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

[Robert]

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.

22 off 13 was defensible in pre-T20 days. We will never know. It was an unsatisfying way to end an important match.

 

[Captain caveman]

22 off 13 was defensible in pre-T20 days. We will never know. It was an unsatisfying way to end an important match.

I never understood, it was only 13 deliveries,, why couldn't they have just bowled the 13 deliveries and completed the match properly!
SA were devastated and england are open to people saying that they didn''t deserve to be in he final!

 

[Robert]

I never understood, it was only 13 deliveries,, why couldn't they have just bowled the 13 deliveries and completed the match properly!
SA were devastated and england are open to people saying that they didn''t deserve to be in he final!

Daft decision. I think Duckbill Platypus was modified after that.

 

[Captain caveman]

Daft decision. I think Duckbill Platypus was modified after that.

It was due to this result that DL was introduced and now modified to DLS.
The system used in the 1992 wc was pre DL and was one developed with the help of the great late richie benaud!

 

[Rudi hater]

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.

He is talking rubbish. South Africa was robbed against England. They were robbed a Semi final place. Trouble with Botham is that he only sees it from an angle it suits them. Going by the same logic, Pakistan should be in the 2019 semis as we lost a point against Sri Lanka (Assuming we had won).

 

[princeuk]

Ian Botham talks bakwas most of the time anyway, who cares what he thinks.

 

[Ali_Pakistan]

What rubbish from Mamoon.
In sports teams do get lucky along the way to glory. Pakistan won fair and square as they played better.
By your logic you can prove every winning team as unjustified winners.
Go get a life man.

 

[Rudi hater]

South Africa should have been in the final of 1992. It was the semi final that England robbed from SA.

 

[Slog]

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?

You called it plumb.

It’s definitely not

The fact is that it was not out

 

[Finisher]

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.

Dont know about defending 74 but teams have got out for less than 74 more times than 22 has been hit off a single delivery

 

[Mamoon]

Dont know about defending 74 but teams have got out for less than 74 more times than 22 has been hit off a single delivery

South Africa needed 22 in 13 before rain changed the equation to 21 in 1.

Defending 22 in 13 is a millions times more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs. England got lucky, but the word “lucky” doesn’t do justice to Pakistan’s escape.

 

[Kroll]

So happy, he's not around for commentary during the WC.

Keep crying Botham!

 

[PakLFC]

It was the RSA who were cheated out of a place in the semi's versus England. True that England by defeating Pak in the rain hit match would have meant their final opponent being some different team. What people forget is that England were also very lucky in the semi's as well when RSA were well on course to overtake England's score before the heavens opened. Had it not been for rain in both matches we should have had a New Zealand/Souh Africa final. Hard luck Beefy! This man famously made a comment on "sending your mother-in-law to Pakistan" then called it a joke but started crying like a baby when some Aussie man dressed like and mocked the British Queen. He is just another hypocrite.

 

[MenInG]

So here is England's chance to make Botham happy

 

[AdamM97]

So here is England's chance to make Botham happy

He’s still angry he won’t be able to lift the trophy himself.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Come on Beefy, you were beaten by a better team on the day <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://t.co/lnLt5mJaAP">pic.twitter.com/lnLt5mJaAP</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1149766479648366592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

t is 27 years since England last contested a Cricket World Cup final. I know; I was there. Melbourne was the city, MCG the stadium and Pakistan the other team. They consigned us – or at least some of the team, such as captain Graham Gooch – to a third runners-up place in World Cups in 13 years.

They say it is the injustices that stay with you and to a certain degree they are right. In that final Pakistan made 249 batting first but it might have been a lot fewer had Javed Miandad been given out lbw, not once but twice, before he had reached double figures (he went on to make 58). On both occasions I was the bowler. That World Cup saw a different new, white Kookaburra ball used at each end and not only that: a Kookaburra ball that swung, at least for conventional swingers like me.

That final, despite me needing to pass a late fitness test on an injured side, was no different. The hot, still air in the stadium, made denser but not turbulent by 90,000 spectators (most were Aussies and fairly neutral when confronted with whom to support between England and Pakistan), was perfect for my outswingers, which quickly brought me the wickets of Aamer Sohail and Ramiz Raja.

Ramiz was given out lbw by umpire Steve Bucknor, though whether this prejudiced the later case against Javed I have no idea. Whatever the reason, he dismissed both my appeals after Javed twice played around balls heading for the stumps, the general consensus being that at least one of them was striking middle about two-thirds of the way up. Certainly Javed felt that one of the shouts was out, something he made plain to me after the match when I went to congratulate him and Imran Khan on Pakistan’s triumph. “Allah smile on me today,” he said, tapping his left leg.

Did I feel terribly wronged by Bucknor’s intransigence? No, not really. Was I upset? At the time, yes (I queried Bucknor’s judgment in terms that would have brought me a big fine today). Yet any sense of inequity had passed by the time the trophy was lifted by Imran and we did a lap of honour to thank our loyal supporters for travelling with us the length and breadth of Australia, albeit without the concluding satisfaction of capturing the cup.

Let’s face it. Injustices have been perpetrated in sport for centuries if not millennia. There is little you can do about them except to neutralise the grievance, reboot and get on with life. Of course, in this age of history by videotape, you can revisit such moments in times like these, in slow motion if necessary and play to the gallery.

It helps that England’s poor showing in World Cups since means there is a compliant audience to sing the 1992 chorus that “we was robbed” whenever we watch Bucknor’s boo-boo. But all that victimhood can be put to bed for good this summer should England win the trophy for the first time.

