Pakistan's Road to the 1999 World Cup final

[Supporter of Pak legends]

This provides a lovely watch, highlighting all of Pakistan's game in that wonderful tournament and it also features some pleasant, appropriate soundtracks.

Part 1

[UTUBE]IB1NVacOcWk[/UTUBE]

Part 2

[UTUBE]buI8Py3BK5E[/UTUBE]

Part 3

[UTUBE]ez7cKfN5Ceo[/UTUBE]​

 

[Scrolln]

I think this is the best ODI side Pakistan ever had.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

I think this is the best ODI side Pakistan ever had.

I agree; with Saeed Anwar and Wajahatullah Wasti (arguably the only real weak link in the team) opening, Razzaq (seemingly more matured and with a greater range of proper cricketing strokes) at #3, Ijaz Ahmed at his stylish stroke-play at #4, Inzamam-Ul-Haq at #5, Shahid Afridi/Yousuf Youhana at #6, Azhar Mahmood, Moin Khan and Wasim Akram (used interchangeably at #7, #8 and #9), Saqlain Mushtaq at #10 and Shoaib Akhtar at #11 our batting line-up was indeed a strong one. With the batting and impressive bowling line-up we provided, it still amazes me to this day the saddening way we were cheaply dismissed in the all-important final.

The Pakistan team in the 1999 World Cup was so great it left out stalwart players (who were actually part of the squad, although the first and last names did play in four games and one game respectively) such as Salim Malik, Waqar Younis and Mushtaq Ahmed in order to account for a blend of youngsters and seniors in the team.

 

[WebGuru]

TBH with this team we should have achieved much more...It's really hard to erase the memories of that final...

 

[Haroon786]

Nice thread SOPL

 

[Haroon786]

I agree; with Saeed Anwar and Wajahatullah Wasti (arguably the only real weak link in the team) opening, Razzaq (seemingly more matured and with a greater range of proper cricketing strokes) at #3, Ijaz Ahmed at his stylish stroke-play at #4, Inzamam-Ul-Haq at #5, Shahid Afridi/Yousuf Youhana at #6, Azhar Mahmood, Moin Khan and Wasim Akram (used interchangeably at #7, #8 and #9), Saqlain Mushtaq at #10 and Shoaib Akhtar at #11 our batting line-up was indeed a strong one. With the batting and impressive bowling line-up we provided, it still amazes me to this day the saddening way we were cheaply dismissed in the all-important final.

The Pakistan team in the 1999 World Cup was so great it left out stalwart players (who were actually part of the squad, although the first and last names did play in four games and one game respectively) such as Salim Malik, Waqar Younis and Javed Miandad in order to account for a blend of youngsters and seniors in the team.

JM retired in '96

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

Superb team.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

JM retired in '96

Sorry, meant to write Mushtaq Ahmed.

 

[miandadrules]

I have to disagree.

The frailties in the batting especially the top-order were evident from game one. The cracks were papered over but it was a collapse waiting to happen.

The captaincy of Akram was poor especially choosing to bat first no matter what.

The bowling though was ideally suited to English conditions.

 

[avicricket]

1999 pakistan wc team was overhyped they lost 4 matches in the wc.that is a huge figure.

 

[Haroon786]

Sorry, meant to write Mushtaq Ahmed.

No apology required, I replied to your Vietnam war thread, as for the 99 WC, I think we should've had a sort oglf stabiliser akin to IK in the '92 final, I believe this could've stopped the wicket haemorrhage by Pakistan in the final and lead us to victory.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

I think this former post of mine, relating slightly to Wasim Akram's captaincy, would be appropriate for this thread (produced in the 'If you're good enough, you're old enough' thread):

I completely agree with your statement. During Imran Khan's long tenure as captain he would always select youngsters based upon their talent and their ability to play for the team rather than selecting senior players who would rather play to increase their averages. This is evident as he stated that he resigned from the captaincy after he was unable to select his own team.

Similarly, this occurence also applies with Wasim Akram (probably because he became captain shortly after Imran's retirement and played under the wing of Imran Khan for much of his younger career). This is apparent as during the 1999 World Cup he selected an extremely young team consisting of players such as: Abdul Razzaq, Azhar Mahmood, Shoaib Akhtar, Shahid Afridi, Saqlain Mushtaq and Wajahatullah Wasti. This is no small achievement considering he had the opportunity to select more experienced players of the calibre of: Waqar Younis (who was probably not selected due to disagreements with Wasim Akram and having a prolonged loss of form after his injuries), Mushtaq Ahmed (which is surprising contemplating that Mushtaq Ahmed had an extremely large amount of experience playing in England and was also successful in England by gargantuan proportions) and Saleem Malik (who had heaps of experience considering he was 35 at the time). Even Mohammad Yousuf (named Yousuf Youhana at the time) couldn't force his way into the XI for the final despite also being arguably a young player.

This highlights the competitive nature of cricket in the 90's, when cricketers had to fight their way into teams and wouldn't be assured a place. Therefore, they had to prove their worth to the captain. However, what can't be ignored is that instead of selecting players based upon experience, "balance" of the team or other doubtful reasons, he chose his team around a fulcrum of players who were in the squad based on merit, potential and their match-winning ability. This also shows how wise the selectors were during them days where they weren't concerned in offending players with large egos and didn't select players because of nepotistic reasons.

Although the seniority complex has always been a prominent factor in sub-continental cricket, it has become evident that it is now stronger because our selectors aren't able to take tough calls and our recent captains haven't been persuasuve enough to choose the teams they may want/need to rpoduce a winning outcome of a match. Sadly, in Pakistan cricket nowadays, there aren't many strong figures left, apparent with the instance that Iqbal Qasim, our beloved selector, was able to persuade Misbah-Ul-Haq to re-introduce Afridi back into the side and force his inclusion in the playing XI when it was clearly apparent that Misbah didn't really want Shahid Afridi back in the ODI XI after his prolonged loss of form.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

TBH with this team we should have achieved much more...It's really hard to erase the memories of that final...

Totally agree WebGuru, even though I wasn't alive to watch the final live, the highlights of the match in my mind are still fresh and remain painful and agonising when remembered even after all these years.

Nice thread SOPL

Thanks, it's pleasing to see some appreciation for the effort I put in posting on the forum.

Superb team.

Indeed it was, not only in terms of performance but the balance of the side and the entertaining spectacle with the flair and aggression they provided on a regular basis has, in my opinion, seldom been seen on the cricket field.

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

1999 pakistan wc team was overhyped they lost 4 matches in the wc.that is a huge figure.

C'mon boss. One was the final and one was Bangladesh!

The two which they were outplayed in were SA and India which didn't look fishy.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

I have to disagree.

The frailties in the batting especially the top-order were evident from game one. The cracks were papered over but it was a collapse waiting to happen.

I can comprehend your valuable viewpoints here, our batting must've provided a harrowing sensation to spectators watching. Throughout the tournament, we would collapse only for our lower order to save us regularly. Sadly though, in the final our lower order was unable to help us recover and we caved in to 132/10.

The only time I think our batting didn't collapse was in the semi-final, against New Zealand. However, throughout the years Pakistan teams have always had unpredictability associated with them and therefore it is no surprise that we collapsed, only to recover, on so many occasions. Batting has just never been Pakistan's strongest department, especially during the 1990's.

The captaincy of Akram was poor especially choosing to bat first no matter what.

The bowling though was ideally suited to English conditions.

