How can you fluke a WC win?

 

[latecut]

How can you fluke a WC win?

Final win was a fluke. Scoring 183 and then bowling out West Indies under that total happened by fluke.

Please remember, Pakistan had set a similar target (184) in the semi final for West Indies. West Indies cantered home with ease because Pakistani bowlers could not get past West India batsmen (especially Richards) .

Under normal circumstances, India should have finished runners up, but fortune had something else in store for India. This tournament win galvanised Indians (including Indian businessmen). In four years time, India became a formidable ODI team that began to be counted among favourites of ICC tournaments. In a decade or so, BCCI hit upon a formula to earn money from the popularity of cricket. All these things would not have happened if India had not won that final in an unexpected manner.

 

[gani999]

Interesting how Sri Lanka reached the WC final 3 out of 5 times between 1996 and 2011, and even won it once.

That's purely the Arjuna Ranatunga and Aravinda De Silva effect.

Sad that they haven't continued such a brilliant legacy.

 

[Fanboy375]

How can you fluke a WC win?

Same way Greece can win Euro 2004

 

[Fanboy375]

Final win was a fluke. Scoring 183 and then bowling out West Indies under that total happened by fluke.

Please remember, Pakistan had set a similar target (184) in the semi final for West Indies. West Indies cantered home with ease because Pakistani bowlers could not get past West India batsmen (especially Richards) .

Under normal circumstances, India should have finished runners up, but fortune had something else in store for India. This tournament win galvanised Indians (including Indian businessmen). In four years time, India became a formidable ODI team that began to be counted among favourites of ICC tournaments. In a decade or so, BCCI hit upon a formula to earn money from the popularity of cricket. All these things would not have happened if India had not won that final in an unexpected manner.

Well they performed well in group stage.They overthrow Aus out if the group stage.They won vs Eng in SF