Was Pakistan's victory in the 1992 World Cup a fluke or proper achievement?

[The Bald Eagle]

Calling it a fluke is a bit harsh. But certainly they got super lucky in qualifying for the semis with the rain.
They had 1 win in the first 5 games,
View attachment 152572
Getting 1 point after getting bundled out for 74 gave the chance to IK to rule over Pakistani psyche as a forever legend.
5 wins in a row at the end of the tournament eventually matter though.
Fluke is harsh but yes lucky.

It indeed was a manifestation of Qudrat ka Nizam

 

[The Bald Eagle]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Local.Dada]

It wasn’t a fluke, it was well earned. Yes they were lucky and qudrat ka nizam and all that but semis and final was won fair and square and that’s what matters. In fact no stigma of ball magically reversing suddenly too so bonus points for that.

It wasn’t as epic as 1983 World Cup win or as surprising as 1996 SL win but a memorable win for sure.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Fluke
Qudrat ka nizam

 

[Major]

You cant fluke a tournament.

Which is why it wont happen again in the forseeable future.

2017 champions trophy.

 

[Major]

Alot of people dont know is that the rained off match that saved Pakistan, was a match that certain defeat was written as they barely posted a score on board.

I always believe that a win is a win, no matter what. But do accept that flukes happen.

Still i would take a fluke tournament over a tournament where we won all games and lost 1

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

One of the men Pakistan owes its World Cup victory to is Winston Benjamin.

Anyone remembers his contribution?

 

[sweep_shot]

Proper achievement.

They beat NZ in semi and England in final (2 top teams at that time). They deserved the win.

I know rain was helpful in group stage but rain is a part of the game.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

One of the men Pakistan owes its World Cup victory to is Winston Benjamin.

Anyone remembers his contribution?

In the 36th game of round robin in 92 World Cup, if West Indies defeated Australia, they would have qualified instead of Pakistan. Australia by then had no chance.

West Indies were losing and quite up against it. Their only hope lay with Brian Lara who was batting at 70*. We all know if Lara turned it on, it was curtains for Pakistan. He ran a suicidal run to get to the striker's end, and Benjamin, a no 9 batsman, turned his back on Lara - a person batting on 70 and a world champion batsman. My mouth was agape at this.

Made it easy for Pakistan in the end, but it was quite touch and go at times.

At 36.00 in the link below.

 

[Justcrazy]

Its not a fluke , every winning team has its share of luck , that is part and parcel of a game.

 

[Justcrazy]

Pak were pre tournament favourites in 1987 also.

That team was strongest Pakistan Team in WC.

 

[BouncerGuy]

That team was strongest Pakistan Team in WC.

1996 one says hello...

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

1996 one says hello...

My opinion differs from you over here.

87' was the strongest and most in form team that Pak ever had. Their loss in the semi-final was a combination of terrible luck and Aus raising their game & starting their journey to become the best team in the world. The unfortunate incidents included Saleem Yousuf getting hit in the face while keeping and Javed coming in to keep plus a couple of key decisions going against Pakistan at crucial moments.

A neutral article on the semi final -> Here

The next best is the 99' team. It had everything except the trophy to show for. It was also the last time Pak was a proper contender going into a tournament.

96' comes in at third.

The team that won in 92' wasn't the strongest but the victory was not a one-off fluke. We could at that time beat any team anywhere and went into most matches as contenders if not all. No one would get shocked when Pakistan would win a match or tournament at that time.

People often mention the England rain effected match but forget Pakistan lost the two points in a rain effected match to South Africa. Imran didn't even play all the matches in the tournament, didn't play against Windies or England & Javed was suffering from stomach bug through out the tournament but the team overall was built on contributions of many players and played as a team throughout.

 

[BouncerGuy]

My opinion differs from you over here.

87' was the strongest and most in form team that Pak ever had. Their loss in the semi-final was a combination of terrible luck and Aus raising their game & starting their journey to become the best team in the world. The unfortunate incidents included Saleem Yousuf getting hit in the face while keeping and Javed coming in to keep plus a couple of key decisions going against Pakistan at crucial moments.

A neutral article on the semi final -> Here

The next best is the 99' team. It had everything except the trophy to show for. It was also the last time Pak was a proper contender going into a tournament.

96' comes in at third.

The team that won in 92' wasn't the strongest but the victory was not a one-off fluke. We could at that time beat any team anywhere and went into most matches as contenders if not all. No one would get shocked when Pakistan would win a match or tournament at that time.

People often mention the England rain effected match but forget Pakistan lost the two points in a rain effected match to South Africa. Imran didn't even play all the matches in the tournament, didn't play against Windies or England & Javed was suffering from stomach bug through out the tournament but the team overall was built on contributions of many players and played as a team throughout.

Oh sorry... I meant to say 99 actually.. that wasim waqar, saeed, Shoaib team was deadly... Lost the final, chocked at crucial time.

 

[Babeikh]

People love to bang on about that game that got rained off against England but they conveniently don't mention that we would have beaten South Africa had it not been for rain. England were also lucky with rain in the SF.

Bottom line is we won the tournament because we delivered when it mattered.

 

[Justcrazy]

1996 one says hello...

In 1996 Pakistan Tail was way long. Malik and Sohail were doing 10 overs , and the rest they went with four specialist bowlers.

When Akram got injured , Pakistan had Rashid Batting at number 7.

in 1987 it was deeper.

Qadir was batting at 9 or 10 .

Pakistan also had around 7 bowling options.

 

[Justcrazy]

Oh sorry... I meant to say 99 actually.. that wasim waqar, saeed, Shoaib team was deadly... Lost the final, chocked at crucial time.