I agree; in the final, with the bowling conditions that were present, he should have decided to bowl. However, in saying this, I do understand his decision considering throughout the tournament, Pakistan had been able to play well because of their plan to bat first (we lost all of our games, apart from the ODI against South Africa where Lance Klusener - because of his ability to exploit the no-bouncer rule which was existent at the time, not faring too well against short-pitched bowling usually - destroyed our batting line-up in the closing stages of the game and excluding the abysmal final, chasing - against India and Bangladesh) and they weren't (and still aren't) renowned as being proficient chasers. Furthermore, even if they did fail, the belief was that Pakistan could rely upon their bowlers to instigate a batting collapse from the opposition and win the game from an improbable position.

Despite declaring this, I also think that Wasim Akram's captaincy was a little degenerative because despite viewing Adam Gilchrist's destruction of the pace bowling attack in the final, he relentlessly gave the pacemen (including himself) the bowl, not even opting to turn to the spin department (even though Shane Warne had took 4 brilliant wickets in the first innings). In my opinion, with such a low score, Wasim Akram should've decided to choose a more innovative strategy such as bringing on Saqlain Mushtaq early in the innings, if not opening the bowling. However, I'm speaking in hindsight here and Wasim Akram and the whole Pakistan team in fact, could not possibly have seen the obliteration of Pakistan's bowling attack which was to come from Adam Gilchrist.

This is not related to Wasim Akram's captaincy, but I believe Pakistan suffered some indifferent umpiring in the final, the two distasteful decisions being Wasim Akram's dismissal from a Shane Warne delivery which should have actually been a no-ball and David Shepherd's decision to adjudge Inzamam-Ul-Haq out caught behind when it is apparent that the ball was nowhere near to touching the bat.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

1999 pakistan wc team was overhyped they lost 4 matches in the wc.that is a huge figure.

I beg to differ. Although we lost 4 matches during the whole tournament, we also won at the crucial stages of the competition. The 4 times in which we lost can actually be explained.

India - as always, in an India-Pakistan World Cup game, form, team or strategy are inconsequential as there is another factor always involved: a substantial amount of pressure. In addition, it just seems that Pakistan will never be able to rid themselves of the pattern of losing to India in World Cup games, no matter what the occasion.

Bangladesh - some have declared that Bangladesh's win was a political one, that if they hadn't they'd never be accepted into the Test arena. Therefore, by allowing them to win (which may have proved a burden, as we are seeing the effects of now) - with Pakistan being arguably their closest ally, being joint countries 3 decades before the match - the Pakistan team provided a favour to the Bangladesh cricket team.

South Africa - in my opinion, they would have never proved victorious if the no-bouncers allowed rule hadn't applied during the tournament as, if I remember correctly, Lance Klusener wasn't at all proficient at playing short-pitched bowling. Hence, if bouncers were allowed he may have been dismissed early in his innings, preventing him to administer the destruction he caused.

Australia - reasons mentioned in earlier posts, with batting problems and choices at the toss being the main ones.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

I replied to your Vietnam war thread.

Don't worry, I just forgot to reply to the 'Vietnam War' thread. Actually, I need to contribute to A LOT of threads, just haven't got round to them that's all.

As for the 99 WC, I think we should've had a sort of stabiliser akin to IK in the '92 final, I believe this could've stopped the wicket hemorrhage by Pakistan in the final and lead us to victory.

Regarding your point about a stabiliser, indeed I agree. What Pakistan lacked was someone to grit it out from a difficult position (which Javed Miandad and Imran Khan did during the 1992 World Cup final). I believe Inzamam-Ul-Haq was beginning to complete this task until he was wrongly dismissed. Besides, even if he had I doubt anyone would remain to complete the arduous task for him because already the batsmen were falling without any resistance and this was the Pakistan team of the 1990's - lots of flair, but also lots of unpredictability (I pretty much doubt, apart from Wasim Akram, none of the tail-enders - neither Saqlain Mushtaq nor the ebullient and flamboyant Shoaib Akhtar - possessed the willpower or skill needed to survive a rampaging Australian bowling attack).

 

[Haroon786]

Don't worry, I just forgot to reply to the 'Vietnam War' thread. Actually, I need to contribute to A LOT of threads, just haven't got round to them that's all.



Regarding your point about a stabiliser, indeed I agree. What Pakistan lacked was someone to grit it out from a difficult position (which Javed Miandad and Imran Khan did during the 1992 World Cup final). I believe Inzamam-Ul-Haq was beginning to complete this task until he was wrongly dismissed. Besides, even if he had I doubt anyone would remain to complete the arduous task for him because already the batsmen were falling without any resistance and this was the Pakistan team of the 1990's - lots of flair, but also lots of unpredictability (I pretty much doubt, apart from Wasim Akram, none of the tail-enders - neither Saqlain Mushtaq nor the ebullient and flamboyant Shoaib Akhtar - possessed the willpower or skill needed to survive a rampaging Australian bowling attack).

No it is fine, I empathise with you, hard to acheive all goals in life with such a limited life span. Yep, our bowling always had that effervescent tinge to it, that gave it that extra oomph, so to speak, ovwr oher countries, which equalised our woefully atrocious batting, but there are days when even our superheroic bowker bowlers couldn't save the day due to criminal batting- cue the '99 final.

 

[Zaz]

Bowling wise that was a superb team with all basis covered, unfortunately the batting was still poor with the big names of inzy and ijaz not contributing overall and over reliance on anwar and the all rounders to get us out of trouble

Having said that we shouldve performed a lot better in the final than we did, the disappointment of that anti climax in the final still lingers greatly 14 years on

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Bowling wise that was a superb team with all basis covered, unfortunately the batting was still poor with the big names of inzy and ijaz not contributing overall and over reliance on anwar and the all rounders to get us out of trouble

Having said that we shouldve performed a lot better in the final than we did, the disappointment of that anti climax in the final still lingers greatly 14 years on

Totally agree, throughout the whole tournament our middle order failed, epitomised by this table:

​

However, because of our strong bowling line-up Pakistan was able to defend low scores which their mediocre batting line-up had provided. Contrastingly, India - with a performing batting line-up (their batsman's impressive performances, note the number of centuries are located below) failed throughout the tournament because of their bowling failures.

​

This aforementioned over-dependency upon our bowling attack has proved detrimental to the progression of Pakistan cricket, and often deals us a crucial blow in vital times when our fragile batting is required to perform. The failures of Inzamam-Ul-Haq and Ijaz Ahmed (the batsmen we were relying upon most in the middle order) and Abdul Razzaq (who was given the important #3 position during the World Cup, and only managed to notch up a singular half-century, although that was a significant 60 against the mighty Australians at Headingley) resulted in an extremely brittle batting line-up which was unfortunately exploited in the final and by this time the pressure exerted on our all-rounders and the lower batting order had sadly had proved attritional to them providing a performance (in terms of batting) in the World Cup final of '99.

 

[hadi123]

i was only alive for the Semi and final of that tournament, so sad I was either young or not even born when Pak were an awesome team, now I go through the pain and agony of our mediocre team struggling to chase 200

 

[chickenkarhai]

Our batting was weak in 1999 4 bits and pieces batters do not make a strong batting line up.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Our batting was weak in 1999 4 bits and pieces batters do not make a strong batting line up.

Who were the 4 bits-and-pieces batsmen?

 

[miandadrules]

i was only alive for the Semi and final of that tournament, so sad I was either young or not even born when Pak were an awesome team, now I go through the pain and agony of our mediocre team struggling to chase 200

You didn't miss much.

We struggled to chase a small total against Bangladesh and India.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

You didn't miss much.

We struggled to chase a small total against Bangladesh and India.