The disappointment of losing to Pakistan, a defeat that was possibly felt more keenly by Gooch and Ian “Beefy” Botham, who had both contested their first World Cup final in 1979, was crushing. There was more than the odd tear shed in the dressing room afterwards.

For two great players like them, as well as Allan Lamb, the sense that this last chance for glory had been missed must have cut deep, especially when it was snatched away by a team we had dismissed for a paltry 74 in the group stage only for rain to save them. But for a freakish day’s precipitation in drought-stricken Adelaide, Pakistan would not have reached the knockout stage.

Beefy, who knew the trip would be his swansong, warmed to his task slowly that winter. While the rest of the squad prepared for the World Cup by playing a three-match Test series and three one-day internationals against New Zealand, he trod the panto boards in Bournemouth, playing opposite Max Boyce in Jack and the Beanstalk.

When he did turn up about two-thirds of the way through that tour, he was rusty and overweight, though that did not prevent him from persuading Gooch to let him open the batting in the final one-day match against New Zealand – a role he had not performed since the 1986-87 Ashes tour. True to his bullish nature, he blasted 79 in 73 balls or, as one tabloid headline had it: “Bish, Bash, Bosh – Beefy.”

It’s funny the things that stay with you from nearly 30 years ago, but I remember Beefy arriving with a sack of Oakley sunglasses, at least two pairs each for those who wanted them. That largesse sparked the “sunglasses wars” with Robin Smith, who was sponsored by Bolle, their response being to provide him with a boxful of shades to dispense among the lads.

I accepted product from both men but wore neither during matches as I had always believed that sunglasses reduce visual acuity. I mean, if batsmen don’t wear them for batting – and most don’t – why wear them in the field? I was something of an evangelist about it and remember having a go at Smith after he had taken possession of Bolle’s swankiest model just before our group match against South Africa. “If you haven’t practised fielding in them, you shouldn’t wear them,” I chided. “You’d better not drop a catch off my bowling with them on or there will be hell to pay.” I think Smith left them in his bag and opted for a pair he had worn before.

The other “issue” I recall was that the ICC, who were bankrolling the tournament, had instructed teams that they must do their own laundry. Although we were staying in decent hotels, the ICC would not pick up the Extras bill, of which laundry, at least in rooms not occupied by Beefy, was always the biggest part.

I don’t recall us being on the verge of striking but the injustice and meanness of it rankled with Goochie, who called a team meeting where he informed our team manager, Bob Bennett, that “Joe Montana wouldn’t have to do his own laundry, so nor will we.” After a few days wrangling, and with smelly clothes piling up fast, the Test and County Cricket Board agreed to pay for the hotel for it.

If allowed to, little things like that can niggle away at team harmony, but we remained steadfast in our clean clothes. Obviously it helps if everyone rubs along well together but it is not essential. Providing each player knows his role and fulfils it consistently well, the team project usually trundles along nicely. And most did.

England had a good mix of attitudes for that World Cup, especially in their approach to risk. At one end of the scale you had Beefy Botham and his sanguine, blood-and-thunder approach, a bit like the “play without fear” philosophy trotted out by Morgan and his team now. For all that, Beefy had only one game where he really fired, against the old foe Australia, where he got runs and wickets in an easy win at the SCG.

Beefy’s boisterous view was tempered by the more thoughtful, nuanced approach of Gooch. Although he’d opt mostly for the aggressive option, Goochie would also counsel caution over gung-ho optimism. Confidence in one’s ability was fine, blind optimism wasn’t.

At the other end of the scale, were the spinners Richard Illingworth and Phil Tufnell who, typical of their ilk, would always expect the worst. In a playing squad of 14, eight born outside the UK, the remaining outlooks fell somewhere between that of the spinners and Beefy.

Although keen on a plan, Goochie acknowledged that players had to be prepared to reassess and improvise on their feet, something England sides have rarely been good at. And so it proved at that tournament. When teams allowed us to implement Plan A without reappraisal, we would beat them. But as soon as a side forced us to consider Plan B, such as New Zealand in Wellington and Pakistan in the final, we would dither and it would cost us.

That aside, most onlookers felt us to be the best side at the 1992 tournament. Yet many thought we were probably fortunate to win the semi-final against South Africa by dint of a bizarre rain rule that punished excellence with the ball.

I was injured for that game at the SCG, so didn’t play. But what I saw – and the apologists for South Africa never mention – was their cynical slowing down of the over rate, which saw them bowl just 45 of the 50 scheduled. Had they been forced to bowl those overs, and with our middle order going well at the time, they would have been chasing something around the 300 mark. A total that high back then would have been beyond them, though not as beyond them as the 22 runs off one ball they needed after the rain rule brought the game to a messy conclusion.

Even so, there was the slight feeling that we had peaked as a team. The ideas to open the batting with Beefy and the bowling with me, both hatched during our preamble in New Zealand, had freshened our approach. But now, for the final, it was more a question of putting in one good, professional performance against a side that, while vulnerable, had begun to bubble with confidence.

At one stage that approach looked very wise. Pakistan, who had won the toss and batted first, seemed as if they would struggle to reach 200, so slow was the recovery performed by Imran and Javed as they put on 139 for the third wicket. But a flurry of runs by Inzamam-ul-Haq and Wasim Akram left us needing 250 to win, a total that suddenly looked impossibly distant once Wasim knocked over Lamb and Chris Lewis in successive balls with 109 runs still needed.

