What's new

[VIDEO] "We should have done (won the World Cup) in 1992 but we were robbed" : Sir Ian Botham

Botham has always been a poor loser. He always had a problem with Pakistan. His comments about his mother in law vis-a-vis Pakistan are well known (along with other comments) which is why Amir Sohail had a pop at them when he was out in the final. Botham was also sued by Imran Khan, and IK won the most expensive libel case in cricketing history.

Just because Botham has been knighted doesn't mean he deserves respect or is worthy or his knighthood.

I blame Dennis Lillie and Rod Marsh. Had these 2 Australians not placed a £15 bet on Australia to lose at Headingly in 1981 at 500 to 1 odds, Botham would not have commanded the attention he did. (England win the Test)
 
Last edited:
He is correct Javed Miandad was out plumb LBW off Pringle and was not given out.

There are tons of matches where umpires have made bad decisions.

But you don’t whine about being “robbed”, not 27 years later. They were outplayed on the day and lost.

If anything it’s the Pakistan team that has always been at the receiving end of horrendous decisions especially against England.

I remember during the 1992 Pakistan tour of England the Jung newspaper had a clear photograph of a English batsman being run out where Rashid latif had knocked off the bails (he was at least a metre short) but square leg umpire (believe it was Shepherd) said not out -you want to talk about being robbed that was a clear example of daylight robbery.

And there were countless more during the 80s - there is a reason Imran Khan kept pushing for neutral umpires.

If England were good enough they would have either chased the score or restricted Pakistan under 200 despite 1 or 2 decisions not going their way.
 
Last edited:
For those of you who were not around or not following cricket in 1992, read this.

Capture.JPG

22 March 1992: Rain saves England in World Cup semi-final

We had set a target of 252, but South Africa were closing in as the rain started coming down. Jonty Rhodes kept running two to me at deep mid-off and the ball was getting wetter and wetter. I remember Ian Botham shouting, "for God's sake stop letting him have two runs", so I said: "Why don't you come field here, because I tell you what, they'll run three to you if you do."

Then I went to Graham Gooch, the captain, and told him we had to appeal against the rain because it was becoming ridiculous. The ball was slippery, hard to pick up, and if we had carried on like that they would have won the game hands down. So I managed to persuade Goochy to go with me to the umpires and they called us off with South Africa needing 22 runs off the final 13 balls. Thank goodness they did.

The game couldn't be extended because of television demands, so by the time we were able to go back out, the umpires had shortened the game to leave them with just one ball left. A new rule introduced for that World Cup meant the target was reduced only by the amount of runs we had scored in our least productive two overs with the bat. That meant they were left needing 21 runs from their final ball.

None of us could work out what they needed and the scoreboard actually got it wrong, showing 22. At that time even the umpires were battling to work it out. It was a very unfair way to do it. For them to have lost two overs and then be left needing more than 20 off one ball was shocking.

Brian McMillan was facing the final ball for them, and I was with him as he was walking out. I said: "You make sure it's a bloody big hit, because you've got to get that off one ball, I've never seen a 22 before." He wasn't very amused. In the end he just blocked it and we walked off having won the game.

South Africa's players were very down afterwards. A couple of them came and had drinks with us and they ended up all in our dressing room but of course they were despondent. They had lost a chance to get into the World Cup final, having just got back into cricket after being banned when their government brought in apartheid.

It was a big thing for them but also for me as it was the first time I had played against South Africa. It was great playing against people that I had played with and against when I was being brought up.

I think we would have lost if we hadn't stopped for the rain, but we deserved to reach the final as we were the best team throughout the competition. A win's a win, and we didn't feel like we were particularly lucky or anything like that. Those were the rules, and that was it really.


Next time anyone says Pakistan were lucky to be in the final because of the rain, make sure you educate them and let them know England it was England who were lucky to be in the final because of the rain.
 
To be honest, he does have a point although his reasons might be different.

England had shot Pakistan for 74 in the group game before we were gifted a point because the match was abandoned due to rain. It was inarguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

That one point came back to haunt England who lost to us in the final. If Pakistan would have been eliminated, it is quite possible that England would have gone on to win the World Cup.

We can criticise Botham all we want, but if the exact same thing happens to Pakistan, we would be lamenting our bad luck and calling the other team extremely lucky.

Also, it is pertinent to shed some light on the South African match as well. People justify Pakistan getting a point out of the England game by stating that they were robbed against South Africa because of rain.

However, chasing 212 after you were 74/2 is not comparable to getting away with a target of 75 with the opposition 20/1. It wasn't just robbery - it was daylight robbery with their hands tied behind their backs.