I wrote this earlier, in this thread:

India - as always, in an India-Pakistan World Cup game, form, team or strategy are inconsequential as there is another factor always involved: a substantial amount of pressure. In addition, it just seems that Pakistan will never be able to rid themselves of the pattern of losing to India in World Cup games, no matter what the occasion.

Bangladesh - some have declared that Bangladesh's win was a political one, that if they hadn't they'd never be accepted into the Test arena. Therefore, by allowing them to win (which may have proved a burden, as we are seeing the effects of now) - with Pakistan being arguably their closest ally, being joint countries 3 decades before the match - the Pakistan team provided a favour to the Bangladesh cricket team.

 

[avicricket]

I think no other wc finalist has lost 4 matches in a wc.that says about how over hyped the 1999 pakistan team was.

 

[miandadrules]

I wrote this earlier, in this thread:

Didn't chase brilliantly in the build up to the tournament either.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

I think no other wc finalist has lost 4 matches in a wc.that says about how over hyped the 1999 pakistan team was.

You're correct, I've searched through all of the World Cups and Pakistan remains the only World Cup finalist to have lost 4 World Cup games on their path to the final. However, what must be remembered is the reason why this particular Pakistan team is rated so highly is because of its compound of experience veterans of the game and buoyant and flamboyant youngsters. Although it is indeed true that Pakistan's main asset (bowling) simply smothered/disguised the brittle batting line-up and its failures, Pakistan have forever been renowned for their unpredictability and panache of their bowlers to win games from improbable positions.

It is any wonder then that this Pakistan team is known as being mighty underachievers? This is epitomised by the fact that despite asserting their dominance in this competition, they still somehow lost a total of 4 games.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Didn't chase brilliantly in the build up to the tournament either.

True, but that's the predominant reason why Wasim Akram chose to bat first in the final in primarily bowling conditions.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Before Semi-final

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Thanks, these are indeed very helpful statistics. One must note the fact that the greatest number of half-centuries came from Pakistan's lower order, which portrays across clearly how much Pakistan was relying upon their lower order to save them from a totally abysmal first innings.

 

[King Cobra]

Comeon , do you believe that the Pak Bd match was fixed. Do you believe that the entire Pak team is so easy to be influenced and there is no honesty ? What is the guarantee that the players who would be ready to throw matches for even political reasons, wont throw other matches in the future ? I hope this isnt true and only a speculation but If its truth then the ICC and Pak team management are the main culprits who let the poison of match fixing spread among the players.

Its like giving an impression that its fine to throw 1 match in 10 as long you give your 100 percent in rest of the 9 matches. Totally unacceptable.

 

[Sunny786]

Hahahahahhaha how did they manage to invade the pitch every single time Pakistan won?

 

[Asif321]

this was amazing team .. should have won the WC

 

[chickenkarhai]

Who were the 4 bits-and-pieces batsmen?

afridi,razzaq,akram and mahmood we also had a tailender who opened in the name of wajahatullah wasti we were very lucky to cross 200 every time we batted with that team and it was heavily reliant on anwar and inzamam if you got both of them early you basically would have won the match.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

afridi,razzaq,akram and mahmood we also had a tailender who opened in the name of wajahatullah wasti we were very lucky to cross 200 every time we batted with that team and it was heavily reliant on anwar and inzamam if you got both of them early you basically would have won the match.

But they weren't/aren't played purely as batsmen (excluding Afridi).

Azhar Mahmood and Wasim Akram were selected purely on their bowling talents, with their batting attributes being viewed as extra assets and contributions they could provide for the team.

In addition, with Razzaq we had an all-rounder whose batting failed throughout the tournament (managing to obtain only a singular half-century, an innings of 60 against the Australians at Headingley) despite being positioned in the vital batting position of #3. Despite his bowling arguably accounting for his batting deficiencies (being able to provide crucial breakthroughs - acquiring 13 wickets at 23.23), I believed we suffered as a result of him being chosen to bat at #3, a decision (Akram thought he possessed the capability to play in the role, because of having a stable defensive technique and possessing some strokes as well) that haunted us all the way throughout the tournament (as Razzaq's figures indicate, with a measly batting average of 21.25 and an even more excruciating strike-rate of 43.46). But still, I believe the bits-and-pieces cricketer tag can't be applied to Razzaq - despite his positioning in the crucial #3 batting position - because of his performance with the ball and the fact that his potency with the ball wasn't limited - contrary to say a Shoaib Malik nowadays, who doesn't possess a genuine strong suit in international cricket.

Finally, there remains Afridi to discuss. I agree that his performance in the competition was dismal, which must have proved more attritional to Pakistan's abilities in the tournament than salubrious. Selected predominantly as a batsman, as a bowling average of 115 during the tournament and a bowling average of 51.13 (with only 53 wickets from 76 bowling innings - a total of 572 overs) prior to the tournament proves, he performed abysmally throughout the competition, managing a meagre batting average of 13.28 (with a highest score of 37 - and that too against Zimbabwe, albeit a strong Zimbabwe side of the 1990s).

Personally, I one of the primary reasons as to why he failed substantially was because of the mind-numbing choice for him to open the innings (as an average of 8.60 from 5 games batting at #2 portrays across), especially in English conditions. With conditions heavily favoured towards seam and swing bowling, especially in the morning of a match (Pakistan were able to bat first in 3 games of the tournament), I believe it was an extremely erroneous and contentious (for fans of the game at least) decision to select Afridi as an opener, especially with the deficiencies against genuine swing bowling in his technique and his inability to defend adequately (both because of his technique and his flamboyant nature - always reeling to dominate the bowlers). To prove my point, 50 runs - which is more than half his total in the whole tournament - were aggregated in the semi-final stage of the competition along with the final of the tournament. Therefore, this conveys across that the #7 position increased his contribution to the team - a period in the game where conditions favourable for bowling have diminished and the firmness of the ball has been greatly produced - both in terms of runs provided and strike-rate (which increased by just short of 40 from when he batted at #7 to when he batted at #2). Although the whole of the batting line-up failed in the final, I believe his dismissal was a significant one (I believe he could have provided a beneficial contribution if he didn't try to blindly sweep a Shane Warne flipper/leg-break).

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Come on, do you believe that the Pak Bd match was fixed. Do you believe that the entire Pak team is so easy to be influenced and there is no honesty? What is the guarantee that the players who would be ready to throw matches for even political reasons, won't throw other matches in the future? I hope this isn't true and only a speculation but If its truth then the ICC and Pak team management are the main culprits who let the poison of match fixing spread among the players.

Its like giving an impression that its fine to throw 1 match in 10 as long you give your 100 percent in rest of the 9 matches. Totally unacceptable.

I honestly do believe the 1999 World Cup match against Bangladesh was fixed, which was apparent for a number of reasons.

The first reason I believe this is because if I remember correctly, without this victory Bangladesh wouldn't have been accepted into the ICC Test Nations list. Being close allies to Bangladesh (even formerly being joint countries with Bangladesh being known as East Pakistan), I believe Pakistan felt it an obligation to allow Pakistan to beat them, hence allowing them to join the ICC Test Playing Nations list. Without this victory, I believe the relationship between the two countries would've become much less cordial and friendly (with the Bangladesh players and government officials acknowledging and resenting the fact that Pakistan weren't willing to help them to develop their cricket, despite being joint countries in the past and as such, being close allies).