To say that we were complacent is too simplistic. We probably assumed Pakistan would implode with the early pressure exerted by our bowling but they did not. Once they had regrouped and posted a good score, we needed to bat really well against an attack that could ask different questions of different batsmen – few of which, on the day, were answered.

Shamefully, given the amount of money lavished on England teams of all stripes, we’ve not been to another final until now. World Cups were never previously kind to the home side but that has changed with the last two being won by the tournament hosts. A third, now, would be dandy and demote England’s other near misses to the minor footnotes they deserve to be.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/t...cricket-world-cup-final-england-derek-pringle

 

[Captain caveman]

South Africa needed 22 in 13 before rain changed the equation to 21 in 1.

Defending 22 in 13 is a millions times more possible than defending 74 in 50 overs. England got lucky, but the word “lucky” doesn’t do justice to Pakistan’s escape.

Pakistan would of defended the 74 runs and would of won that match!!
Prove to me they wouldn't!!!

 

[90MPH]

The best teams don’t always win tournaments.

That’s the whole point - it’s not a league, it gives other team a chance.

England were the best team during the 1992 WC, they had a better balanced team but lost on the day that mattered.

It’s incalculable how many cricketers were inspired by Pakistan winning the WC. That’s the way any reasonable fan should see it rather than whining about an umpires decision that didn’t go their way.

 

[Captain caveman]

The best teams don’t always win tournaments.

That’s the whole point - it’s not a league, it gives other team a chance.

England were the best team during the 1992 WC, they had a better balanced team but lost on the day that mattered.

It’s incalculable how many cricketers were inspired by Pakistan winning the WC. That’s the way any reasonable fan should see it rather than whining about an umpires decision that didn’t go their way.

Its a english fallacy that england were the best team in the 1992 wc!
England lost to zimbabwe, who were an associate team!!
England would have lost to SA if it weren't for the rain!
And england lost to pakistan in the final!!
England were not the best team in that wc,
Pakistan won that wc fair and square!

As i actually watched that world cup as opposed to many on this forum who talk about that world cup but never saw it because they were not born or very young,, if i am being unbiased then SA were the best team in that world cup!!
SA got done by the stupid rain rules back then and pakistan were so happy that they didn't have to play SA in the final, because they would have probably lost!
The amazing thing is SA had only come back into the international fold in that world cup!
If SA weren't robbed by the rain, who knows how many wc SA would have won by now and they would have never become chokers!!
DESTINY!!

 

[Harsh Thakor]

England were without doubt the best team in terms of balance in the league stage in 1992 but lost their peak by the final.Man to man it was certainly better than any other team with its allrounders and batting depth.I would have backed England to prevail over the Proteas even if rain did not intervene 22 of 13 balls was a stif task in those days and 4 out of 5 teams would not mkae it.England overal played the beter cricket on thta day nad even beat South Africa in the league match.England lacked match-winner unlike West Indies and Pakistan who defetaed them while in 1987 it wa sthe superior Aussie mental resilience that won.With Gower and Botham England may have won in 1987 and were almost on par with the bestteam sin 1975 ,almost wining the semi-final.Possibly before 1987 edition England was the best team winning 4 succesive ODI tournaments against top teams.

 

[Captain caveman]

England were without doubt the best team in terms of balance in the league stage in 1992 but lost their peak by the final.Man to man it was certainly better than any other team with its allrounders and batting depth.I would have backed England to prevail over the Proteas even if rain did not intervene 22 of 13 balls was a stif task in those days and 4 out of 5 teams would not mkae it.England overal played the beter cricket on thta day nad even beat South Africa in the league match.England lacked match-winner unlike West Indies and Pakistan who defetaed them while in 1987 it wa sthe superior Aussie mental resilience that won.With Gower and Botham England may have won in 1987 and were almost on par with the bestteam sin 1975 ,almost wining the semi-final.Possibly before 1987 edition England was the best team winning 4 succesive ODI tournaments against top teams.

Totally disagree!
England lost to an associate team!!!
Englands pace attack comprised of two 70mph bowlers, botham and pringle and chris lewis!
Sa would have definetly won if it didn't rain!

England's best chance of winning the world cup was in the 1987 wc, where they were cruising in the final, until gatting decided to sweep part timer alan border, who was only bowling out of desperation, and got out! England then collapsed!!!

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

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.

If you're going to apply this theory then maybe you should apply another which is that England didn't deserve to be in the final in the first place. If there was any team that was robbed it was South Africa because of that ridiculous revised target system.

 

[Saj]

He's not happy with his dismissal wherr he felt he wasn't out and the Javed Miandad leg before that was given not out.

 

[Mamoon]

If you're going to apply this theory then maybe you should apply another which is that England didn't deserve to be in the final in the first place. If there was any team that was robbed it was South Africa because of that ridiculous revised target system.

South Africa needed 22 in 13 before rain screwed them over. While defending 22 in 13 balls is not easy, it is still far, far more likely than defending 75 in 50 overs. England did get lucky, but Pakistan got incredibly lucky. Perhaps luck isn't even the right word for it. I don't think it does justice.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

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.

By this idiotic logic, South Africa deserved to win the World Cup.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that you need luck to go your way in World Cups. But at the end the grander picture always stands-out. Without luck Australia would never have made the 1999 final. Without luck India might have been bowled out cheaply in the 2011 SF. But that didn't happen which is why none of what could have been matters.

 

[IMMY69]

Totally disagree!
England lost to an associate team!!!
Englands pace attack comprised of two 70mph bowlers, botham and pringle and chris lewis!
Sa would have definetly won if it didn't rain!