Definition of ROBBED....
take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force.
"he tried, with three others, to rob a bank"
synonyms: steal from;

Rules were followed. They were bad rules and later revised but we followed the protocol as laid down by the officials. England were not robbed. The final was a fair match and the final decided who would be the ultimate holder of the cup. The group stages in this discussion are irrelevant.
 
For those of you who were not around or not following cricket in 1992, read this.

View attachment 93392

22 March 1992: Rain saves England in World Cup semi-final




Next time anyone says Pakistan were lucky to be in the final because of the rain, make sure you educate them and let them know England it was England who were lucky to be in the final because of the rain.
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] probably wasn't aware of this.
 
To be honest, he does have a point although his reasons might be different.

England had shot Pakistan for 74 in the group game before we were gifted a point because the match was abandoned due to rain. It was inarguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

That one point came back to haunt England who lost to us in the final. If Pakistan would have been eliminated, it is quite possible that England would have gone on to win the World Cup.

We can criticise Botham all we want, but if the exact same thing happens to Pakistan, we would be lamenting our bad luck and calling the other team extremely lucky.

Also, it is pertinent to shed some light on the South African match as well. People justify Pakistan getting a point out of the England game by stating that they were robbed against South Africa because of rain.

However, chasing 212 after you were 74/2 is not comparable to getting away with a target of 75 with the opposition 20/1. It wasn't just robbery - it was daylight robbery with their hands tied behind their backs.

Nice of you stand up for your second favourite team England, just like you always stand up for your favourite team India.
 
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] probably wasn't aware of this.

I was. Read post #57.

Defending 22 in 13 is far more likely than defending 74 in 50 overs. Yes South Africa got an impossible equation because of the rain and England were lucky, but the word "lucky" does not do justice to what Pakistan got in that match vs England. No team in history of ODI cricket has been luckier.
 
I was. Read post #57.

Defending 22 in 13 is far more likely than defending 74 in 50 overs. Yes South Africa got an impossible equation because of the rain and England were lucky, but the word "lucky" does not do justice to what Pakistan got in that match vs England. No team in history of ODI cricket has been luckier.

Keep ignoring me it’s good for you every time you get owned you go hide somewhere pathetic human being
 
To be honest, he does have a point although his reasons might be different.

England had shot Pakistan for 74 in the group game before we were gifted a point because the match was abandoned due to rain. It was inarguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

That one point came back to haunt England who lost to us in the final. If Pakistan would have been eliminated, it is quite possible that England would have gone on to win the World Cup.

We can criticise Botham all we want, but if the exact same thing happens to Pakistan, we would be lamenting our bad luck and calling the other team extremely lucky.

Also, it is pertinent to shed some light on the South African match as well. People justify Pakistan getting a point out of the England game by stating that they were robbed against South Africa because of rain.

However, chasing 212 after you were 74/2 is not comparable to getting away with a target of 75 with the opposition 20/1. It wasn't just robbery - it was daylight robbery with their hands tied behind their backs.

Pretty laughable post must say.

Based on same logic Pakistan is super unlucky here.

New Zealand who just wilt against any team with some quality and intensity got a free point against India. They have lost spectacularly against Australia, Pakistan and seemsnow England. Almost certain India would have given them a hiding. Add to that the fact that Pakistan were unlucky to not play Sri Lanka that is essentially 2 point upswing for the Kiwis. And yea Pakistan didn’t play a ball against Sri Lanka but let’s be honest pre-WC if there was one team (asides from Afghanistan), this Pakistan team would be backed to beat them they episode he SL.

If Pakistani fans whine about this situation it will be sour grapes even though this is true. So to see someone having a whinge fest 30 years or so later is hilarious.
 
Pretty laughable post must say.

Based on same logic Pakistan is super unlucky here.

New Zealand who just wilt against any team with some quality and intensity got a free point against India. They have lost spectacularly against Australia, Pakistan and seemsnow England. Almost certain India would have given them a hiding. Add to that the fact that Pakistan were unlucky to not play Sri Lanka that is essentially 2 point upswing for the Kiwis. And yea Pakistan didn’t play a ball against Sri Lanka but let’s be honest pre-WC if there was one team (asides from Afghanistan), this Pakistan team would be backed to beat them they episode he SL.

If Pakistani fans whine about this situation it will be sour grapes even though this is true. So to see someone having a whinge fest 30 years or so later is hilarious.

Nothing compares to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74. You can’t get any luckier than that.

Pakistan can feel aggrieved at missing the two points vs Sri Lanka, but there is no guarantee that we would have won. If we got owned by West Indies and had to rely on umpiring blunders to beat Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well.