Secondly, another one of the reasons I believe the game was fixed was because of the sheer sudden collapse afflicted on the Pakistan batting line-up. Although arguably the line-up was fragile throughout the tournament, it had somehow managed to post respectable totals in all encounters. However, despite exhibiting a formidable batting line-up, they were somehow unable to score against Bangladesh, who were certainly one of the less potent foes included in the competition. It's a simple fact the team hadn't even managed to come relatively close to Bangladesh's strangely high total (with as strong a batting line-up as Pakistan's, one would nonchalantly expect that Bangladesh - who only acquired a measly team batting average of 19.64 from the whole tournament, with their 2nd highest score after the team innings against Pakistan a dismal 185/9 against the Scots at Edingburgh), although I accept that Bangladesh didn't perform poorly with the ball at all in this tournament, managing to obtain a team bowling average of 26.83 during the tournament, higher than the stronger teams of India and New Zealand.

Finally, a very dubious occurrence is the fact that Pakistan chose to bowl first, despite their well-documented troubles chasing being known to the Pakistan captain, Wasim Akram. I believe this is a valid point to consider, because why would a captain opt to do something which he knew usually had an adverse effect on the performance of the team? It seems very suspicious to me and although I do consider that maybe Wasim Akram decided to choose to bowl first as a sort of preparation for the later stages of the tournament, in case it was required - as such innovative tactics can't be employed in later stages of a tournament, because of the profound significance of a game, which limits the amounts a mistake a captains makes because after all, one mistake could be crucial to the performance/progression of a team - I do staunchly believe this to be a very suspicious act. Why would one want to bowl first, knowing the team's strength lay in batting first? A totally ludicrous and questionable decision for me.

Regarding the points you made about the effect this singular match being fixed could've had on the players, I totally agree. I acknowledge that the reputation of Pakistan's players is under scrutiny and I accept the fact that they may have match-fixed, simply because of the findings published in the Justice Qayyum Report (which, although I'm yet to read despite printing it out all out and stapling it chronologically, I've heard a great amount about). Especially the career of Wasim Akram, for me his repuation will forever be tarnished with the strong match-fixing claims made against him.

However, despite declaring this, I also believe that match-fixing for this purpose (more of a political procedure than one in which to attain money) wouldn't have had too great an effect on the players' opinions but also recognise that at the same time it could have also had a particularly dire effect on their ethos and morals towards match-fixing because it could have potentially resulted in them having an apathetic and insouciant attitude towards the malevolence that mach-fixing truly is and some may have even deemed it completely acceptable, after arguably seeing the potential employment of it in the Bangladesh-Pakistan World Cup game of '99.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

This thread deserves to be recovered from its ashes and discussed once again in these tough times.

On a separate note, I have a question to Zaz/other posters who watched the 1999 World Cup final: were/are you more frustrated/angry/saddened by the 1999 World Cup final loss or the current state of the Pakistan cricket team?

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

Both. In that time the team was so strong that they should've had more than 1 World Cup to show for it.

Secondly cricket changed from that day as Aus also became dominant in odis.

Currently only Irfan, Misbah and Ajmal could get into that side.

 

[subshakerz]

I watched the whole cup and considered Pakistan lucky to make it to the final and though we had a killer bowling lineup, the batting was very shaky in those conditions.

We had a good victory against Australia early on, but in the Super Six stage we lost to the only decent opposition, India and South Africa, yet still managed to make it to the semis. In the semis, we had weak opposition in NZ and by the time we made it to the final, we were hardly tested in the heat of pressure.

Australia on the other hand were in a do or die situation by the Super Six stage and by the time they made it to the finals, they were battle hardened and up for the challenge.

And if we lost to Bangladesh by fixing, the team didnt deserve to win the cup, or even make it to the final.

 

[subshakerz]

This thread deserves to be recovered from its ashes and discussed once again in these tough times.

On a separate note, I have a question to Zaz/other posters who watched the 1999 World Cup final: were/are you more frustrated/angry/saddened by the 1999 World Cup final loss or the current state of the Pakistan cricket team?

That final loss was gutting, really gutting. To lose in such a miserable way without a fight with a team of all-stars gave a big sense of gloom. I recall Wasim's interview after the final where he was still unsure whether to continue cricket.

You need to remember the context. In the months before the cup, Pakistan had performed excellently, winning in India and winning the first Asia Cup Test Trophy. There was a sense that under Wasim's captaincy, Pakistan had hit their stride, finally shaken off their unpredictable tag. Shoiaib's star was rising, Anwar was the best opener in the world, we felt we had the best bowling attack in cricketm the team was coming together and we were a hot favorites along with Australia before the cup began.

Even though the team probably didnt deserve to win, there was a glamor about them. And it all came crashing down on that sad morning.

 

[menace2society]

This World Cup was ours to win. Should have won.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

This World Cup was ours to win. Should have won.

Yes. Australians should have gifted us the World Cup.

On another note, the team was good in the bowling department, but the batting department was shaky.

They were a lot of all rounders in that side, who fit the bill of either batting or bowling, but not both.

I still remember Moin Khan destroying a McGrath to get us to 275 vs Australia in the group Stage.

In fact the format of the Group Stage was such, that Pakistan because they won both their group matches vs New Zealand and Australia ( courtesy of a Moin blitz at th end because australia failed by 10 runs only) managed to carry 4 points with them to Super Sixes stage. Hence just one win, in Super Six Stage, despite losing to India and South Africa did not make them serious contenders for the title.

Australia lost to Pakistan and also lost to New Zealand, if ma memory is right due to a special Chris Cairns knock. They had to win all their 3 matches to have any chance of qualifying from group stage.

Then Australia had the semifinal given to them out of the scruff of their neck when South Africa and famous Donald choke.

Pakistan has always had it easy against New Zealand and had perhaps the easiest match in the semifinal of all the whole competition.

The final was supposed to be anti-climax.

Australia had faced every sort of pressure, were ready to lift the cup. Pakistan had failed to beat India and South Africa in the Super Six stage, two big teams, and were extremely lucky to have carried all points into Super Six Stage.

Most people forget were it not for the carrying of points part, Pakistan would never have made it to semifinals and neither did they really deserve to.

The final went as expected.

A team on the top of their game, able to handle pressure, totally destroyed a team who couldn't handle the pressure of Saffers and Indians even in the Super Six stage.

That's the honest truth.

Anyone who believes otherwise is extremely deluded. We were never good in that title race but just fortuitous

 

[subshakerz]

Yes. Australians should have gifted us the World Cup.

On another note, the team was good in the bowling department, but the batting department was shaky.

They were a lot of all rounders in that side, who fit the bill of either batting or bowling, but not both.

I still remember Moin Khan destroying a McGrath to get us to 275 vs Australia in the group Stage.

In fact the format of the Group Stage was such, that Pakistan because they won both their group matches vs New Zealand and Australia ( courtesy of a Moin blitz at th end because australia failed by 10 runs only) managed to carry 4 points with them to Super Sixes stage. Hence just one win, in Super Six Stage, despite losing to India and South Africa did not make them serious contenders for the title.

Australia lost to Pakistan and also lost to New Zealand, if ma memory is right due to a special Chris Cairns knock. They had to win all their 3 matches to have any chance of qualifying from group stage.

Then Australia had the semifinal given to them out of the scruff of their neck when South Africa and famous Donald choke.

Pakistan has always had it easy against New Zealand and had perhaps the easiest match in the semifinal of all the whole competition.

The final was supposed to be anti-climax.

Australia had faced every sort of pressure, were ready to lift the cup. Pakistan had failed to beat India and South Africa in the Super Six stage, two big teams, and were extremely lucky to have carried all points into Super Six Stage.

Most people forget were it not for the carrying of points part, Pakistan would never have made it to semifinals and neither did they really deserve to.

The final went as expected.

A team on the top of their game, able to handle pressure, totally destroyed a team who couldn't handle the pressure of Saffers and Indians even in the Super Six stage.