England's best chance of winning the world cup was in the 1987 wc, where they were cruising in the final, until gatting decided to sweep part timer alan border, who was only bowling out of desperation, and got out! England then collapsed!!!

England lost to New Zealand too...

Kiwis were unbeaten in that World Cup too until they came up against Pakistan..

 

[Rellu_Katta]

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.

ahh u stupid inferiority complex dumb fool... Eng could have been out of the semi-final had it not been bcz of rain ....

such a cry baby ... Eng should have won bcz how dare wasim swing the ball .. how dare mushtaq spins.. how dare inzi crakced... pakistan shuold have missed the flight and not gotton to MCG on time ...

australia should have not made to 1999 final.. how dare Gibbs drop that catch.. how tht idiot donald not run tht run...

u r inferiority complex is just at a next level .... I bet if some1 put a post "Waqar Younis vs Ashook Dinda" you will go head over heels bonkers to prove that Ashok Dinda was a world class bowler and Waqar was just an average tuddler

 

[Rellu_Katta]

By this idiotic logic, South Africa deserved to win the World Cup.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that you need luck to go your way in World Cups. But at the end the grander picture always stands-out. Without luck Australia would never have made the 1999 final. Without luck India might have been bowled out cheaply in the 2011 SF. But that didn't happen which is why none of what could have been matters.

dont argue... this guy u r tryint to argue against will fight u on saying that Vinkapthay Raju was a million times better bowler than Saqlain and Abdul Qadir combined ....

 

[shariqnoor]

By the way in that 1992 England Pakistan match that was rained off, people think Pakistan needed to defend 74 in 50 overs. That isn't true.

The target for England in that game was 64 runs in 16 overs and they were 24/1 in 8 overs. Meaning they needed 40 runs in the next 8 overs.

Pakistan probably would've still lost but it's not a clear cut result.

 

[Last Monetarist]

England were definitely unlucky not to win that World Cup due to umpiring decisions in the final, so I do agree with Botham.

Whereas, South Africa deserved to fall foul of the rain rule because they were cynical with their over-rate while England were batting and deliberately bowled their overs slowly so that England couldn't bat out 50 overs. Back then, an innings would be deemed close at the allotted time, even if the full overs hadn't been bowled. England had been batting beautifully and were on track for a score around 280 with Lewis and Reeve striking at over a run a ball. Donald went for 7 an over if I recall correctly. That cynicism from Wessels merited them falling short due to rain. It was pure karma.

A final word about Pakistan's luck in the World Cup, something that rarely gets mentioned is how lucky we were in the semi-final as well.

 

[IMMY69]

England were definitely unlucky not to win that World Cup due to umpiring decisions in the final, so I do agree with Botham.

Whereas, South Africa deserved to fall foul of the rain rule because they were cynical with their over-rate while England were batting and deliberately bowled their overs slowly so that England couldn't bat out 50 overs. Back then, an innings would be deemed close at the allotted time, even if the full overs hadn't been bowled. England had been batting beautifully and were on track for a score around 280 with Lewis and Reeve striking at over a run a ball. Donald went for 7 an over if I recall correctly. That cynicism from Wessels merited them falling short due to rain. It was pure karma.

A final word about Pakistan's luck in the World Cup, something that rarely gets mentioned is how lucky we were in the semi-final as well.

Those were the days when so many run outs were not given...
It was just given as umpires didn't have the technology and unless it was clear cut they usually favoured the batsmen. How times have changed.

But I do agree that Pakistan had some luck however I think every team that goes on to win the tournament has some luck go their way at some stage or another.

 

[Mamoon]

By the way in that 1992 England Pakistan match that was rained off, people think Pakistan needed to defend 74 in 50 overs. That isn't true.

The target for England in that game was 64 runs in 16 overs and they were 24/1 in 8 overs. Meaning they needed 40 runs in the next 8 overs.

Pakistan probably would've still lost but it's not a clear cut result.

That was the revised target because of the rain. England were 17-1 in 6 overs before the innings break during which it started to pour, and the revised target was 64 in 16 overs. Had it not rained, England would have easily won that match.

It is definitely the luckiest escape in ODI history and arguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

 

[Mamoon]

By this idiotic logic, South Africa deserved to win the World Cup.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that you need luck to go your way in World Cups. But at the end the grander picture always stands-out. Without luck Australia would never have made the 1999 final. Without luck India might have been bowled out cheaply in the 2011 SF. But that didn't happen which is why none of what could have been matters.

I do understand that. Every team that wins a tournament in any sport needs a bit of luck factor. That is not a problem. However, no amount of luck compares to Pakistan getting away with getting dismissed for 74 runs. If you dig through all the 4,000+ ODIs that have been played in history, you will not find any team who got luckier than Pakistan did on that day.