The two situations would have been comparable had Pakistan dismissed Sri Lanka for 150 and the game would have been abandoned due to rain.
 
As plumb as it gets. So Bucknor has always been pathetic.

No that is not as plumb as it gets. It’s fairly high. You and I can only speculate but if there was DRS most likely it would clip and umpires decision can be upheld.

But why let’s facts and common sense get in the way of a good story. And having the opportunity to have a pop at Bucknor makes it even better
 
Miandad wasn't plumb. It was missing off on impact.

Anyways, one decision here or there does not mean you are "robbed" of a win. Inzi was in great form, who was up next, and Wasim was bowling like crazy in that match and it was impossible to survive him for long
 
Nothing compares to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74. You can’t get any luckier than that.

Pakistan can feel aggrieved at missing the two points vs Sri Lanka, but there is no guarantee that we would have won. If we got owned by West Indies and had to rely on umpiring blunders to beat Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well.

The two situations would have been comparable had Pakistan dismissed Sri Lanka for 150 and the game would have been abandoned due to rain.

No nothing compares to getting the equation England got in the semi final to get an undeserving pass into the final..

We could have lost to SL but we should have lost to England, New Zealand as well whereas Australia should have smashed the living daylights out of us. None of that happened.
 
Nothing compares to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74. You can’t get any luckier than that.

Pakistan can feel aggrieved at missing the two points vs Sri Lanka, but there is no guarantee that we would have won. If we got owned by West Indies and had to rely on umpiring blunders to beat Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well.

The two situations would have been comparable had Pakistan dismissed Sri Lanka for 150 and the game would have been abandoned due to rain.

Jheez, sounds like you have something against Pakistan. I do agree with you that the current Pak team is mediocre but your hatred towards Pakistan knows no limits. At least give credit to Pakistan when they deserve it.
I’m not sure whether or not you’re a troll or simply bitter.
 
No nothing compares to getting the equation England got in the semi final to get an undeserving pass into the final..

We could have lost to SL but we should have lost to England, New Zealand as well whereas Australia should have smashed the living daylights out of us. None of that happened.

South Africa needed 22 in 13 balls before rain screwed them over. However, defending 22 in 13 balls is about a million times more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs.

England got very lucky against South Africa, but words cannot do justice to how lucky Pakistan got against New Zealand.
 
Nothing compares to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74. You can’t get any luckier than that.

Pakistan can feel aggrieved at missing the two points vs Sri Lanka, but there is no guarantee that we would have won. If we got owned by West Indies and had to rely on umpiring blunders to beat Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well.

The two situations would have been comparable had Pakistan dismissed Sri Lanka for 150 and the game would have been abandoned due to rain.

Could you get anymore idiotic being lucky being lucky when they comprehensively defeated England in the final and botham isn’t talking about the 74 game he’s talking about the final. So I don’t know why your constantly repeating the same rubbish 74 74 u probably weren’t even born in 92 and you talk like you know more about cricket before it was even invented
 
Jheez, sounds like you have something against Pakistan. I do agree with you that the current Pak team is mediocre but your hatred towards Pakistan knows no limits. At least give credit to Pakistan when they deserve it.
I’m not sure whether or not you’re a troll or simply bitter.

What hatred? Do you disagree that a washout cannot be compared to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74?
 
Could you get anymore idiotic being lucky being lucky when they comprehensively defeated England in the final and botham isn’t talking about the 74 game he’s talking about the final. So I don’t know why your constantly repeating the same rubbish 74 74 u probably weren’t even born in 92 and you talk like you know more about cricket before it was even invented

Read my first post. I already said that my reason(s) are probably different to Botham’s.
 
South Africa needed 22 in 13 balls before rain screwed them over. However, defending 22 in 13 balls is about a million times more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs.

England got very lucky against South Africa, but words cannot do justice to how lucky Pakistan got against New Zealand.


England*
 
I dearly hope England crashes out of the tournament for the sake of Ian Botham. What a whiner! :facepalm:

Pakistan won 1992 fair and square and this clown says they were robbed. I'm sure Wasim Akram still comes into their dreams after all these 27 years!
 
So now in light of new information, Mammon's argument has changed to one team was luckier than the other.

If it wasn't for his entertainment value, he'd be useless.
 
South Africa needed 22 in 13 balls before rain screwed them over. However, defending 22 in 13 balls is about a million times more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs.

England got very lucky against South Africa, but words cannot do justice to how lucky Pakistan got against New Zealand.

Repeating one thing five hundred times and pretending you don’t see the rest doesn’t make it the truth. Getting that equation in semi and having a group match rained off in not comparable and we both know that.

