How did India manage to win the 1983 World Cup?

[Major]

I recently rewatched ranveer singhs film, 1983, the movie is on netflix and its about the 1983 world cup. It is the best cricket movie ever made till date with the bowling actions, batting strokes and the story telling.

However, one major thing the movie missed was how India won the world cup, as the movie was more focused on Kapils lack of English speaking skills, and making British the villians. The movie never talked about the thought process behind the selection of players, the strategies they were focusing on, and what really united and motivated the team.

When you dig deeper in the 1983 score world cup cards, you notice that it is a true under dog story, as not a single person from the India side avged 40 with the bat. All the indian batters were avging near 30 with strike rates below 70, while Kapil was the only player who had a strike rate near the 90s at that time with the same batting avg. Gavaskar i think was avging 35 but he sucked during the whole world cup, and he was their main batsman.

The score cards suggest that it was Yashpal Sharma that held the batting line up from the top, along with Mohinder Amarnath, and Kapil Sharma from the lower end.
While the bowling attack was way worse, as Kapil was the only proper pacer the team had. Roger binny and mohinder amarnath seemed to bowl millitary medium pace.

Interestingly, Amarnath would be the guy who would win the semi finals and finals.

But when you look at these makeshift players playing against the West Indies, Australia and England, it is a marvelous to defeat these sides. They defeated West Indies twice, Australia and England once, along with a win against Zimbabwe.

So how did they pull it off? The movie didnt show this, but what was the uniting factor, what was the strategy they adopted?

My guess is, Indias medium and slow paced bowlers ended up getting better grip on the English wickets which are known to assist medium pacers.

Also, how did India defended the world cup final score of 180 aswell? Becuase pakistan made a same score against West Indies in the semi, and Viv smashed them around? How did the Indies collapse to Indias bowler? Especially that Singh guy who was avging near 50s with the ball?

 

[sweep_shot]

It was a fluke.

West Indies were the overwhelming favorites.

 

[charlie007]

Team effort - different players stepped up in different games. Good all rounders that actually performed. Fielding was top notch. Bowling while not quick, was accurate with the bowlers realizing their limitations and leveraging seam and swing to their advantage. Kapil Dev’s 175 not out really lifted the whole team up when it seemed a lost cause at 17/5 against Zimbabwe. Plus the tag of underdogs meant they really had nothing to lose. Beating West Indies once in the league phase helped their belief that WI were not unbeatable; I’d think that would have helped them in the Finals too.

 

[NishanKonar]

Green seaming pitches - ideal for 120 kph bowlers. India had full battery of such bowlers - Madan Lal , Mohinder Amarnath , Roger Binny , Balwinder Sandhu. Notice how much swing and seam movement Indian bowlers wer getting compared to the West Indies bowlers in the final

Also batting depth - India batted till No 9

Anchor batters - Mohinder Amarnath was in the form of his life , scored 2 test tons in the West Indies few months

 

[NishanKonar]

I recently rewatched ranveer singhs film, 1983, the movie is on netflix and its about the 1983 world cup. It is the best cricket movie ever made till date with the bowling actions, batting strokes and the story telling.

However, one major thing the movie missed was how India won the world cup, as the movie was more focused on Kapils lack of English speaking skills, and making British the villians. The movie never talked about the thought process behind the selection of players, the strategies they were focusing on, and what really united and motivated the team.

When you dig deeper in the 1983 score world cup cards, you notice that it is a true under dog story, as not a single person from the India side avged 40 with the bat. All the indian batters were avging near 30 with strike rates below 70, while Kapil was the only player who had a strike rate near the 90s at that time with the same batting avg. Gavaskar i think was avging 35 but he sucked during the whole world cup, and he was their main batsman.

The score cards suggest that it was Yashpal Sharma that held the batting line up from the top, along with Mohinder Amarnath, and Kapil Sharma from the lower end.
While the bowling attack was way worse, as Kapil was the only proper pacer the team had. Roger binny and mohinder amarnath seemed to bowl millitary medium pace.

Interestingly, Amarnath would be the guy who would win the semi finals and finals.

But when you look at these makeshift players playing against the West Indies, Australia and England, it is a marvelous to defeat these sides. They defeated West Indies twice, Australia and England once, along with a win against Zimbabwe.

So how did they pull it off? The movie didnt show this, but what was the uniting factor, what was the strategy they adopted?

My guess is, Indias medium and slow paced bowlers ended up getting better grip on the English wickets which are known to assist medium pacers.

Also, how did India defended the world cup final score of 180 aswell? Becuase pakistan made a same score against West Indies in the semi, and Viv smashed them around? How did the Indies collapse to Indias bowler? Especially that Singh guy who was avging near 50s with the ball?

Roger Binny was a Mohammad Abbas like bowler. Unplayable on green seaming pitches

Took 18 wickets in that WC ( highest )

 

[Van_Sri]

In April 25th 1982 color TV was introduced in India so ICC thought to increase popularity of Cricket in Asia they helped India to win the World Cup.

 

[charlie007]

It was a fluke.