 

[Mamoon]

ahh u stupid inferiority complex dumb fool... Eng could have been out of the semi-final had it not been bcz of rain ....

such a cry baby ... Eng should have won bcz how dare wasim swing the ball .. how dare mushtaq spins.. how dare inzi crakced... pakistan shuold have missed the flight and not gotton to MCG on time ...

australia should have not made to 1999 final.. how dare Gibbs drop that catch.. how tht idiot donald not run tht run...

u r inferiority complex is just at a next level .... I bet if some1 put a post "Waqar Younis vs Ashook Dinda" you will go head over heels bonkers to prove that Ashok Dinda was a world class bowler and Waqar was just an average tuddler

We are not talking about individual brilliance or individual mistakes here. We are talking about a team getting away with being dismissed for 74 runs thanks to rain. You cannot get luckier than that.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

We are not talking about individual brilliance or individual mistakes here. We are talking about a team getting away with being dismissed for 74 runs thanks to rain. You cannot get luckier than that.

and how does that get transformed into a robbing activity ... this joker (botham) argues they were robbed but then wats the assurity that the team who would get in the final in place of pak would be an easier target? would have been one of NZ and WI ... NZ had beaten them ... infect trashed them in group stages so they wont be easier to beat ... and WI u never know ...so luck was on pak side, nothin to do with eng

 

[Mamoon]

and how does that get transformed into a robbing activity ... this joker (botham) argues they were robbed but then wats the assurity that the team who would get in the final in place of pak would be an easier target? would have been one of NZ and WI ... NZ had beaten them ... infect trashed them in group stages so they wont be easier to beat ... and WI u never know ...so luck was on pak side, nothin to do with eng

As I said earlier, if Pakistan would have dismissed a team for 74 in this World Cup who would have won a free point because of rain, and if that team would have gone on to beat Pakistan in the final, would Pakistani fans and players not feel aggrieved? If you put yourself in Botham's shoes, you will understand his bitterness.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

We are not talking about individual brilliance or individual mistakes here. We are talking about a team getting away with being dismissed for 74 runs thanks to rain. You cannot get luckier than that.

Yes weather plays a big part in a team's luck, Pakistan probably got the worst of it this time round with NZ getting points in the group game, and Pakistan losing the chance against SL.

Part of the game, but I don't see how bad weather can be called getting robbed.

 

[IMMY69]

What has the point we gained against England due to rain got to do with anything?

We had games against South African and India after that England game which we both went on to lose.
Had we not gained that extra point due to rain then who knows what may have happened in the those two games.

Furthermore, we restricted South Africa to 211 off 50 overs and were around 130 for 3 if memory serves me right before rain interrupted the game and we had overs cut..

So all this speculation is just complete nonsense and of course in hindsight we can all point to the rained off game but that was only our second or third game of the tournament...

If we apply this sort of logic then we can add that 2007 we were unlucky because Ireland managed to get a draw with a much better Zimbabwe side that was heading for victory. Had Zimbabwe won that game as it should have then Pakistan would have qualified for the super 6's even though they lost to Ireland.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can call Pakistan's victory in 1992 a fluke.

 

[OmarKhan99]

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.

The Bangladesh vs Australia 2015 group game.

Botham is referring to the Javed Miandad missed LBW off of Derek Pringle.

Also, there's no such thing as luck. It is, and always has been, destiny.

 

[IMMY69]

The Bangladesh vs Australia 2015 group game.

Also, there's no such thing as luck. It is, and always has been, destiny.

Good point.
Aussies in 2017 CT. May be we should declare them as winners as they were robbed due to the rain.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Good point.
Aussies in 2017 CT. May be we should declare them as winners as they were robbed due to the rain.

I think Botham still hasn't gotten over losing to Pakistan, were it to any other country he could probably have stomached it. The same is the case for Mamoon tbh.

 

[OmarKhan99]

The Bangladesh vs Australia 2015 group game.

Botham is referring to the Javed Miandad missed LBW off of Derek Pringle.

Also, there's no such thing as luck. It is, and always has been, destiny.

2017*. The AUSvBAN was abandoned without a ball bowled in the 2015 WC.

 

[Titan24]

While everybody is talking about luck and Eng getting robbed etc.

They are forgetting one major thing that to win a WC, you actually have to win the matches as well which Pak did when mattered in semis and in the finals.

Luck can be part of the success but performance still remains the key in deciding the matches which are played for full 50 overs. Pak won the matches when it mattered in semi and final. If Eng or NZ was good enough they should have beaten Pak and taken the WC.

 

[IMMY69]

While everybody is talking about luck and Eng getting robbed etc.

They are forgetting one major thing that to win a WC, you actually have to win the matches as well which Pak did when mattered in semis and in the finals.

Luck can be part of the success but performance still remains the key in deciding the matches which are played for full 50 overs. Pak won the matches when it mattered in semi and final. If Eng or NZ was good enough they should have beaten Pak and taken the WC.

Pakistan had to beat both host nations to qualify, one of whom was undefeated...

 

[IMMY69]

I think Botham still hasn't gotten over losing to Pakistan, were it to any other country he could probably have stomached it. The same is the case for Mamoon tbh.

Yes I agree.
I think he's actually ok with the Pakistan teams post 2000, it's just the 1992 team that was led by IK. Given their history and what transpired after the World Cup, he just can't get over the fact that IK and that team in particular beat them.

 

[Titan24]

Pakistan had to beat both host nations to qualify, one of whom was undefeated...

Exactly. Its surprising how people forget the actual part of any sport and that is to win the matches when they matter and Pak did that perfectly in the 92 WC. I cant understand getting robbed concept when you get beaten in a do or die match which suggests you simply werent good enough on the day.

Being the best student, or being the best team doesnt mean anything if you cant replicate the success on the day when it matters.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Exactly. Its surprising how people forget the actual part of any sport and that is to win the matches when they matter and Pak did that perfectly in the 92 WC. I cant understand getting robbed concept when you get beaten in a do or die match which suggests you simply werent good enough on the day.

Being the best student, or being the best team doesnt mean anything if you cant replicate the success on the day when it matters.

This will be the same case tomorrow. England are clearly the better team, and probably deserve to win the cup based on the way they play the game, and their performances in the last couple of games, but they still have to cross the finish line to call themselves the best. If NZ win, it won't matter how much people call them lucky, they will have KO'd the two fancied teams of the competition.