But carry on. England will always remain moaners whether it’s cricket or football, and you’ll keep your head in the sand in this case :))
 
He didn't even follow the 1992 WC, he was not around; his arguments are based on sound bites and hatred of Pakistan - not facts.

I do agree ENG got lucky.

Though don't agree with you entirely on the other points.

Not being physically present isn't an argument. Those who fought WW2, probably weren't as well aware of the whole thing and how each country was playing their cards, as the generation we have now knows. Better history study.

His arguments aren't based on hate but valid self-criticism (most people can't tolerate self-criticism), which sometimes get overboard.
 
I believe south africa were robbed in the semis How on earth did 22 off 13 become 21 off 1 ball

Beefy seems to have short memory
 
I do agree ENG got lucky.

Though don't agree with you entirely on the other points.

Not being physically present isn't an argument. Those who fought WW2, probably weren't as well aware of the whole thing and how each country was playing their cards, as the generation we have now knows. Better history study.

His arguments aren't based on hate but valid self-criticism (most people can't tolerate self-criticism), which sometimes get overboard.

Not being physically present is no match for those who experienced a said event.

Those of us who watched the 1992 WC understood the context, the highs and lows, the challenges etc. Compared to someone who read about it - simply - experience trumps knowledge.

The same applies to history. I can talk about WW2, but my knowledge would never hold a candle to someone who actually fought in the war, so I wouldn't go on pretending my views hold water.

He does hate Pakistan, this is not me saying it, this is by his own admission. Therefore any point which demeans Pakistan, no matter how hypocritical or inconsistent, he will use it. This is also known as bias.
 
He’s always moaning and crying over Pakistan.

I’m sure there’s no ill-will despite the fact that he lost the case against IK in the UK after the WC.
 
Now he is debating about who got more lucky.

Let's agree both Pakistan and England were lucky to be in the finals. Even you agree that England were lucky against South Africa.

Two lucky teams ended up playing the final and Pakistan won.

No one was robbed of anything. The deserving team won in the end. End of.
 
Botham has always been a poor loser. He always had a problem with Pakistan. His comments about his mother in law vis-a-vis Pakistan are well known (along with other comments) which is why Amir Sohail had a pop at them when he was out in the final. Botham was also sued by Imran Khan, and IK won the most expensive libel case in cricketing history.

Just because Botham has been knighted doesn't mean he deserves respect or is worthy or his knighthood.

I blame Dennis Lillie and Rod Marsh. Had these 2 Australians not placed a £15 bet on Australia to lose at Headingly in 1981 at 500 to 1 odds, Botham would not have commanded the attention he did. (England win the Test)
Botham whinging about being given out when 'he didn't hit it'. Well you can't go on his say so and we didn't have DRS then.
Just look at Root's wicket today, where he is adamant that he didn't hit it and DRS Snicko proved he did, but he still wouldn't have it.
'Whinging POM' DNA
 
20 years later Morgan to make a similar video and cry about the pitch, conditions, umpiring and blah blah blah... Go home Eng boys... I mean stay home you are not winning this worldcup either:moyo2
 
Didn't watch this video but don't know what this guy is whinging about. If it were not for that stupid rain rule, SA would have knocked you guys in the semis. Get over it :inti
 
Repeating one thing five hundred times and pretending you don’t see the rest doesn’t make it the truth. Getting that equation in semi and having a group match rained off in not comparable and we both know that.

But carry on. England will always remain moaners whether it’s cricket or football, and you’ll keep your head in the sand in this case :))

That group match was rained off against a team that used that 1 point to qualify for the final, so Botham has every right to be bitter.
 
So now in light of new information, Mammon's argument has changed to one team was luckier than the other.

If it wasn't for his entertainment value, he'd be useless.

Not new information. I mentioned the the semi-final before your post, and every man and his dog is aware of the infamous 21 in 1 equation for South Africa after the rain.
 
That group match was rained off against a team that used that 1 point to qualify for the final, so Botham has every right to be bitter.

Next time when a pakistan player moan about I will bring this post of yours... but off course you will dig deep and comeback with comparing apples with oranges theory...

Not to mention you have already denied that our SL game washout in this WC is not the same...I really salute to you how you defend lies and anything which is against pak:salute
 
Botham whining big time ....... if he is refering to weather taking off a point....
On the other hand, if he is specifically refering to the final ..... mmmmmm .....he might has some point/perhaps may not.
 
Didn't he lose a libel case against IK?
I read it broke his bank.
Anyways he was a better sportsman than almost all the Aussies who ever played.
 