That's the honest truth.

Anyone who believes otherwise is extremely deluded. We were never good in that title race but just fortuitous

Nailed it, my thoughts exactly. Pakistan team in the 90s always had a soft underbelly that could be exposed with pressure.

 

[Bushroda]

Pakistan, most definitely, had the best bowling attack in the tournament. However, the converse is also true for its batting. Most of the times, Pakistani batsmen only posted total around 200 - 220 runs but, the bowlers made it look a tall task. Several times, this total was also achieved courtesy the late order hitting from Moin Khan & company. Top order & middle order rarely contributed barring a match or two.

Pak did exceedingly well in group stages & ended on top of the league table. This allowed them to walk into Super-6 stage with 4 points needing only 1 win to make it to the semis. Australia, otoh, went in with 0 points needing to win all its remaining matches to win the WC. They had faced with the toughest challenge & came out on top each time. They annihilated India in their first Super-6 game closing the WC doors on India. Zimbabwe was a cake-walk but, South-Africa nearly put them out of the tourney if not for the celestial match-winning 120* from Steve Waugh. In Semis, they again met South Africa & held their composure in probably the most nerve-wreaking game ever. By the time, they reached Lord's for the finals, Aussie team had already become a phenomenon & super-favorites to lift the title.

Pakistan, however, clearly demonstrated its inability to handle pressure situation during the Super-6 stage. The wheels came off for them where they lost 2 out of 3 matches winning only against the Zims. They hardly faced any challenge from NZ in the semis either. Infact, their performance in the group stages ensured a near free run for them until finals. In the finals, they were up against a side that had a huge momentum & self belief going for them. That super momentum is what helped Australia roll over Pakistan.

 

[cricket sport]

Though I have very vague memoriesor almost no memories of World Cup 99 but what I still remember is that Pakistan was humiliated in the Final. After this match I literally stopped following cricket and Pakistan cricket for next 10 years. Don't know what happened in Pakistan team in those 10 years before started following team Pakistan randomly in 2009 T20 world up to date.

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

There was a lack of planning for the future from around 1999 onwards. Apart from Razzaq.

 

[iRfaN_LA]

I like the idea of having a Razzaq has a pinch hitter one down. May be we can employ the same tactic to this team and send someone aggressive one down.

 

[Buffet]

Yes. Australians should have gifted us the World Cup.

On another note, the team was good in the bowling department, but the batting department was shaky.

They were a lot of all rounders in that side, who fit the bill of either batting or bowling, but not both.

I still remember Moin Khan destroying a McGrath to get us to 275 vs Australia in the group Stage.

In fact the format of the Group Stage was such, that Pakistan because they won both their group matches vs New Zealand and Australia ( courtesy of a Moin blitz at th end because australia failed by 10 runs only) managed to carry 4 points with them to Super Sixes stage. Hence just one win, in Super Six Stage, despite losing to India and South Africa did not make them serious contenders for the title.

Australia lost to Pakistan and also lost to New Zealand, if ma memory is right due to a special Chris Cairns knock. They had to win all their 3 matches to have any chance of qualifying from group stage.

Then Australia had the semifinal given to them out of the scruff of their neck when South Africa and famous Donald choke.

Pakistan has always had it easy against New Zealand and had perhaps the easiest match in the semifinal of all the whole competition.

The final was supposed to be anti-climax.

Australia had faced every sort of pressure, were ready to lift the cup. Pakistan had failed to beat India and South Africa in the Super Six stage, two big teams, and were extremely lucky to have carried all points into Super Six Stage.

Most people forget were it not for the carrying of points part, Pakistan would never have made it to semifinals and neither did they really deserve to.

The final went as expected.

A team on the top of their game, able to handle pressure, totally destroyed a team who couldn't handle the pressure of Saffers and Indians even in the Super Six stage.

That's the honest truth.

Anyone who believes otherwise is extremely deluded. We were never good in that title race but just fortuitous

Well, Pakistan hasn't exactly been a dominating team in WCs. Even in 1992, luck was a huge factor otherwise team lost lots of games. Having said that, if Pakistan had somehow won the final in 1999 then other things, which you mentioned, could have been ignored by most fans.

Agreed over all though, Team didn't really put good performances to be a strong contender for WC. Carrying points helped otherwise even semis was out of question. Aus derserved the WC after putting back to back strong performances.

 

[zabalestmsm]

My favorite world cup of all time! Awesome memories! I still remember when i was going home in car and was listening to the commentary on the radio! And Pakistan were bundled out for under 140 :-(
That just shattered my heart!! :-(
I still remember i was upset for many days after that :-(
But still it was my favorite world cup!

 

[Saj]

Matchwinners !

That's what it's about. Players with that X factor.

These days we have very few matchwinners in any format of the game. You can count on one hand Pakistani players that can singlehandedly win a game.

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

Well, Pakistan hasn't exactly been a dominating team in WCs. Even in 1992, luck was a huge factor otherwise team lost lots of games. Having said that, if Pakistan had somehow won the final in 1999 then other things, which you mentioned, could have been ignored by most fans.

Agreed over all though, Team didn't really put good performances to be a strong contender for WC. Carrying points helped otherwise even semis was out of question. Aus derserved the WC after putting back to back strong performances.

I'm sorry but Pakistan were unlucky to come up against Klusener and to lose v SA. Pakistan knew they didn't need to do much in the super 6 to reach the semis. Aus, SA and Pak were standout sides...so please give credit where it is due.

 

[Asif khan]

Followed the team all the way to the finals and what an amazing ride it was. Absolutely gutted after the final loss but the flair in that team was something else.

And Shoaib Akhtar was just. ..wow.


Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Saqs]

Goes to show... You give someone like Warne even a sniff... And hell be all over you.

 

[Buffet]

I'm sorry but Pakistan were unlucky to come up against Klusener and to lose v SA. Pakistan knew they didn't need to do much in the super 6 to reach the semis. Aus, SA and Pak were standout sides...so please give credit where it is due.

You are unfairly clubbing Pakistan with SA/Aus as a standout side . SA and Aus both lost only 2 games in whole WC. But, Pakistan in 1999 WC played 10 games:

• Pakistan lost total 4 games against BD, SA, IND & Aus.
• Pakistan won total 6 games against WI,Zim, Scotland, Aus & NZ.

How can you call such performance as standout? Let's not give credit unfairly. Losing 4 games against 4 different countries, when a team played total 10 games, is not a standout performance by any stretch. Also, Pakistan lost games against Ind & SA in super six and won the last one to qualify for semis. Clearly, games against Ind/SA was not a dead one.

Credit is due for playing well enough to reach to finals but not for being a stand out team.

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

You clearly live on a different planet. Even bob Willis said it on Television.

SA was a tight encounter which was between the two best teams up until then. SA lost v Zim and Aus and the tie was basically a loss so they lost three times.

India v Pakistan was a bizarre win for India in the scheme of things but credit to Prasad.
The Bangladesh match- lol!

 

[Buffet]

You clearly live on a different planet. Even bob Willis said it on Television.

SA was a tight encounter which was between the two best teams up until then. SA lost v Zim and Aus and the tie was basically a loss so they lost three times.

India v Pakistan was a bizarre win for India in the scheme of things but credit to Prasad.
The Bangladesh match- lol!

You are coming up with lot of reasons for losses for Pakistan. If we take all those reasons mentioned by you so far ( Bizzare win against Ind, BD fixed, unlucky to come up against Klusener etc) at face value then yes, Pakistan was also a stand out team. I personally don't rate a team as standout if they lose 4 out of 10 games in WC. Most of those losses were a big one as well.