 

[OmarKhan99]

I think Botham still hasn't gotten over losing to Pakistan, were it to any other country he could probably have stomached it. The same is the case for Mamoon tbh.

I reckon it has to do with who was the captain of Pakistan at the time: Imran Khan. From what I hear from my parents, Botham has always had something for Imran Khan (that court case was just the icing).

I wouldn't blame him to be honest, IK just knew how to mess with their minds:

An excerpt from Derek Pringle's article on how England "were robbed" in the 1992 final.

 

[Abdullah719]

Tufnell backs Morgan’s England to go one step further than his class of 92 and lift the World Cup

Phil Tufnell was part of the last England men’s squad to make a World Cup final – 27 years ago.

But while the 1992 team fell at the final hurdle to Pakistan, Eoin Morgan’s class of 2019 are near certainties to finish the job on Sunday at Lord’s – according to the former left-armer turned pundit.

Tufnell has had the best seat in the house for much of England’s historic run to the final on home soil this summer.

And after Jason Roy and Chris Woakes inspired an eight-wicket walloping of Australia in the semi-finals, Tufnell can’t see how New Zealand are going to be able to stop this England team on Sunday.

“We just seem to have all bases covered,” said Tufnell at the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup Fanzone at Trafalgar Square on the eve of the final.

“The pace of Archer and Wood, the consistency of Woakes and Plunkett and that little bit of mystery from Rashid.

“Then in the batting line-up we have those two guys at the top who have been outstanding, the glue of Root, the big hitters of Morgan, Stokes and Buttler, I really can’t see a weakness in this team.

“I just think that while New Zealand have three or four world-class performers, England have got seven or eight.

“Eoin (Morgan) and the team have played it very cleverly. They said that they were favourites at the start of the competition, and they have embraced it.

“They have taken the heat out of it and are so confident, so well led by Eoin Morgan that they have said: ‘Yeah, you’re damn right. We are No.1 in the world and we are going to show you why.’”

Tufnell’s class of 92 were downed in surprising fashion by Pakistan in the final at the MCG 27 years ago.

And while Tufnell was not part of the XI that took to the field that day, he knows just how important it is for England to make the most of home comforts if they are to down the Black Caps.

He added: “You are in a bubble in a World Cup.

“A lot of things can happen, injuries, losses of form, it really is a squad effort. You are all in it together.

“But the guys know who is playing, it is just a question of taking your mind of things, go and see your friends and family, go to the cinema, try and do something normal.

“Because tomorrow is going to be anything but normal!

“A World Cup in anything is the pinnacle, it is what you play for.

“This tournament has already enthused a nation, I have been everywhere up and down the country and everyone stops me in the street and asks me ‘are England going to win it?’, ‘This is the first time I’ve seen cricket and I’m loving it!’

“The guys deserve a huge pat on the back for getting to the final, but to then go that extra mile and get over the line and win it will be huge for the country.”

Adil Rashid is likely to be England’s sole specialist spinner in the XI on Sunday.

The Yorkshire leggy has taken 11 wickets in this tournament – but has struggled with a shoulder problem.

However against Australia he appeared to be back to his best, fizzing googlies with the alacrity of old and Tufnell knows just how vital his fellow spinner will be on Sunday.

“It hasn’t been a spinners’ World Cup. It has been all about the quick boys, Mitchell Starc, Lockie Ferguson, Jofra Archer, these guys have done the damage,” added Tufnell.

“I was delighted to see Adil get three wickets against Australia, his confidence is on the up now.

“It just seems that all the little cogs are clicking into place and tomorrow is the day when they have got to go and deliver it.

“Lord’s is alright for spin bowlers, Adil can play with the slope and he has done well there before.”

 

[Finisher]

That was the revised target because of the rain. England were 17-1 in 6 overs before the innings break during which it started to pour, and the revised target was 64 in 16 overs. Had it not rained, England would have easily won that match.

It is definitely the luckiest escape in ODI history and arguably the most embarrassing point any team has ever earned in a World Cup.

Had it rained
Had amir not swung the ball in the final
Had bumrah not overstepped.
Can you calm down with the ifs and buts now it's getting repetitive

 

[Saj]

I think there was a bit of arrogance amongst that England 92 squad and they thought they were destined to win the final, almost as if they just had to turn up and they'd win.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes weather plays a big part in a team's luck, Pakistan probably got the worst of it this time round with NZ getting points in the group game, and Pakistan losing the chance against SL.

Part of the game, but I don't see how bad weather can be called getting robbed.

No guarantees that Pakistan would have beaten Sri Lanka. The two examples aren’t comparable.

They would have been comparable has Pakistan dismisses them for a 120 and Sri Lanka would have won a point because of rain.

 

[Mamoon]

The Bangladesh vs Australia 2015 group game.

Botham is referring to the Javed Miandad missed LBW off of Derek Pringle.

Also, there's no such thing as luck. It is, and always has been, destiny.

Good example, but it doesn’t “top” the stroke of luck that Pakistan enjoyed in 1992. Pakistan defending 75 is as unlikely as Bangladesh defending 180 odd after Australia were 70/1 (?).

I am still waiting for any example where a team has been as lucky as Pakistan were on that day. I don’t think any such example exist. You can’t get luckier than getting a point after being dismissed for 74.

I agree that it was Pakistan’s destiny to win the World Cup just like it was their destiny to win the Champions Trophy.