Pakistan won 1992 fair and square over England. We (NZ)have more to complain about (Crowe's injury) than do England as do South Africa (stupid rain rule)

And for that matter Australia has most to complain, being eliminated from the tournament after Pakistan got a point in a game they were dismissed for 74.

I think Botham is more likely complaning about umpiring decisions in the final, Bucknor twice not giving Miandad lbw off Pringle, and Botham himself being given caught behind when he believes he did not nick it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/c...-Cup-not-denied-key-wicket-Derek-Pringle.html
https://www.cricketcountry.com/arti...istans-finest-moment-in-world-cup-history-125
 
So England was robbed because a 36 years old Botham with a career batting average of 23 did not nick the ball in the final?

I can understand Botham's frustration. England has failed to even make a single world cup semi-final since 1992. That is 27 years and 6 world cups! Even Kenya has played one in that time period. Such pathetic has been England in ODIs.

No wonder, ECB has decided to win this time by any means, be it serving pancake after pancake to the English team or shortening the boundaries to 59 meters.
 
Not new information. I mentioned the the semi-final before your post, and every man and his dog is aware of the infamous 21 in 1 equation for South Africa after the rain.

More lies. You did not mention 22 off 1 in your initial response, nor subsequent responses, that is until someone mentioned it (not me). So forget about my post in this thread, you just did not mentioned it because you did not watch the 1992 WC. Now the facts have come to light, you have changed your argument again!
 
More lies. You did not mention 22 off 1 in your initial response, nor subsequent responses, that is until someone mentioned it (not me). So forget about my post in this thread, you just did not mentioned it because you did not watch the 1992 WC. Now the facts have come to light, you have changed your argument again!

Sure. If if satisfies you, you can believe that I wasn’t aware of the events of the semi-final before someone pointed out.
 
Sure. If if satisfies you, you can believe that I wasn’t aware of the events of the semi-final before someone pointed out.

You didn’t mention it though he’s right about that.

Mentioning it didn’t fit the narrative and wouldn’t round off a nice story
 
You didn’t mention it though he’s right about that.

Mentioning it didn’t fit the narrative and wouldn’t round off a nice story

I was talking about Pakistan’s luck not England’s. I mentioned the South African match which is frequently (wrongly) used to justify the 1 point after being dismissed for 74.
 
To be honest, he does have a point although his reasons might be different.

England had shot Pakistan for 74 in the group game before we were gifted a point because the match was abandoned due to rain. It was inarguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

That one point came back to haunt England who lost to us in the final. If Pakistan would have been eliminated, it is quite possible that England would have gone on to win the World Cup.

We can criticise Botham all we want, but if the exact same thing happens to Pakistan, we would be lamenting our bad luck and calling the other team extremely lucky.

Also, it is pertinent to shed some light on the South African match as well. People justify Pakistan getting a point out of the England game by stating that they were robbed against South Africa because of rain.

However, chasing 212 after you were 74/2 is not comparable to getting away with a target of 75 with the opposition 20/1. It wasn't just robbery - it was daylight robbery with their hands tied behind their backs.

Rules are the same for all teams. Don't be stupid.
 
Sure. If if satisfies you, you can believe that I wasn’t aware of the events of the semi-final before someone pointed out.

Another change of tune now that you have been caught lying again?

Post 23 by Kraetoz

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...d-quot-Sir-Ian-Botham&p=10396710#post10396710

England themselves got more lucky than Pakistan. When South Africa needed 20 odd to win after rain break for 1 delivery. But sure lets not talk about that. Because 1 point gained from washouts equals to getting robbed while getting the win in a knockout because of an absurd rule isn't stealing and South Africa weren't robbed of a world cup at all.

Post 31 by Mamoon

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...d-quot-Sir-Ian-Botham&p=10396722#post10396722

Yes England were fortunate against South Africa in the semi-final, but defending 22 in 13 balls is still far more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs.

England may not be the unluckiest team in the World Cup, but Pakistan were by far the luckiest side, and when you lose to the luckiest side in the final, you are bound to be bitter about it.

From this point onwards you change your tune.

You mentioned 22 off 1 in post 31, long after your numerous posts on how Pakistan were lucky, after someone had mentioned it in post 23. Now prove me wrong by citing your post before post 23 where you mentioned 22 off 1?

You are the biggest liar on the forum, you never watched 1992 WC. Your own posts prove you are liar, and remember, you own your own words.

You still claim you mentioned 22 of 1 frequently? The history of posts in this thread prove you wrong, again.

:)
 
To be honest, he does have a point although his reasons might be different.