West Indies were the overwhelming favorites.

It wasn’t a fluke, just the beginning of India becoming a major player in World Cricket. Two years later in 1985 they won the Benson & Hedges World Championship of Cricket in Australia.

 

[Major]

Team effort - different players stepped up in different games. Good all rounders that actually performed. Fielding was top notch. Bowling while not quick, was accurate with the bowlers realizing their limitations and leveraging seam and swing to their advantage. Kapil Dev’s 175 not out really lifted the whole team up when it seemed a lost cause at 17/5 against Zimbabwe. Plus the tag of underdogs meant they really had nothing to lose. Beating West Indies once in the league phase helped their belief that WI were not unbeatable; I’d think that would have helped them in the Finals too.

Sorry but your posts doesnt really answer anything. Too generic buddy.

Like many people didnt watch that world cup around here, so how can you say their fielding was top notch? Like is this based upon articles or you have seen that world cup?

 

[Major]

It was a fluke.

West Indies were the overwhelming favorites.

It was a fluke yes, but so was the 87 world cup, and the sri lanka world cup aswell and also 1992, but fluke is better than anything

 

[charlie007]

Sorry but your posts doesnt really answer anything. Too generic buddy.

Like many people didnt watch that world cup around here, so how can you say their fielding was top notch? Like is this based upon articles or you have seen that world cup?

I watched it live. They caught really well, especially pressure catching. Their slip catching was flawless too and so was Syed Kirmani behind the wickets.

 

[Major]

Green seaming pitches - ideal for 120 kph bowlers. India had full battery of such bowlers - Madan Lal , Mohinder Amarnath , Roger Binny , Balwinder Sandhu. Notice how much swing and seam movement Indian bowlers wer getting compared to the West Indies bowlers in the final

Also batting depth - India batted till No 9

Anchor batters - Mohinder Amarnath was in the form of his life , scored 2 test tons in the West Indies few months

Interesting. This was actually my theory aswell.

Its a shame that 83 film is focussed on other things rather than the cricket tactics.

Because eveb thought kapil dev was the main bowler, but it was that balwinder guy, amarnath and binny dominating, while they all lacked the pace.

But what further united these guys?

 

[Major]

I watched it live. They caught really well, especially pressure catching. Their slip catching was flawless too and so was Syed Kirmani behind the wickets.

I believe the difference between the semi final against pakistan and final against india for the west indies was the viv richards catch.

Kapil took a really difficult catch, had that ball flew over just inches, Viv would had won the game. Viv was the reason why they dominated the semis.

 

[charlie007]

Belief - that league game win versus the West Indies was huge.

 

[NishanKonar]

Interesting. This was actually my theory aswell.

Its a shame that 83 film is focussed on other things rather than the cricket tactics.

Because eveb thought kapil dev was the main bowler, but it was that balwinder guy, amarnath and binny dominating, while they all lacked the pace.

But what further united these guys?

Kapil was actually very mediocre in England. His best bowling came in Australia ( just like most Indian bowlers )

It was Roger Binny , Madan Lal & Mohinder Amarnath who did max damage

I think an underrated aspect was Kapil as captain. He was very aggressive by nature - like Kohli , unlike the traditional defensive minded Indian captains of his era. Kapil had a bit of that Ganguly / Kohli like daredevil approach & pretty sure he said a lot of inspiring stuff in the dressing room

 

[jnaveen1980]

First team to show the value of all rounders. Just remember India missed one of their main batsman most of the world cup. Vengsarkar. Besides INdia had beaten West indies 2 out the previous 3 matches. One in West Indies and one in league stage in the 1983 world cup. Not like it was a one-off case. India's tailenders were capable bats. So they added valuable runs at the death.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

It was a pretty fast scoring lineup for the time.

World Cup winners are usually fast scoring teams.

That's the biggest predictor for an ODI championship side.

Earlier that year, Kapil had stunned the Windies attack with an assault of 72(38) at a strike rate of 189 which was one of the most brutal knocks ever seen and beaten Windies at Albion when India toured the Caribbean .

It's the same way SL "upset" teams in '96 with a really aggressive batting lineup.

 

[Major]

It wasn’t a fluke, just the beginning of India becoming a major player in World Cricket. Two years later in 1985 they won the Benson & Hedges World Championship of Cricket in Australia.

But than again same question for that tournament. How so?

Compared to all other opponents they were not a strong side. Like Shastri had crap figures for a spinner. The bowling attack revolved around Kapil and batting wise, not a single guy was good enough as Gavaskar was crap in one day.

Still how they went on defeating big teams even in the championship of cricket that made shastri a legend

 

[Major]

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

It was a pretty fast scoring lineup for the time.

World Cup winners are usually fast scoring teams.

That's the biggest predictor for an ODI championship side.

Earlier that year, Kapil had stunned the Windies attack with an assault of 72(38) at a strike rate of 189 which was one of the most brutal knocks ever seen and beaten Windies at Albion when India toured the Caribbean .

It's the same way SL "upset" teams in '96 with a really aggressive batting lineup.