I see a loss and a tie differently. Even if you want to count tie as a loss for SA then only Aus was a stand out team. Anyway, just my opinion and not everyone has to see the same way. Going by some posts in this thread it seems I do have some company in my different planet
.
Not the performance but I felt that Pakistani team was packed with great/good players. Individually packed with brilliant players but collective output of team was not a great one. That team in 90s should have won more consistently.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I'm sorry but Pakistan were unlucky to come up against Klusener and to lose v SA. Pakistan knew they didn't need to do much in the super 6 to reach the semis. Aus, SA and Pak were standout sides...so please give credit where it is due.

Pakistan were unlucky.

They didn't have to do much so they can relax.

Then they were the best team in the World Cup and deserved to be there?

A relaxing team that depends on luck should have won the final ?

Very opportunistic shot.

 

[Bushroda]

I'm sorry but Pakistan were unlucky to come up against Klusener and to lose v SA. Pakistan knew they didn't need to do much in the super 6 to reach the semis. Aus, SA and Pak were standout sides...so please give credit where it is due.

In a World Cup, nobody would ever take things lightly especially with English weather. What if the game against Zim had washed out?

By the time Super-6 matches were over, Pakistan's shortcomings were clearly visible. It had a fragile batting line-up that could post a total of no more than 220 on a regular day. Thats all a bowler like Warne needs to know.

Klusener was a phenomenon in the World Cup. What he did to Pakistan, he had been doing the same to the rest. Pakistan weren't unlucky but clearly had no game plan for him.

 

[Asif khan]

The batting had serious problems against the seaming ball but it was potentially explosive, the bowling was sensational and perfectly balanced.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[90MPH]

Pakistan batting was not as poor as some are suggesting, it was very explosive at times especially the last 10 overs.
I remember Moin Khans ramp shots for 6s against the fast bowlers - I am sure he was the first to execute those type of big shots against the fast bowlers. Glen Mcgraths facial expressions during one of the group games was unforgettable

The bowling attack was just brilliant and seemed complete.

Sadly in the final they performed well below expectations. 220-250 was all that was needed at least for a good chance of winning.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Some brilliant posts that in this thread that I didn't even manage to read - I'm now of the opinion that Pakistan's road to the 1999 World Cup final was rather serendipitous rather than through any real measure of solid performances/consistency.

As Buffet conveyed across excellently with the statement "Individually packed with brilliant players but collective output of team was not a great one", Pakistan was a team who had reached the final through magnificent individual performances instead of team performances - i.e Moin Khan's 63 against South Africa, Saeed Anwar's 103 against Zimbabwe, Youhana's 81* against Scotland etc. In fact, I'd go as far as stating that the only game in which the whole batting unit clicked was against Australia in the Group Stages - where Inzamam (81), Abdul Razzaq (60) and Moin Khan (31*) combined to post a comfortable bowling total of 275.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Anyway, that it not the reason why I decided to bump this thread. Instead, I'd just thought I would post this video of Gavil Hamilton's innings of 76 for Scotland against Pakistan - 46% of his team's total of 16 - in which he hit three huge sixes against Saqlain Mushtaq and Shahid Afridi (two and one respectively):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HumA1G4u1e4

Whilst I'm here, I might as well post this bowling footage video of Lahore-born Asim Butt - along with the corresponding article of claims of the alleged faking of his death (by his own wife!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaA7vRDPAaU

Tara, the wife of Asim Butt, who played 71 matches for Scotland, believes that her husband could be faking his death for some financial gain, or to put up a new identity and be with a woman he was having an affair with.

Butt was reported dead in November 2009 when he was visiting his birth place in Lahore. It was reported that the 42-year-old passed away in his sleep.

His death sparked a flood of tribute, with the First Minister Alex Salmond paying his tributes as well.

Tara, who is a mother of three children, has fought an unsuccessful two-year battle to track down her husband’s death certificate.

48-year-old Tara now lives in Egypt, and says she had been repeatedly told by the Pakistan authorities that there is no death record related to Asim, adding that his family has stopped responding. Also, her lawyer has failed to track it down.

“In the beginning I believed Asim had died. It was in the newspapers and that was what I was told by his family, but I became more and more suspicious when I couldn’t get the death certificate. I don’t know whether he has faked his death for financial reasons or to be with another woman. His family don’t answer my calls or e-mails,” she was quoted by Scotsman.

Tara informed that she left her husband in 2005 after discovering his affair with an Edinburgh woman, who would give birth to his son., adding that Asim also got involved in using drugs, including ecstasy and cannabis.

In 2007, Tara asked her husband for a divorce as she had planned to move to Egypt, but her husband didn’t agree.

“Asim came to Egypt to see me and the kids in August 2009. He said he was getting pressure from his sister, who has four daughters, to allow them to marry our sons. Asim was also in a lot of debt. Asim went to Lahore in November to deal with the sale of his father’s house.

“I was told about Asim’s death by his family by phone. They had found his body in the house at around 8am or 9am, and said that he had died in his sleep. There was a funeral but I could not afford to fly over to Pakistan,” she said.

“I tried to get a death certificate so I could show I was a widow and not divorced. My children were in private school and I needed to prove I was a widow to pay reduced fees. I hired a lawyer in Egypt but he could not get a death ceritificate from Pakistan. The authorities say no-one with that date of birth and name had passed away,” she said.

“I’ve tried the Home Office and the Pakistani Consulate in Glasgow and they’ve not been able to help me either,” Tara added.

Tara was born in Pakistan but moved to the UK with her parents and holds British citizenship. She met Asim, who always remained a Pakistan national, during his visit to London to apply for asylum, Scotsman reported.

“Our marriage had a lot of problems and, in 2005, I felt he was having an affair. I thought he had affairs before, but this time I was sure. He also became involved in taking drugs. He was smoking grass and I found tablets in his pockets, which were ecstasy. That’s when he failed a drug test and got banned.”

Asim tested positive during a drugs test following the Scottish Saltires-Somerset Sabres clash on May 11, 2005. He claimed a cigarette that he smoked at a party had drugs, and was handed one-year ban.

“I’ve never had a penny from Asim’s estate since 2009. His sons are entitled to a share of the house in Lahore, but I just want the truth.

Chris Jones, president of Heriot’s Cricket Club, where Asim used to play, says they had never had any doubt on the cricketer’s death.

“At the time, the club heard that Asim had suffered an aneurism in Pakistan and died, and that certainly seemed to stack up because he had suffered from ill-health before that. I would be staggered and amazed if that was the case as Asim was a very upright individual,” he said.

SOURCE

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Now to address the World Cup final by itself. If you had select one player who failed to live up to expectations/the batsman whose dismissal you believe could have been avoided, who would it be?

Here is the clip of the disastrous 1999 World Cup performance (for UK posters, considering the video is blocked to UK posters upon YouTube):

http://tune.pk/video/80406/ICC-Cricket-World-Cup-Final-1999-Highlights

 

[Saqs]

Now to address the World Cup final by itself. If you had select one player who failed to live up to expectations/the batsman whose dismissal you believe could have been avoided, who would it be?

Here is the clip of the disastrous 1999 World Cup performance (for UK posters, considering the video is blocked to UK posters upon YouTube):

http://tune.pk/video/80406/ICC-Cricket-World-Cup-Final-1999-Highlights

Anwar getting castled by a relatively straightforward delivery from Fleming turned the tide I think.

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Anwar getting castled by a relatively straightforward delivery from Fleming turned the tide I think.

I agree, the changing of the rubber of the bat handle proved to be apocalyptic.

I may be alone in stating this but does anybody else feel Inzi's dismissal was dubious? The ball was nowhere near the edge of the bat.