England had shot Pakistan for 74 in the group game before we were gifted a point because the match was abandoned due to rain. It was inarguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

That one point came back to haunt England who lost to us in the final. If Pakistan would have been eliminated, it is quite possible that England would have gone on to win the World Cup.

We can criticise Botham all we want, but if the exact same thing happens to Pakistan, we would be lamenting our bad luck and calling the other team extremely lucky.

Also, it is pertinent to shed some light on the South African match as well. People justify Pakistan getting a point out of the England game by stating that they were robbed against South Africa because of rain.

However, chasing 212 after you were 74/2 is not comparable to getting away with a target of 75 with the opposition 20/1. It wasn't just robbery - it was daylight robbery with their hands tied behind their backs.

I agree. New Zealand were the pre-tournament favorites as well, but England had made the final anyway and to see them lose to a team that should have been eliminated in the group stage was a hard kick in the gut.

False analogy. Pakistan and Sri Lanka didn't happen at all, while England were 20/1 chasing 75 when rain robbed them of a surefire victory. Even a club team wouldn't have lost from that position.

While Pakistan would have been favourites against Sri Lanka, there is no guarantee that we would have won. We are a circus team and if we could almost lose to Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well. However, since that game didn't happen and people forcefully want to make Pakistan look like a victim in this World Cup, they will insist that had Pakistan played Sri Lanka, we would have smashed the living daylights out of them.

Only a circus team can achieve a 13 match losing streak coming into the World Cup and get dismissed for 100 in the opening game, after getting the best possible preparation among all teams.

Yes God robbed England.

We cannot compare the washout between Pakistan and Sri Lanka to the match between England and Pakistan in 1992. We could only compare it if let's say Pakistan were chasing 200 and the second innings didn't happen at all because of rain.

Of course England should take the blame for losing to Pakistan in the final, but Pakistan had no business being in the final in the first place.

Think about it this way:

In the 2019 World Cup, Pakistan have New Zealand dismissed for 74. During the innings break, their is persistent rain and the match is abandoned. That 1 point ultimately saves New Zealand from getting eliminating in the group stage.

Pakistan qualify for the final where they meet New Zealand again, and this time New Zealand wins.

How do you think PPers would react, and what would be the mood on this forum? Would people focus more on how New Zealand played better in the final and deserved to win, or would people moan and groan over the fact that they were extraordinarily lucky to survive in the tournament after Pakistan had shot them for 74? If you want to be honest here, you already know the answer.

Nothing compares to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74.

Yes England were fortunate against South Africa in the semi-final, but defending 22 in 13 balls is still far more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs.

England may not be the unluckiest team in the World Cup, but Pakistan were by far the luckiest side, and when you lose to the luckiest side in the final, you are bound to be bitter about it.

What do you mean by "when it mattered"?

Did the West Indies game not matter? Of course it did, and that shambolic performance is the reason why we will be going home after the Bangladesh match.

Again, nothing compares to the luck Pakistan had in the group game against England. Even if we look at each of the 4,000+ ODI matches that have been played in history, I highly doubt that you get hold of any example that would top the stroke of bizarre fortune that Pakistan enjoyed against England.

Absolutely no chance of collapsing to a defeat when you are 20/1 chasing 75. It was the luckiest point any team has ever earned in a World Cup game. Nothing compares.

Look I am sorry if I sound irrational here, but that is the only way I can explain what happened on that day.

Yes rain is part of the game, but to have the match called off when you are 20/1 chasing 75 is utterly ridiculous. It is like getting killed by lightning.

Of course I am not sure, but in spite of all that, England still made the final where they lost to a team that should have been eliminated in the group stage.

I agree they were lucky against South Africa in the semi-final, but defending 22 in 13 balls is still more likely than losing your way while chasing 75.

Imran and his players must have been ashamed while accepting that 1 point.

They were robbed because they lost the final to a team that should have been eliminated the group stage thanks to England getting them out for 74.

As I replied to [MENTION=135492]emranabbas[/MENTION], if something like this had happened to Pakistan in this World Cup, we would have reacted completely differently and called ourselves extremely unlucky.

We are already doing that by focusing on the Sri Lanka match that never happened, even though we are responsible for our own demise by losing pathetically to West Indies.

I was. Read post #57.

Defending 22 in 13 is far more likely than defending 74 in 50 overs. Yes South Africa got an impossible equation because of the rain and England were lucky, but the word "lucky" does not do justice to what Pakistan got in that match vs England. No team in history of ODI cricket has been luckier.

Nothing compares to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74. You can’t get any luckier than that.