India won the world cup on the back of their bowlers not batters.

How can you say those were fast scoring when it was a 60 over world cup.

The batting was makeshift that tried to get runs on board. It was their bowling take took things away

 

[NishanKonar]

But than again same question for that tournament. How so?

Compared to all other opponents they were not a strong side. Like Shastri had crap figures for a spinner. The bowling attack revolved around Kapil and batting wise, not a single guy was good enough as Gavaskar was crap in one day.

Still how they went on defeating big teams even in the championship of cricket that made shastri a legend

U are judging them based on modern era stats

In the 80s , strike rate of 70 was aggresive batting. Bowlers wer judged more on maidens bowled than wickets in that era. Takinh 4 singles in an over was attacking cricket

India cracked the code. Filled the team with economical bowlers and allrounders. Batted deep , bowlers reduced scoring rates with maiden overs not wickets

 

[Major]

Kapil was actually very mediocre in England. His best bowling came in Australia ( just like most Indian bowlers )

It was Roger Binny , Madan Lal & Mohinder Amarnath who did max damage

I think an underrated aspect was Kapil as captain. He was very aggressive by nature - like Kohli , unlike the traditional defensive minded Indian captains of his era. Kapil had a bit of that Ganguly / Kohli like daredevil approach & pretty sure he said a lot of inspiring stuff in the dressing room

Amarnath's all-rounder capabilities were incredible when you look at it. Him showing up during the two important games was a main factor.

Gulwinder Singh didnt look to be a great bowler, but he picked up the crucial wickets with his swing.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

India won the world cup on the back of their bowlers not batters.

How can you say those were fast scoring when it was a 60 over world cup.

The batting was makeshift that tried to get runs on board. It was their bowling take took things away

That was the other part of the equation. They could score relatively quicker on flat tracks and on helpful tracks, the medium pacers were just as effective as any pace attack.

Even Pakistan won in 92 when they were pretty much the fastest scoring team for the previous 2 years. There's a very strong correlation between scoring rates and ODI CWC winners. "Hitting Against the Spin" talks about this

 

[NishanKonar]

ODI cricket changed competely after 1996 WC. It was very different sport before that

So its difficult to judge 80s teams based on current day mindset

Just like T20 cricket changed in theast 5 years. Anchor batters wer a respected role in T20 teams 5 years back but now they are seen as liability

 

[sweep_shot]

It was a fluke yes, but so was the 87 world cup, and the sri lanka world cup aswell and also 1992, but fluke is better than anything

I think 1983 was a bigger fluke. LOL.

West Indies in early-1980's were the undisputed #1 team. They won the 1975 and 1979 WCs too.

 

[Major]

U are judging them based on modern era stats

In the 80s , strike rate of 70 was aggresive batting. Bowlers wer judged more on maidens bowled than wickets in that era. Takinh 4 singles in an over was attacking cricket

India cracked the code. Filled the team with economical bowlers and allrounders. Batted deep , bowlers reduced scoring rates with maiden overs not wickets

My point is, to me, india never really won on the basis of their batting, but mostly on the basis of their bowling.

Plus it was a 60 over world cup, which made bowling more difficult and batting more easy.

My understanding is that someone like srikanth didnt play defnece but left the ball, and only made contact with it through shots, which is why the aggressive tag was given to him

 

[NishanKonar]

Amarnath's all-rounder capabilities were incredible when you look at it. Him showing up during the two important games was a main factor.

Gulwinder Singh didnt look to be a great bowler, but he picked up the crucial wickets with his swing.

Amarnath had an incredibel peak during a 18 month period in 1982-83. Scored 3 test tons against Pakistan , then 2 against West Indies , then MVP performance in 1983 WC

After that he was back to his usual mediocrity

 

[charlie007]

But than again same question for that tournament. How so?

Compared to all other opponents they were not a strong side. Like Shastri had crap figures for a spinner. The bowling attack revolved around Kapil and batting wise, not a single guy was good enough as Gavaskar was crap in one day.

Still how they went on defeating big teams even in the championship of cricket that made shastri a legend

Great consistency in batting and disciplined bowling. If you look at the matches and the scores, all wins by India were very comfortable. Shastri and Srikkanth provided very good starts in many games. Again, plenty of good all rounders so there was coverage in both batting and bowling.
Remember, in those days 200 was considered a decent score, 250 was a match winning score on most days. A “team” performance will beat individual brilliance on most days, it especially did in those days.

 

[Major]

I think 1983 was a bigger fluke. LOL.

West Indies in early-1980's were the undisputed #1 team. They won the 1975 and 1979 WCs too.

Bro, so was 87, 1992 and 1996.

But still what india managed was a big achievement. But sadly there isnt must details around here on the factors that led to it.

Like 1992 we known about how Imrans leadership and the bowling magnificent pulled it.

But i would like some proper indian anecdotes on the 1983. The film is great, but it missed out on crucial things

 

[NishanKonar]

My point is, to me, india never really won on the basis of their batting, but mostly on the basis of their bowling.