 

[Pakz]

Why was there so many pitch invasions during those matches like the video posted in opening post? Seen it other in ones as well, why was that the case?

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

I think this is the best ODI side Pakistan ever had.

probably the most corrupt too

 

[R1a1]

1999 was such long time ago (15) years, yet really it feels like yesterday. I remember I skipped my high school class just to watch the final. Time just fly's bye. in another 15 years, I will be in my mid 40's, life is short

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

Now to address the World Cup final by itself. If you had select one player who failed to live up to expectations/the batsman whose dismissal you believe could have been avoided, who would it be?

Here is the clip of the disastrous 1999 World Cup performance (for UK posters, considering the video is blocked to UK posters upon YouTube):

http://tune.pk/video/80406/ICC-Cricket-World-Cup-Final-1999-Highlights

It was a batting problem.

There was moisture and the wicket had pace and bounce: more so than any other Lord's pitch I've seen in 22 years of watching.

The key was to bowl first and nip out M Waugh, Gilchrist and Ponting early.

Saqlain would've been key v S Waugh and Bevan.

If we scored 260, that would've been enough to win that final. Biggest disappointment in our history.

 

[Energetic]

Its amazing why people say Ban-Pak game was fixed when there's no proof to back that up. Even if it was then its likely the 11 world cup was also fixed. Your pick

 

[Mohsin]

lol people even bashing the 99 team/99WC performance....wow we really do love to bash anything

Awesome World Cup though...teams were awesome, kits were cheesily awesome, hosted awesomely, even TV coverage was cool (shown on free to view BBC)

I still remember managing to convince my mum to let me have the day off Mosque to watch the Pak v NZ game...still remember the Aus-SA semi...what an end!

The tourney started off with me hating cricket thinking it was boring...ended with me falling in love with the game!

 

[Supporter of Pak legends]

Why was there so many pitch invasions during those matches like the video posted in opening post? Seen it other in ones as well, why was that the case?

I want to state that it was simply due to the expression of passion from British Pakistani supporters at the grounds - who completely thronged the grounds between 1999 and 2001 - but unfortunately, I can't.

Such fans were an absolute disgrace to the sport and the only word to describe their atrocious behaviour is hooliganism, as is evident with the videos below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVH0AI4TVGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEkRWhrEIlo

The root of the problem, along with the reckless actions of Pakistan supporters, was the poor security at the ground.

Plus, it is worth noting that prior to the attack upon the steward in 2001, the match presentation took place upon the balcony (in the UK) and thus crowds were allowed to invade the pitch to watch the match presentation. Since then however, match presentations in the UK have occurred only upon the ground itself - to avoid such instances.

 

[frenchcut]

Ok, this thread keeps getting resurrected with people saying it was the "best pak side/2nd best performance in a wc EVER" etc etc. It was a good side on paper, but then which Pak side hasn't been atleast competent in ODIs.

As people have pointed out, Pak lost 4 matches in that world cup, which is a big figure. People have also pointed out that they seized the "crucial moments" of the world cup, which again is a fallacy.

The world cup that year had an extremely weird format. Part of the problem is that cricket has only about 8-10 competitive ODI teams, so the organizers are stuck between a rock and a hard place when deciding whether to go straight to the Semis or have a quarter final after a group stage. So they hit on the idea of a "Super6", which is ok in theory because atleast it eliminates some good teams from the group stages. However, they decided upon a farcical "bonus point" system carried over from group stages.

So what should have been the "crucial turning points" that Pak seized eventually ended up being 3 chances to win one match resulting in Pak losing to SA, losing to India and then needing to beat Zimbabwe (admittedly a decent team that year) to get to the semis. Where they could have faced south africa or australia, but drew new zealand. They then got smashed in the finals.

The real champion side was australia, who overcame a slow start in the tournament, picked up steam, won 3 out of 3 when it was required in the super 6. Fought hard to defend a low total vs south africa and then pulverised pakistan. That world cup was basically a contest to see which of South Africa and Australia were the best ODI side in the world. Saying Pak "should have won" is doing that champion australia side a disservice.

Oh and as a final note, I notice all of Pakistan's losses being conveniently "explained away":

Bangladesh - "Oh that was fixed. We were still deserving finalists and should have won"

India - "Oh that's India, bogey side. We were still deserving finalists and should have won"

SA - "Oh they're a good side. We were still deserving finalists and should have won"

Aus - "....We were still deserving finalists and should have won"

If you're going to explain away your losses to 4 teams out of 8 or 9, that doesn't leave you much does it? It's not like it was 4 losses in a year or in a decade. It was in a single world cup.

Well done making it to the final, but looking back I am surprised at how flukey it was and how much the format helped you. Nothing wrong in that, but you should stop moaning about "how you should have won that final", because it wasn't even close.

 

[adit_sh]

From 87 onwards, (dont know how was WC before that)

I thought 96 WC team along with 87 team was the best PaK Put across Followed by 99, 92 and 03.

Aus has always been the best and fav to win at all occasion baring 87 along with SA from 92.

India's best team was in 87 & 03 followed by 92 and 11.

 

[PB]

This and 2003.

Damn.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Why we lost 1999 world cup Final ?

Ijaz Ahmed speaks up finally.


https://youtu.be/zmFvkXOlR2o

 

[octavian]

That was the best ODI side we ever had.

Look at the South African and Australian side in the same tournament. Both these sides were as mighty as they they come with plenty of big names and both sides were superbly balanced.

Pakistan managed to beat Australia in the group stages in a hard fought match. We lost to SA in the group match due to a Klusener special but the match was still very closely fought. We were very very competitive against the best two side of the tournament and reached the final of the WC.

Wasim Akram lead the team brilliantly and the guys gelled and fought like a formidable unit under his leadership. Unfortunately, it was a downward spiral as soon as Wasim was fired for leading his team to the final of a WC and we have never been the same.

It's still mind boggling though, how little this team achieved while both the Australian and the South African team that we were so closely matched with - went on to achieve great things.

 

[Rainbow]

Pakistan's team lost 4 matches (including final) in the 1999 World Cup. Match by match outlook:

vs Bangladesh: Bangladesh win=Test status=More cricket in subcontinent=More money for playing countries? Most likely not fixed, but Pak team didn't appeared to be in a serious mood to win. Ijaz Ahmed attempting rash shot and getting bowled with no visible remorse- walking off as if it was coming and didn't even turn around to have a look at the stumps. Inzimam getting plumb lbw and in that moment looked at the umpire as if Inzimam himself is 'convinced' that he is out and appealing/ready to walk off. Also Saqlain's run out, where he tried to reach the crease with his arm bent instead of stretching it out. Even if this loss was not fishy, but a genuine upset, then why say that Pak did not deserve the World Cup based on this loss to Bangladesh? Even South Africa lost to Zimbabwe, and Australia lost to New Zealand.

vs South Africa: Most likely not fixed. it was the first match of Pak in Super Six and Pak needed a win to qualify to the Semis. Pak was doing quite well to defend as South Africa was reduced to 58-5, but Kallis helped to take the game deep and then Klusener was brilliant towards the end. Can be said that Pak lost to Klusener, who was actually decimating every bowling attack in that World Cup. Remember Klusener mentioning somewhere that this is the favorite innings of his career.

vs India: Most likely not fixed. It was Pak's second match in the Super Six and a win still needed to qualify to the Semis. Prasad took the key wickets of Saeed Anwar, Inzimam, Saleem Malik, Moin Khan and Wasim Akram. Would rate this match-winning performance of Prasad above that of Tendulkar's 98 (in WC 2003), which came against a withering bowling attack and India could have still lost if not for the much-needed steady and solid partnership of Dravid and Yuvraj.