Pakistan can feel aggrieved at missing the two points vs Sri Lanka, but there is no guarantee that we would have won. If we got owned by West Indies and had to rely on umpiring blunders to beat Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well.

The two situations would have been comparable had Pakistan dismissed Sri Lanka for 150 and the game would have been abandoned due to rain.

South Africa needed 22 in 13 balls before rain screwed them over. However, defending 22 in 13 balls is about a million times more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs.

England got very lucky against South Africa, but words cannot do justice to how lucky Pakistan got against New Zealand.

What hatred? Do you disagree that a washout cannot be compared to getting a free point after being dismissed for 74?

Read my first post. I already said that my reason(s) are probably different to Botham’s.

[/b]

England*

That group match was rained off against a team that used that 1 point to qualify for the final, so Botham has every right to be bitter.

Not new information. I mentioned the the semi-final before your post, and every man and his dog is aware of the infamous 21 in 1 equation for South Africa after the rain.

I was talking about Pakistan’s luck not England’s. I mentioned the South African match which is frequently (wrongly) used to justify the 1 point after being dismissed for 74.

Read and laugh.

The old habit of trying to appear different.

Nothing but word salad.

This is as ridiculous as it gets.
 
Read and laugh.

The old habit of trying to appear different.

Nothing but word salad.

This is as ridiculous as it gets.

It's just hilarious now. He claims he was talking about luck on both Pakistan and England side and some how failed to mention 22 off 1, until it was mentioned in post 23 by another user.

Take it from me, he did not watch the 1992 WC.
 
It's just hilarious now. He claims he was talking about luck on both Pakistan and England side and some how failed to mention 22 off 1, until it was mentioned in post 23 by another user.

Take it from me, he did not watch the 1992 WC.

He probably did, every Pakistani did, or watched highlight.

But that person is a slave to his habit and or the personality he has created on PP.
 
What a load of crap! If he's referring to the caught behind decision off Wasim Akram - get over it already, all Pakistanis + umpire believe he nicked it and there is no conclusive evidence otherwise.

England had a fair game with Pakistan and if they were better they needed to show it on that day, not in the group stage, not in a series before or after, because that's how every single world cup is won in most one-off finals sports.

If he's going to talk about rain, etc. we were also robbed of potential 2 points against South Africa. South Africa were also potentially robbed of a Finals berth in their semifinal game against England. Perhaps Wasim was about to get inspired and take a 9'fer against England when defending 75? A bunch of hypotheticals - and remember, some went in England's favor (i.e. vs SA in semifinals). He will always be 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) behind Imran (or Hadlee or Kapil). He can whine till he leaves this Earth and others will keep calling him out on his **.
 
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], admit it, you're being owned here. This is rediculous reasoning and I think you'd better forget about this thread. Pakistan won the semi-final and final fair and square and that's that. Yes, they got lucky in one of the games, but England was also lucky to get to the final.

Saying that Pakistan were luckier doesn't mean much as England reached the final regardless. They had to win the final and they failed. If England were so good that they reduced pakistan to 75 in the group match, they should've beaten them in the final.
 
Last edited:
The only reason he may have to complain are the LBW appeals off Pringle against Miandad.

As for his caught behind, the umpire couldn’t hear (85,000+ people) and there was no clear deflection. BUT as soon as the ball passed the bat, Wasim celebrated along with the wicketkeeper and Botham turned around to see if it was caught or not.

The umpire pays attention to these little details.
 
Lol we won. Who cares if we had luck? Sometimes you need lick to win a WC. Ideally you don't want the luck we had but we took advantage and got over the line.
 
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION], admit it, you're being owned here. This is rediculous reasoning and I think you'd better forget about this thread. Pakistan won the semi-final and final fair and square and that's that. Yes, they got lucky in one of the games, but England was also lucky to get to the final.

Saying that Pakistan were luckier doesn't mean much as England reached the final regardless. They had to win the final and they failed. If England were so good that they reduced pakistan to 75 in the group match, they should've beaten them in the final.

You and a few others can say what you want. I cannot control what you say and I cannot force you to agree with me. If you think I have been owned, so be it.

As I said to another poster earlier, if Pakistan had reduced team X to 74 all out who end up getting a free point because of rain, and then they use that 1 point to beat Pakistan in the final, Pakistani fans will be more salty than a salt mine, and our moaning won’t stop for years.

If we scurry through the 4,000+ ODIs that have been played, you won’t find a single team who was as lucky as Pakistan on that day.
 
You and a few others can say what you want. I cannot control what you say and I cannot force you to agree with me. If you think I have been owned, so be it.