Plus it was a 60 over world cup, which made bowling more difficult and batting more easy.

My understanding is that someone like srikanth didnt play defnece but left the ball, and only made contact with it through shots, which is why the aggressive tag was given to him

Srikanth was a poor man's Sehwag. But he & Kapil Dev changed India's ODI batting from slow scoring style to a more attacking style

 

[jnaveen1980]

Srikanth was a poor man's Sehwag. But he & Kapil Dev changed India's ODI batting from slow scoring style to a more attacking style

I won't say poor man's swehwag given that he was the one who set the trend not the other way around. He had incredible hand eye coordination. The helmet he wore was could hardly be called a helmet. INfact he took on Marshall without any gear in a few matches. He is a trend setter.I can't think of an opener in the 80s or before batting like that consistently even in Tests.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Nice thread. I don't know too much about this world cup apart from it being an underdog victory. Nice to hear the perspectives from Indians.

 

[NishanKonar]

I won't say poor man's swehwag given that he was the one who set the trend not the other way around. He had incredible hand eye coordination. The helmet he wore was could hardly be called a helmet. INfact he took on Marshall without any gear in a few matches. He is a trend setter.I can't think of an opener in the 80s or before batting like that consistently even in Tests.

Naah Roy Fredericks was the original big hitting opener. Gordon Greenidge was also fast scoring

 

[The Bald Eagle]

No shame to accept ignorance on this subject matter. Will love to read the details by the Indian posters

 

[NishanKonar]

There is 1 anectode. In the semi final against England , Yahspal Sharma and Mohinder Amarnath batted too slowly while chasing & asking rate started creeping up. So at the tea break ( those days they had tea break , not drinks ) - nobody served them tea. Poor fellas had to make tea themselves

Both batters got the message. After tea they went out & started playing more aggresively. And helped India chase down the target

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Was Sunil gavaskar a part of it and was it this world cup when he played that infamous snail knock?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Naah Roy Fredericks was the original big hitting opener. Gordon Greenidge was also fast scoring

No. Not like Srikkanth who batted like that even in Tests. Actually even in the final they told him to play carefully which he didn't like. Look at the strike rates.. There was one SCG Test where Both Sunil and Srikkanth was 27 at one point. After sometime Sunil was still at 27 and Cheeka raced to 72.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/west-indies-tour-of-india-1987-88-61942/india-vs-west-indies-2nd-test-63467/full-scorecard

 

[NishanKonar]

Was Sunil gavaskar a part of it and was it this world cup when he played that infamous snail knock?

Naah that was 1975 WC

This WC he was part of XI but did little wirh the bat. Took some good slip catches though

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I think this is where nostalgia tints our memories of past cricketing eras.

The West Indies had a brilliant Top 4 and a great bowling attack.

But people forget that they had mediocrities like Faoud Bacchus and Larry Gomes batting at #5 and #6 who could neither score big nor score rapid cameos.

They weren't as invincible as,say, 1999-2007 Australia who could put out XI's without a single weak link.

 

[NishanKonar]

No. Not like Srikkanth who batted like that even in Tests. Actually even in the final they told him to play carefully which he didn't like. Look at the strike rates.. There was one SCG Test where Both Sunil and Srikkanth was 27 at one point. After sometime Sunil was still at 27 and Cheeka raced to 72.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/west-indies-tour-of-india-1987-88-61942/india-vs-west-indies-2nd-test-63467/full-scorecard

Google Roy Fredericks Perth 1975

Or Gordon Greenidge - 1984 England tour

 

[sweep_shot]

Was Sunil gavaskar a part of it and was it this world cup when he played that infamous snail knock?

Gavaskar played that snail knock in the 1975 WC (first ever WC).

He also played in the 1983 WC including the final --> https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...dia-vs-west-indies-final-65090/full-scorecard.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

One of the biggest upsets in the history of cricket.

 

[Major]

Interestingly, amarnath was the vice captain.

Gavaskar was no more captain or vice, even though he was the senior player

 

[Major]

I think this is where nostalgia tints our memories of past cricketing eras.

The West Indies had a brilliant Top 4 and a great bowling attack.

But people forget that they had mediocrities like Faoud Bacchus and Larry Gomes batting at #5 and #6 who could neither score big nor score rapid cameos.

They weren't as invincible as,say, 1999-2007 Australia who could put out XI's without a single weak link.

Based on what i read and heard about the west indies pace attack, based on that they should had not lost twice to India.

In the final their batting completely failed

 

[NishanKonar]

Interestingly, amarnath was the vice captain.

Gavaskar was no more captain or vice, even though he was the senior player

Gavaskar was a very dull & defensive captain. He was sacked few months before.

No way India was winning a WC with Gavaskar as captain

 

[charlie007]

Interestingly, amarnath was the vice captain.