 

[Robert]

I reckon it has to do with who was the captain of Pakistan at the time: Imran Khan. From what I hear from my parents, Botham has always had something for Imran Khan (that court case was just the icing).

I wouldn't blame him to be honest, IK just knew how to mess with their minds:

An excerpt from Derek Pringle's article on how England "were robbed" in the 1992 final.

View attachment 93709

But Botham wasn’t there, the colonials were and would have got the joke. It was a good joke, I would have laughed.

 

[Technics 1210]

No guarantees that Pakistan would have beaten Sri Lanka. The two examples aren’t comparable.

They would have been comparable has Pakistan dismisses them for a 120 and Sri Lanka would have won a point because of rain.

And there are no guarantees that your favourite team India would beat Pakistan in a bilateral series tomorrow yet you profess India would.

At least practise what you preach.

 

[Mamoon]

And there are no guarantees that your favourite team India would beat Pakistan in a bilateral series tomorrow yet you profess India would.

At least practise what you preach.

India is a top team and currently ranked number 2. Pakistan is a circus team and currently ranked number 6.

The gap between a 2nd ranked and a 6th ranked team is greater than the gap between a 6th ranked and an 8th ranked team.

 

[Technics 1210]

India is a top team and currently ranked number 2. Pakistan is a circus team and currently ranked number 6.

The gap between a 2nd ranked and a 6th ranked team is greater than the gap between a 6th ranked and an 8th ranked team.

Stop making excuses.

Your hypocrisy is once again exposed.

To add further insult to your so called intelligence, my comment was referring to your claim of india beating pakistan in a T20 series, and Pak are #1 in T20s, which destroys your point of gulf between rankings too.

 

[Kianig89]

Beaten black and blue on the day don't know how Ian talkes about robbery they let themselves down dropping the catch of Imran Khan when he skied one pathetic bowling changes by Gooch and then a sluggish start in batting and failing to pick Mushtaq Pakistan were pumped up and more hungry look at that catch by Aaqib and moment of then millennium in WC final let alone cricket football rugby hockey or ice hockey Wasim Akram the king of swing

 

[Thephenom]

End of the day history will show Pakistan 1992 World Cup winners, Botham is a bitter looser, who made his reputation on beating the Aussies on home turf, will always be jealous of imran Khan who was 4 times the all rounder he was!

 

[aloo paratha]

And this is why England must not win the world cup.

 

[Mamoon]

Stop making excuses.

Your hypocrisy is once again exposed.

To add further insult to your so called intelligence, my comment was referring to your claim of india beating pakistan in a T20 series, and Pak are #1 in T20s, which destroys your point of gulf between rankings too.

Pakistan’s T20I ranking is misleading because they haven’t proved it by beating India. You can deny it all you want, but you know that if India and Pakistan were to face off in a T20I series anywhere in the world, India will beat Pakistan to a pulp.

 

[Robert]

I think there was a bit of arrogance amongst that England 92 squad and they thought they were destined to win the final, almost as if they just had to turn up and they'd win.

I think it more that an older group of players who had played in three or four finals each thought it their last chance, which it was of course.

 

[Technics 1210]

Pakistan’s T20I ranking is misleading because they haven’t proved it by beating India. You can deny it all you want, but you know that if India and Pakistan were to face off in a T20I series anywhere in the world, India will beat Pakistan to a pulp.

Stop digging.

You got exposed. Accept this fact and move on.

 

[Mamoon]

Stop digging.

You got exposed. Accept this fact and move on.

Oh I have moved on. Unfortunately you haven’t, which is why you are in perpetual denial.

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh I have moved on. Unfortunately you haven’t, which is why you are in perpetual denial.

You have not moved on. You got exposed in his thread; from your knowledge of 1992 WC based on highlights, to the revelation of 22 for 1 in the SF. This is why you are constantly posting in this thread, trying to prove you actually followed the 1992 WC, when clearly you did not.

It's time you moved on from damage control mode, and stop digging a hole for yourself.

 

[ARK Rafay]

If England don't win tomorrow for whatever the reason. They aren't going to win a world cup for the next 20 years also

 

[Mamoon]

You have not moved on. You got exposed in his thread; from your knowledge of 1992 WC based on highlights, to the revelation of 22 for 1 in the SF. This is why you are constantly posting in this thread, trying to prove you actually followed the 1992 WC, when clearly you did not.

It's time you moved on from damage control mode, and stop digging a hole for yourself.

I have categorically explained why Pakistan was luckier than England. All I see in this thread is straw-clutching by the usual suspects who are comparing the group match vs England in 92 to the Sri Lanka match in 2019. Talk about desperation.

The “22 in 1” has also been dispelled; defending 22 in 13 (original equation) is far more possible than defending 75 in 50 overs.

 

[Technics 1210]

I have categorically explained why Pakistan was luckier than England. All I see in this thread is straw-clutching by the usual suspects who are comparing the group match vs England in 92 to the Sri Lanka match in 2019. Talk about desperation.

The “22 in 1” has also been dispelled; defending 22 in 13 (original equation) is far more possible than defending 75 in 50 overs.

No you have not explained anything. 22 in 1 was a revelation to you in this thread, as such, you came back with another argument, wait for this - one team was luckier than the other. Forget about plausibility, it's too big a word for you to understand.

22 for 1 is impossible to achieve, defending 75 in 50 over is possible.

Go back and do your homework.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And this is why England must not win the world cup.

England are the best team, and they play the game the way it should be played. If they win they will deserve it, you shouldn't let an old guy like Botham or a self hating Pakistani's carping cloud your view.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Oh I have moved on. Unfortunately you haven’t, which is why you are in perpetual denial.