As I said to another poster earlier, if Pakistan had reduced team X to 74 all out who end up getting a free point because of rain, and then they use that 1 point to beat Pakistan in the final, Pakistani fans will be more salty than a salt mine, and our moaning won’t stop for years.

If we scurry through the 4,000+ ODIs that have been played, you won’t find a single team who was as lucky as Pakistan on that day.
Then India can also claim they were robbed in the last ICC Champions Trophy final because they destroyed Pakistan in the earlier game and if other teams had done the same then Pakistan would have been out early - instead the Pakistanis came back with their A-game and beat India in the final..
 
Lol we won. Who cares if we had luck? Sometimes you need lick to win a WC. Ideally you don't want the luck we had but we took advantage and got over the line.

Some people here just can't digest the fact that Pakistan has won a world cup....
 
Pathetic comment and sounding like a sore loser. Pakistan beat them fair and square in the finals and comprehensively as well. By his logic, many teams through out the history have been robbed of several world cups.
 
Pakistan needed some luck because they were two key players in Saeed Anwar and Waqar Younis. If these two were playing, they would have won the WC comprehensively, so there's no need to bring up how lucky we got in this tournament.
 
For those of you who were not around or not following cricket in 1992, read this.

View attachment 93392

22 March 1992: Rain saves England in World Cup semi-final




Next time anyone says Pakistan were lucky to be in the final because of the rain, make sure you educate them and let them know England it was England who were lucky to be in the final because of the rain.

I been thinking all this while what he is complaining about, I remember SA needed 22 of 13, that got reduced to 22 of 7 and then 22 of 1 ball. SA would be in the Finals, if they were not robbed.
 
Wouldn't it be funny if they get knocked out in the semi this time around :trump
 
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] you really are the Botham of PP.

LOL this thread is pure gold by the way. Mamoon, aaj to khush hojao yaar, Pakistan is out of the tournament!

If this is not ballay ballay time for you, I don't know what is, so relax and take it easy with the '' Pakistan got lucky '' business. Pakistan won the tournament, and you can't really go back and give the title to England no matter how unlucky you think they were (nobody was luckier than them after that South Africa semi final fiasco, just for the record).

Chin up now, all of us will cheer for team England along with you vs the bhartis anyway!
 
To be honest, he does have a point although his reasons might be different.

England had shot Pakistan for 74 in the group game before we were gifted a point because the match was abandoned due to rain. It was inarguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

That one point came back to haunt England who lost to us in the final. If Pakistan would have been eliminated, it is quite possible that England would have gone on to win the World Cup.

We can criticise Botham all we want, but if the exact same thing happens to Pakistan, we would be lamenting our bad luck and calling the other team extremely lucky.

Also, it is pertinent to shed some light on the South African match as well. People justify Pakistan getting a point out of the England game by stating that they were robbed against South Africa because of rain.

However, chasing 212 after you were 74/2 is not comparable to getting away with a target of 75 with the opposition 20/1. It wasn't just robbery - it was daylight robbery with their hands tied behind their backs.
Illogical, meritless and misguided post on multiple levels.
 
False analogy. Pakistan and Sri Lanka didn't happen at all, while England were 20/1 chasing 75 when rain robbed them of a surefire victory. Even a club team wouldn't have lost from that position.

While Pakistan would have been favourites against Sri Lanka, there is no guarantee that we would have won. We are a circus team and if we could almost lose to Afghanistan, we could have lost to Sri Lanka as well. However, since that game didn't happen and people forcefully want to make Pakistan look like a victim in this World Cup, they will insist that had Pakistan played Sri Lanka, we would have smashed the living daylights out of them.

I agree with the last part and not sure how and why were we confident of Pakistan's victory over Lanka that also defeated England and Windies is beyond my comprehension.
 
No that is not as plumb as it gets. It’s fairly high. You and I can only speculate but if there was DRS most likely it would clip and umpires decision can be upheld.

But why let’s facts and common sense get in the way of a good story. And having the opportunity to have a pop at Bucknor makes it even better
High? Do you have the benefit of DRS to call it 'fairly high'? Just because your team got benefited from this call doesn't make Bucknor any less of a pathetic umpire he always was.

And lol, where the hell are 'facts' here?
 
Botham is a certified pakistan hater. I hope he gets robbed again and anyone posting logical explanations for this is just as nuts as him. If he has a relevant point than we were robbed in 1999 we beat aus in the group stages had it not been cloudy on the day of the final we would have beaten Australia some next level bull here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other decision botham complains about is that javed was lbw to pringle and it was not given by the umpire!
Pringle tells the story of how javed came up to him afterwards and said that Allah blessed him today, whilst pointing at his pad!
 
Back
Top