Gavaskar was no more captain or vice, even though he was the senior player

There used to be a captaincy tussle between Gavaskar and Kapil Dev, just like how it was between Imran and Miandad across the border. Both of them wanted absolute control, and hence none was preferred as a vice captain - it depended on the equation with the selectors!
After India lost a few matches after the world cup, Kapil Dev was replaced by Gavaskar and continued till after the 1985 Benson & Hedges World Championship of Cricket in 1985.

 

[Major]

Also against the west insies, was gavaskar faking an injury? During the second match against them

 

[Nikhil_cric]

How much of read and heard about the west indies pace attack, based on that they should had not lost twice to India.

In the final their batting completely failed

I've said this time and again and I know most posters won't agree with this but it's far more important to have deep, powerful batting lineups in ODI World Cups, no matter how good your bowling attack is.

Even Pakistan won '92 on the back of a very deep batting lineup capable of playing solid cricket up top and a couple of powerful cameos at the back end.

The bowling was actually pretty average apart from Wasim and Mushy who were exceptional throughout.

But you had Inzi and, to a lesser extent, Moin chasing down 263 against NZ with some powerful lower order hitting in the semi and Inzi and Wasim Akram in the final helping score 85 runs in the last 10 or something ridiculous like that

That lower order depth and firepower was far more crucial to winning that Cup.

 

[NishanKonar]

Also against the west insies, was gavaskar faking an injury? During the second match against them

Gavaskar did not score any 50 in whole tournament. There wer rumours he deliberately underperformed bcoz he did not like Kapil

Lots of such gossip from the 80s. No proof or evidence but like they say " no smoke without fire "

 

[BreadPakoda]

I've said this time and again and I know most posters won't agree with this but it's far more important to have deep, powerful batting lineups in ODI World Cups, no matter how good your bowling attack is.

Even Pakistan won '92 on the back of a very deep batting lineup capable of playing solid cricket up top and a couple of powerful cameos at the back end.

The bowling was actually pretty average apart from Wasim and Mushy who were exceptional throughout.

But you had Inzi and, to a lesser extent, Moin chasing down 263 against NZ with some powerful lower order hitting in the semi and Inzi and Wasim Akram in the final helping score 85 runs in the last 10 or something ridiculous like that

That lower order depth and firepower was far more crucial to winning that Cup.

India had a strong batting line up in 2011 too. Bowling wasn’t that great.

 

[Local.Dada]

India beat England, Australia and Westindies twice.

So not sure if i will call it a fluke.

Kapil Dev scored 175* (highest odi score at that time), Took a 5fr vs Australia in the World Cup (I think India may have lost that match though), pulled off a stunning catch in the finals -given the context of the game and the person who was batting + the athleticism- would not be exaggerating to call it one of the greatest/ memorable catches of all time. On top of that became the first non-West Indian captain to hold the World Cup.

That is biopic material right there.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

India had a strong batting line up in 2011 too. Bowling wasn’t that great.

Same thing for Lanka in 96

 

[jnaveen1980]

Google Roy Fredericks Perth 1975

Or Gordon Greenidge - 1984 England tour

I know about them. Greenidge didn't always bat like that. Srikkanth was compulsively aggressive bit like Sehwag. Just that occasionally they had to temper him down. Only Kapil dev was consistently aggressive in the 80s.

 

[Local.Dada]

Pak and SL had their best eras after their wc wins with amazing talent pool before they hit a slump.

India after 83 kept improving amidst patches of brilliance and mediocrity.

Also @Major India followed it up with the World Series in Australia in 1985- the one where Shastri got the Audi. So not sure if India was totally mediocre. Underrated maybe but good enough to complete and win kinda like Pak or SA currently. They look mediocre but can beat big teams or even win tournaments if things align.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Gavaskar did not score any 50 in whole tournament. There wer rumours he deliberately underperformed bcoz he did not like Kapil

Lots of such gossip from the 80s. No proof or evidence but like they say " no smoke without fire "

No that was not 83. 1987 had the rumour. It was one of the dramatic sequence of events. In 1984/85 test series Sandip patil and Kapil were dropped after Delhi test loss as they were told they played reckless shots. As part of the disciplinary action both were dropped for Eden Gardens test. It infuriated Eden Garden crowd. So Eden gardens crowed booed and abused Sunny with all kind of wordsin the next test as it deprived them of seeing Kapil in action. I think he vowed he would never play in Eden Gardens.He kept his word. He excluded himself form calcutta test against Pakistan. Then came the world cup 1987 India played semi final at Bombay. If they win there India will have to play at Eden Gardens place where Gavaskar vowed not to play. In the semi final Gavaskar missed a straight ball from phil defreitas and got out for 4. Then the rumor circulated Sunny dleiberately got out to avoid playing the final at Eden Gardens. Bit outlandish. But that stuck because of how much Gavaskar hated Calcuatta crowd.