You clearly haven't moved on. You were predicting Pakistan would fail dismally in this world cup, and they could only fluke the odd win against a rated side. Ultimately they 'fluked' wins on the trot against higher ranked teams. You will just have to swallow that bitter pill like Botham had to.

Pakistan had some fortune in the group stages, but by the time they lifted that trophy everyone was running scared of them, hence Bumble's fear of the cornered tigers. That nickname arose for a reason, there was no talk of flukes by the time the final rolled around in 1992.

 

[sweep_shot]

Never liked Ian Botham. He seems like sour grape.

 

[Slog]

I have categorically explained why Pakistan was luckier than England. All I see in this thread is straw-clutching by the usual suspects who are comparing the group match vs England in 92 to the Sri Lanka match in 2019. Talk about desperation.

The “22 in 1” has also been dispelled; defending 22 in 13 (original equation) is far more possible than defending 75 in 50 overs.

Lol yo be fair you have been clutching at straws here but it’s ok

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I do understand that. Every team that wins a tournament in any sport needs a bit of luck factor. That is not a problem. However, no amount of luck compares to Pakistan getting away with getting dismissed for 74 runs. If you dig through all the 4,000+ ODIs that have been played in history, you will not find any team who got luckier than Pakistan did on that day.

I had no idea there levels or slabs of luck. Most people consider luck to be just that: luck. Not much critical analysis is usually needed to disseminate something so seemingly random. Even if one was to oblige though Australia getting South Africa to commit harakiri in the 1999 semi-final easily hits the top of your luck slab. Because while Pakistan escaped defeat with shared points and had to win most from their games from there-on in, Australia both escaped defeat and won a place in the final. And there was no way, absolutely no way they deserved to win that or should have won that

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I do understand that. Every team that wins a tournament in any sport needs a bit of luck factor. That is not a problem. However, no amount of luck compares to Pakistan getting away with getting dismissed for 74 runs. If you dig through all the 4,000+ ODIs that have been played in history, you will not find any team who got luckier than Pakistan did on that day.

Getting lucky in a SF is much different than getting lucky in a group game. You have chosen to pick this game in which Pakistan seemingly got very very lucky but by saying this you're downplaying the kind of performances they had to give to make up for their bad start.

Also saying who got lucky and who was luckier is very subjective. By this logic you could discredit anything and everything. Unfortunately things don't work like that in the real world and most people don't pay heed to something so arbitrary. You shouldn't either.

 

[IMMY69]

Getting lucky in a SF is much different than getting lucky in a group game. You have chosen to pick this game in which Pakistan seemingly got very very lucky but by saying this you're downplaying the kind of performances they had to give to make up for their bad start.

Also saying who got lucky and who was luckier is very subjective. By this logic you could discredit anything and everything. Unfortunately things don't work like that in the real world and most people don't pay heed to something so arbitrary. You shouldn't either.

It was our second game of the tournament.....
Subsequent results may have been different had we lost that game..

Just like CT17 where everyone talks about Fakhar’s luck when Bumrah bowled a no ball.
May be if it wasn’t a no ball it would have been despatched to the boundary...

It’s all ifs and buts and anyone who tries to argue that it we didn’t deserve the 1992 cup are just prejudiced idiots who’ll make themselves look even more stupid rather then admitting they’re wring

 

[OmarKhan99]

But Botham wasn’t there, the colonials were and would have got the joke. It was a good joke, I would have laughed.

Yes, I know Botham wasn't there. I was just generally pointing out that Imran Khan knew how to mess with the opposition's mind. With two of the senior players walking out, that remark from Imran Khan to all the other players was a good example of him messing around and trying to get under their skin just a day before the players play the final for their adopted country.

There's a reason why we've never heard any Pakistani player recall this incident, while it clearly stuck with Derek Pringle and co. It is a joke, but one with some layers to it given the setting and the event.

 

[OmarKhan99]

Good example, but it doesn’t “top” the stroke of luck that Pakistan enjoyed in 1992. Pakistan defending 75 is as unlikely as Bangladesh defending 180 odd after Australia were 70/1 (?).

I am still waiting for any example where a team has been as lucky as Pakistan were on that day. I don’t think any such example exist. You can’t get luckier than getting a point after being dismissed for 74.

I agree that it was Pakistan’s destiny to win the World Cup just like it was their destiny to win the Champions Trophy.

Actually the reason Australia were so unlucky in that game was because according to DLS par score they only had to be 48/1 at the 20th over mark to win the contest. They were already much above that at 83/1 by the 16th.

The draw only happened because 20 overs of the second innings weren't completed. Had Australia even played out 4 maidens and even lost 3 wickets, they would have still won the game by 14 runs, if 4 overs were allowed to bowl. Ultimately, Australia were eliminated having lost ONLY ONE game (others were rained out) in the entire tournament while Bangladesh progressed through. That's as 'unlucky' as you can get. But in reality, that is destiny.

The “22 in 1” has also been dispelled; defending 22 in 13 (original equation) is far more possible than defending 75 in 50 overs.

Also, in 1992, England had to get 40 more from 48 balls. The target and overs were reduced before the game was called off.

 

[Snowflake]

This thread is still rolling because of one person's ADD...a person who wasn't even born by 1992 )

 

[Mamoon]

This thread is still rolling because of one person's ADD...a person who wasn't even born by 1992 )

I was born before that but yes I don’t remember the World Cup. I was too young for that. Anyway, it doesn’t matter, the facts are there for everyone to see.