vs Australia (final): Think it was a sensible decision to bat first based on the circumstances. In this World Cup, Pak had only once (vs Bangladesh) elected to bowl first after winning the toss, and had managed to post 200+ after unimpressive starts of 42-4 (vs West Indies) and 92-5 (vs Scotland). Also, in the league match against Australia, Pak was 100-3 after around 30 overs and still managed to post 275, however Aus had done tremendously well to stay in the game and reached 265. So a big score by Pak was probably required and aimed for, and to recall that Saeed Anwar had surprised everyone by scoring two back-to-back centuries in the two matches (not a single half-century before that) prior the final and Wasti had scored 84 in the Semi. So Pak looked in a good position to post a good total in case of batting first. In the event of early loss of wickets, a steady innings by Ijaz, Inzimam, Moin, Azhar Mahmood or Wasim Akram was needed. The missing link was Yousuf (not playing due to injury), and how much his loss was evident given the eventual batting collapse on the day. Afridi was a replacement opener for Wasti and not a middle order batter (he did some power hitting late down the order in Zimbabwe match but he came in when Pak was at 190+). A lot could be said as if-and-buts for the final, but only if Ijaz and Razzaq had stayed until 100 score for Pak, a total of 220+ could have been achieved. And when Moin was dismissed leaving Pak at 91-5, either Azhar Mahmood or Wasim Akram could have come (instead of Afridi) to the crease and taken Pak to a calm 150 runs, instead of playing pressure innings in an inevitable lost cause. Shane Warne's ball to Ijaz Ahmed was superb, but it wasn't that he was unplayable (33 runs off 9 overs with 1 maiden) like the semi-final (29 off 10 overs, of which 15 runs came off the 10th over, with 4 maidens). The apparent umpiring error towards the dismissal of Inzimam was also dreadful for Pak.
Saleem Malik, Ijaz Ahmed and Aamer Sohail have said that Pak should have bowled first in the final, but has anyone come out as to what was the opinion of the other playing seniors (Saeed Anwar, Inzimam, Moin Khan, Saqlain Mushtaq) before the toss, or was it just the decision of Wasim Akram?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This was the first World Cup I fully followed as a child. There seems to be a romantic, nostalgic view of both the 1996 and the 1999 World Cups here on Pakpassion and some wishful thinking in terms of "What could've been"

But I think it's important to give some context to that tournament. Post the 96/97 triseries in Australia, Pakistan had an extremely mediocre 20 months in ODI cricket.
Captaincy was an issue and Aamir Sohail did not inspire.
The workloads had caused injuries to bowlers and Waqar's form in particular fell off a cliff from late 97 onwards. Here is their record in the period.

View attachment 116031

As you can see, Pakistan did not have a positive W/L against any of the top 8 sides despite bullying BD and Zimbabwe.

Now, let's look at the period after that till the eve of the world cup.

View attachment 116032

What is immediately noticeable in this period is that Pakistan had absolutely bullied India in this period. This, imo is why many started rating Pakistan highly going into the World Cup. I'm sure a lot of Pakistani fans had great eexpectations after that manhandling of India over 8 months. Similarly, Indian fans lived through that period have nightmares of that time.

But look a little closer and you'll see that Tendulkar missed around 8 of those matches, both Tendu and Azhar had missed around 2-3, the bowling attack of Sri and Prasad were at their worst ( they had insane workloads over the previous 3 years) and then of course there were more sinister reasons like Azhar admitting that the India-Pakistan encounter in Jaipur was fixed.

Not only that, apart from India, Pakistan's record against the other sides is once again not particularly impressive .
Let's once again look at the record post the C&U triseries till the World Cup eve but let's see how it stands vis a vis other top 8 sides



As you can see, despite the last 8 months of bullying India, Pakistans ODI record in that period is better than NZ alone. RSA were a monster side that were far and away the best ODI team and Australia were the best of the rest.

Having said that, Pakistan being rated as the 2nd favourites after SA was not undeserved in my opinion.

The breakneck speed offered by Akhtar, the mystery of Saqlain who was the best ODI bowler of the 90's, the left arm swing and death hitting of Wasim, peak Azhar Mahmood of 1999 who was quick and could bat and was better than Waqar purely as a bowler at that point, Moin Khan's death hitting form(was hitting sixes with ease off the likes of Flintoff before WC) and then of course a monster ODI opener in Anwar and a Mad Hatter in Afridi.

No team captured the imagination like Pakistan did. So, while results did not justify their rating as 2nd favourites, they were a side on a roll with exciting, X factor players and variety.

But only teams who have had consistent results and can withstand pressure really do well in long tournaments like the World Cup. Pakistan had neither consistent results(from the images above) nor could they really withstand pressure.

Pakistan's squad backups were not good enough over the course of 10 matches. There were members of that squad who were complete liabilities especially in England

1. Saleem Malik

He was rubbish in ODIs at that point. Barely played for nearly 2 years before the tournament and flopped every single time. The most questionable selection in the 15



That's how pathetic his form was. Completely different from the great ODI player ge was in the 80's


2. Wajahatullah Wasti

This was Wajahats career before the World Cup.



Wasim claimed that Wajahat was needed to counter early summer English conditions at the World Cup )

3. Afridi
Wouldn't have been the worst selection for a World Cup in Asia considering he was giving rapid starts in the matches right before and he was the 6th bowling option. Unfortunately, he was bound to be a complete flop against that Dukes ball and his bowling was not particularly good either.

4. Waqar

Waqar was in the worst form of his life and looked completely done in int'l cricket. This was Waqar's form or lack thereof



He was often injured often, got smashed around by Zimbsbwe even and after a dreadful tour of India where he averaged 76 with the ball, he was dropped for the ODIs and Azhar bowled like a demon and took his chance and that was in addition to his batting.

Waqar didnt deserve to be in the squad at all. Pakistan had to bowl the same 4 seamers throughout the tournament and at times it felt like they needed to rotate in another seamer in the Super sixes when shoaib was wayward etc.


5. Mushtaq Ahmed

Had things gone well with Saqi, it wouldn't have mattered but since Saqi didnt have the best world cup, it was clear Pakistan needed a better alternative. Mushtaq had barely played in a while and Arshad Khan had actually been in good form when he got chances

6. Saqlain

Might seem like nitpicking but I believe Saqlain had ust started to decline at the time. For a bloke who had averaged in teens for the previous 3 years in ODIS, he was not even the best spinner in the tournament and he was found wanting in the super six, SF etc. He had been Pakistans biggest match winner for 3 years but couldn't step up when it mattered.

7. Ijaz Ahmed

I've heard many posters, including [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] claim that Ijaz was past it . This could not be further from the truth.

Since Ijaz Ahmed came back to the Pakistan ODI side in 1994, he was Pakistans 2nd best batsman after Saeed Anwar. They were the only 2 batsmen to average 40+ and strike at 80+ in the period.



Whether it was the conditions, a sudden loss of form with his real age catching up, randomly being replaced by Razzaq at 3 or more sinister reasons involving bookies/casinos, Ijaz's lack of impact hit Pakistan massively during the tournament and the batting suffered.


As you can see, atleast 5 members of the squad were awful selections and meant that Pakistan did not have depth in the squad.

Add to that the lack of consistency in results in previous years, it means that Pakistan were not clear favourites before the tournament.

Additionally, the relative underperformance of Saqi and Ijaz's shocker of a tournament, meant that even during the tournament, Pakistan had shown no signs that they were any better than OZ/SA to be worthy champions.