 

[Major]

No that was not 83. 1987 had the rumour. It was one of the dramatic sequence of events. In 1984/85 test series Sandip patil and Kapil were dropped after Delhi test loss as they were told they played reckless shots. As part of the disciplinary action both were dropped for Eden Gardens test. It infuriated Eden Garden crowd. So Eden gardens crowed booed and abused Sunny with all kind of wordsin the next test as it deprived them of seeing Kapil in action. I think he vowed he would never play in Eden Gardens.He kept his word. He excluded himself form calcutta test against Pakistan. Then came the world cup 1987 India played semi final at Bombay. If they win there India will have to play at Eden Gardens place where Gavaskar vowed not to play. In the semi final Gavaskar missed a straight ball from phil defreitas and got out for 4. Then the rumor circulated Sunny dleiberately got out to avoid playing the final at Eden Gardens. Bit outlandish. But that stuck because of how much Gavaskar hated Calcuatta crowd.

now thats the kind of anecdotes i love reading.

 

[Major]

India beat England, Australia and Westindies twice.

So not sure if i will call it a fluke.

Kapil Dev scored 175* (highest odi score at that time), Took a 5fr vs Australia in the World Cup (I think India may have lost that match though), pulled off a stunning catch in the finals -given the context of the game and the person who was batting + the athleticism- would not be exaggerating to call it one of the greatest/ memorable catches of all time. On top of that became the first non-West Indian captain to hold the World Cup.

That is biopic material right there.

did u watch the matches or read up on them?

India wasnt amongst the top sides

 

[cricketjoshila]

It was a fluke.

West Indies were the overwhelming favorites.

Fluke was bd beating Pakistan in 1999

Indi had beaten wi before the final as well

 

[Major]

Fluke was bd beating Pakistan in 1999

Indi had beaten wi before the final as well

No need to get riled up. Admitting it was a fluke takes nothing away, as many world cup wins have been a fluke.

The 1983's whole movies premises was around the fact that the board thought it was not possible to the extent that their return tickets were booked before the date of the semi final of the world cup, so even the board was of the view that team was just going in to make up numbers.

 

[shaz619]

Good balance, self-belief & a team built around an ATG talisman of an A/R; Uncle Kapeesh.

 

[shaz619]

But this was maybe the greatest upset in WC history because the gap was much wider between WI & everyone else, plus India lost frequently, although they didn’t play too many series at home.

While Lanka was starting to change how ODI’s were being played & innovated to be success, they were starting to beat some big names between 1995-1996, so in that regard, India winning in 1983 was maybe the biggest underdog tournament win.

 

[Local.Dada]

did u watch the matches or read up on them?

India wasnt amongst the top sides

The 175* game has became a bigger legend because BBC was on strike that day so there is no recording. It’s been covered by senior or legendary journalists who were there live. Ayaz Memon I think was one of them who had gone on to be one of South Asia’s famous sports journalists.

I was literally a toddler then so dont remember live games ,however I did see the finals and semifinal highlights and extended highlights over the years.

India wasn’t among the top sides at all, was definitely an underdog. Even players didn’t have self belief till they beat WI in the first match. However they followed it up with 1985 World Series and multiple tournaments in Sharjah around that time. I think in a way their winning momentum stopped after that Miandad 6 match which was also a final I think.

India were favs for 1987 too along with Pak. So, they had a solid loi team in the 80s for the standard of those days.

Even though they were underrated in 1983, after that they were looked at as serious loi team. Before that don’t think BCCI or Indian cricketers didn’t even take Lois seriously and most didn’t have the ability too.

I feel the 83 bunch were the best white ball cricketers from India more or less available for us at that time.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No need to get riled up. Admitting it was a fluke takes nothing away, as many world cup wins have been a fluke.

The 1983's whole movies premises was around the fact that the board thought it was not possible to the extent that their return tickets were booked before the date of the semi final of the world cup, so even the board was of the view that team was just going in to make up numbers.

Team had shown their worth by beating wi early in the tournament

And the then bcci president was nkp salve one who mentored the likes of Dalmiya etc, so what bollywood shows isn’t gospel truth

 

[NishanKonar]

1983 WC was like 1996 WC

At first glance it looked like flukes but in reality in both cases ir was a well prepared & well equipped team winning fair and square by beating all the top contendors

 

[Major]

Team had shown their worth by beating wi early in the tournament

And the then bcci president was nkp salve one who mentored the likes of Dalmiya etc, so what bollywood shows isn’t gospel truth

not really. West Indies than came back strong again where the pace attack destroyed India int he second game.

I dont care who the BCCI president was, but if the indian board booked flight tickets before the semi, it showed they had no belief.

It was a fluke, but you are now getting senti about it. It takes nothing away from India.

 

[Major]

1983 WC was like 1996 WC

At first glance it looked like flukes but in reality in both cases ir was a well prepared & well equipped team winning fair and square by beating all the top contendors

but than no one hasnt really had any input here how India was well prepared, what they were doing behind the scenes. Most of what i am getting is just score card reading or match highlights reading.

Atleast their is insight on 1996 world cup, but about he 1983, most of what is coming is that Indias bowling attack just came in alignment with the pitches of the time.

 

[Local.Dada]

It was a fluke, but you are now getting senti about it. It takes nothing away from India.

Not taking a dig but Pak having 10 results not in their control going their way to qualify and then making it and pulling it off is a mild fluke. Even there they still have to win the knockouts. So still credit is due. It’s a lucky shave but not entirely a fluke.

SL had 2 matches boycotted in 1996 against top sides- even that can be classified as mild case of luck.

Kenya reaching semis due to multiple lucky chances, teams abandoning games etc and 1 lucky upset is a fluke.

India qualifying fair and square, winning semis, finals, beating Top 3 teams of that era- Aus, England, WI and then following up with more marquee tournament wins is not even close to being called a fluke. You can say Indian team was underrated or underdogs in those days . That’s a fair statement.

I don’t think we are being sensitive, you are being stubborn to listen to logic as always looks like.

 

[jnaveen1980]

But this was maybe the greatest upset in WC history because the gap was much wider between WI & everyone else, plus India lost frequently, although they didn’t play too many series at home.

While Lanka was starting to change how ODI’s were being played & innovated to be success, they were starting to beat some big names between 1995-1996, so in that regard, India winning in 1983 was maybe the biggest underdog tournament win.

Deep down West Indies had vulnerabilities. They are not like 2000 Aussies where if one fails someone else steps up. Bichel won 2 matches for Australia with bat in 2003 world cup. WI had a few holes in their set up. But back then strategies were an alien concept in the LOI format. India accidentally exposed their soft under belly by taking out top 3 cheaply. THey were left with 40 year old captain lloyd. Their batsmen could bat. But they were not reliable. It was not a deep batting line up Under pressure they choked. Top heavy teams always get exposed. India had that problem in the mid 2010s even though they had fantastic run in all the world cups since 2011.

 

[Major]

Not taking a dig but Pak having 10 results not in their control going their way to qualify and then making it and pulling it off is a mild fluke. Even there they still have to win the knockouts. So still credit is due. It’s a lucky shave but not entirely a fluke.

SL had 2 matches boycotted in 1996 against top sides- even that can be classified as mild case of luck.

Kenya reaching semis due to multiple lucky chances, teams abandoning games etc and 1 lucky upset is a fluke.

India qualifying fair and square, winning semis, finals, beating Top 3 teams of that era- Aus, England, WI and then following up with more marquee tournament wins is not even close to being called a fluke. You can say Indian team was underrated or underdogs in those days . That’s a fair statement.

I don’t think we are being sensitive, you are being stubborn to listen to logic as always looks like.

First of all this thread has nothing to do with Pakistan. This is why having discussion becomes abit of an issue with you guys is that you want praises but if someone mentions something that doesnt align with your self proclaim greatness you lot get bu*t hurt.

I have written many times around here that Pakistan's world cup win was a fluke. Even though they enetered the 1992 world cup as favorites, incomparison India entered with their return flight booked even before the semi.

But as always, you guys cant have a proper discussion as you have to be the most sensitive lot around here.

dont try to portray your insecurities as logic here plz

 

[Local.Dada]

First of all this thread has nothing to do with Pakistan. This is why having discussion becomes abit of an issue with you guys is that you want praises but if someone mentions something that doesnt align with your self proclaim greatness you lot get butt hurt.

I have written many times around here that Pakistan's world cup win was a fluke. Even though they enetered the 1992 world cup as favorites, incomparison India entered with their return flight booked even before the semi.

But as always, you guys cant have a proper discussion as you have to be the most sensitive lot around here.

dont try to portray your insecurities as logic here plz

Seriously lol? You are still being a stubborn here: we are talking about underdog World Cup wins, Pak is a cricket team which had a similar story in 1992, I also brought up Srilanka which had an underdog story in 1996. How do you expect people to make a point or use as a reference on a cricket forum without those iconic examples or comparison

Maybe time to ask you what exactly do you want out of this thread? kehna kya chahte ho? (That meme will be perfect here)

 

[NishanKonar]

but than no one hasnt really had any input here how India was well prepared, what they were doing behind the scenes. Most of what i am getting is just score card reading or match highlights reading.

Atleast their is insight on 1996 world cup, but about he 1983, most of what is coming is that Indias bowling attack just came in alignment with the pitches of the time.

That last bit is probably true. India's 120 kph bowlers wer the biggest factor. Imagine having 3 Mo Abbas style bowlers when most pitches were green seaming like Day 1 pitch of a Headingley test

I think West Indies wud have probably won if the Lords pitch was flat & game was high scoring ( like it was in 1975 & 1979 finals ). India did not have batting to score 270 plus against Windies bowling. But a green seaming pitch suited India perfectly. Batters held out to take India to a respectable 183 & bowlers did their bit with prodigious swing & seam.

A very important fact - the great West Indies of the 80s never won test series in New Zealand coz of the green seaming pitches. They had a weakness on such pitches

 

[DeadlyVenom]

But as always, you guys cant have a proper discussion as you have to be the most sensitive lot around here.

dont try to portray your insecurities as logic here plz

Many interesting threads have been derailed by this over patriotism from Indians.

 

[Major]

Seriously lol? You are still being a stubborn mule here: we are talking about underdog World Cup wins, Pak is a cricket team which had a similar story in 1992, I also brought up Srilanka which had an underdog story in 1996. How do you expect people to make a point or use as a reference on a cricket forum without those iconic examples or comparison

Maybe time to ask you what exactly do you want out of this thread? kehna kya chahte ho? (That meme will be perfect here)

we are not taking about unerdof world cup wins here. You just want to drag Pakistan in here because that is ur habiit.


Ur like a prostitute that wants only praises, the moment someone tries to be objective, you get ur panties twisted.

The thread is a praise one and talks about how India was able to beat the might West Indies, England and Australia. The movie on it was great, but it did not talk about what India was doing interms of strategy and was more focus on life affairs and making the English look like racist villians.

So i am asking here is what strategies or what was the factor that led to India winning, which seems like only a few posters have a clue, while rest of Indians are just self praising their score cards

 

[Devadwal]

Not even born so no clue about it but listen lots of story from my chachu. Before the World cups no one believed we can Even win the World cup. India winning the world cup 83 is inspirational and people's can learn lot from that victory in real Life.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Guys don't lose your cool, enjoy the informative discourse

 

[Major]

If it was a fluke why haven't BD fluked their way to a cup yet? Plonker.

Any calling 83 a fluke can't stay mum about 92,96 as well.

Thread got detailed the moment a non Indian 83 called it a fluke....

so if non Indian calls it a fluke you admit to getting senti? Cause you yourself said it non Indian.

I think you need to go around the thread or even the forum, i have said that 1992 and 1996 was a fluke.

 

[NishanKonar]

If it was a fluke why haven't BD fluked their way to a cup yet? Plonker.

Any Canosole calling 83 a fluke can't stay mum about 92,96 as well.

Thread got detailed the moment a non Indian 83 called it a fluke....

Not a fluke but a big upset. Nobody before the tournament expected India to win

Its like Greece winning 2004 Euro or Porto winning 2004 UCL. Out of the blue

 

[Major]

That last bit is probably true. India's 120 kph bowlers wer the biggest factor. Imagine having 3 Mo Abbas style bowlers when most pitches were green seaming like Day 1 pitch of a Headingley test

I think West Indies wud have probably won if the Lords pitch was flat & game was high scoring ( like it was in 1975 & 1979 finals ). India did not have batting to score 270 plus against Windies bowling. But a green seaming pitch suited India perfectly. Batters held out to take India to a respectable 183 & bowlers did their bit with prodigious swing & seam.

A very important fact - the great West Indies of the 80s never won test series in New Zealand coz of the green seaming pitches. They had a weakness on such pitches

I think another advantage was the 12 over factor, this allowed for 4 overs to be bowled in 3 spells. Binny seemed to be a very interesting bowler. Plus, i read that Gulwinder was swinging it both ways in the world cup suddenly.

 

[Local.Dada]

we are not taking about unerdof world cup wins here. You just want to drag Pakistan in here because that is ur habiit.


[Deleted]

The thread is a praise one and talks about how India was able to beat the might West Indies, England and Australia. The movie on it was great, but it did not talk about what India was doing interms of strategy and was more focus on life affairs and making the English look like racist villians.

So i am asking here is what strategies or what was the factor that led to India winning, which seems like only a few posters have a clue, while rest of Indians are just self praising their score cards

You seem to know how they work so I won’t judge you there.

As far as strategy goes. India had the perfect allrounders for those conditions. Batting all the way till 10. They had a aggressive opener like Srikkanth who was one of the OG’s when it came to taking advantage of opening restrictions , they had a hard hitting batsman at 5-6 like Kapil, Sandeep Patil, multiple allrounders, seamers who can move the ball in helpful conditions and decent part time spinners, those days subcontinent parttimer spinners were also good for gora teams.

Most of these strategies are still followed today when teams go to England like having batting depth and allrounders.

Most has been addressed above.

What is it that you are missing?

Also let me give you a more PG analogy of my own- you sound like a kid who doesn’t get the point till it’s delivered in a more harsh tone.

 

[NishanKonar]

I think another advantage was the 12 over factor, this allowed for 4 overs to be bowled in 3 spells. Binny seemed to be a very interesting bowler. Plus, i read that Gulwinder was swinging it both ways in the world cup suddenly.

Balwinder*

Just look at Balwinder's inswinger that got Greenidge. It came in like a Murali off break. I doubt he ever got so much swing outside England

 

[NishanKonar]

I think another advantage was the 12 over factor, this allowed for 4 overs to be bowled in 3 spells. Binny seemed to be a very interesting bowler. Plus, i read that Gulwinder was swinging it both ways in the world cup suddenly.

Roger Binny was best bowler in both the 1983 WC as well as that 1985 WCC. But outside of that he had little to show

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Not a fluke but a big upset. Nobody before the tournament expected India to win

Its like Greece winning 2004 Euro or Porto winning 2004 UCL. Out of the blue

Yeh I think this is a better definition..fluke is not a bad word but can have connotations of it being undeserving, which I don't feel anyone thinks is the case.