99 the batting was very fragile , lower order bailed them out a lot of times.

 

[Justcrazy]

My opinion differs from you over here.

87' was the strongest and most in form team that Pak ever had. Their loss in the semi-final was a combination of terrible luck and Aus raising their game & starting their journey to become the best team in the world. The unfortunate incidents included Saleem Yousuf getting hit in the face while keeping and Javed coming in to keep plus a couple of key decisions going against Pakistan at crucial moments.

A neutral article on the semi final -> Here

The next best is the 99' team. It had everything except the trophy to show for. It was also the last time Pak was a proper contender going into a tournament.

96' comes in at third.

The team that won in 92' wasn't the strongest but the victory was not a one-off fluke. We could at that time beat any team anywhere and went into most matches as contenders if not all. No one would get shocked when Pakistan would win a match or tournament at that time.

People often mention the England rain effected match but forget Pakistan lost the two points in a rain effected match to South Africa. Imran didn't even play all the matches in the tournament, didn't play against Windies or England & Javed was suffering from stomach bug through out the tournament but the team overall was built on contributions of many players and played as a team throughout.

1996 was indeed strong team , except one thing. If Pakistan had played another decent spin bowling all rounders instead of finished Javed Miandad , it would have been a very very strong team.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

1996 was indeed strong team , except one thing. If Pakistan had played another decent spin bowling all rounders instead of finished Javed Miandad , it would have been a very very strong team.

Javed should have been the captain or not in the squad altogether. The selection battle between Moin and Rashid also made the team weaker & not having a pace bowling all-rounder just hurt the balance of the side. The injury to Wasim before the all-important quarter final just meant that there were four tail-enders and on that day, that just didn't work out.

Personally, I dislike the 90s as a whole because while we had talented players, none of these players actually valued the team. Can distinctly remember articles & statements of the players where they'd be like "if we play with unity, no team can beat us". Like what does that even mean, you are a team, you have to play united but it almost felt that they were more interested in captaincy, favoring their clique, & putting their own selfish interests above the overall results.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Javed should have been the captain or not in the squad altogether. The selection battle between Moin and Rashid also made the team weaker & not having a pace bowling all-rounder just hurt the balance of the side. The injury to Wasim before the all-important quarter final just meant that there were four tail-enders and on that day, that just didn't work out.

Personally, I dislike the 90s as a whole because while we had talented players, none of these players actually valued the team. Can distinctly remember articles & statements of the players where they'd be like "if we play with unity, no team can beat us". Like what does that even mean, you are a team, you have to play united but it almost felt that they were more interested in captaincy, favoring their clique, & putting their own selfish interests above the overall results.

The unity thing doesn't make as much sense in cricket full stop. It is a sport made of 1 v 1 battles.

What can it really mean in cricket? Is it just a euphemism for a batsman or bowler didn't give it his all because he couldn't be bothered? I mean how does lack of unity affect a bowling performance?

 

[charlie007]

Wouldn’t call it a fluke but it was definitely lucky - getting bowled out for 74 and enroute to getting thrown out of the tournament before rain came. But they did win it eventually by beating good teams. A win is a win, you can’t take it away from Pakistan. You can’t argue against something that actually happened.
Why’re people still discussing that? It was 34(?) years ago!!!

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

The unity thing doesn't make as much sense in cricket full stop. It is a sport made of 1 v 1 battles.

What can it really mean in cricket? Is it just a euphemism for a batsman or bowler didn't give it his all because he couldn't be bothered? I mean how does lack of unity affect a bowling performance?

Our players have reported incidents of underperforming intentionally to make a captain look bad. We have had "oath gates" where the team mates would take oath on Quran & promise that they wouldn't underperform deliberately. I mean if you just look at the 96' cricket team, I think only Aqib & Mushtaq never became captains but everyone else had a shot at it.

Anwar
Sohail
Ijaz
Javed
Inzi
Malik
Rashid
Wasim
Waqar
Aqib
Mushtaq

 

[Major]

The whole cornored tiger mantra is the biggest bullshiit that is spread around. Imran captained us in 3 to 4 world cups. He started the cornored tiger thing during the previous world cup which we i think lost in the semis.

He pulled it off finally, but the south asian world cup wins till 1999 were flukes mostly

 

[jnaveen1980]

Its not a fluke , every winning team has its share of luck , that is part and parcel of a game.

Biggest reason is Martin Crowe's decision to deliberately lose to pakistan to avoid playing semi at the SCG. They were 100% confident they could beat Pakistan. That little plan backfired in the form of fate. Martin Crowe picked up an injury. He seemed to think long and hard whether to come on to field. Seems like he got advise from mediccs that he can't play the final if he is out on the field. So he decided to sit out. He was one of the brightest mind as onfield captain especially using of Deepak Patel. Without him actually doing the captaining they lost the plot. It is similar to how Pant lost the plot after Gill pulled up something. Everything went in favor of NZ until that match.

 

[Justcrazy]

Javed should have been the captain or not in the squad altogether. The selection battle between Moin and Rashid also made the team weaker & not having a pace bowling all-rounder just hurt the balance of the side. The injury to Wasim before the all-important quarter final just meant that there were four tail-enders and on that day, that just didn't work out.

Personally, I dislike the 90s as a whole because while we had talented players, none of these players actually valued the team. Can distinctly remember articles & statements of the players where they'd be like "if we play with unity, no team can beat us". Like what does that even mean, you are a team, you have to play united but it almost felt that they were more interested in captaincy, favoring their clique, & putting their own selfish interests above the overall results.

Javed Miandad was well past prime
The team should have been

A. Sohail
S.Anwar
Inzamam
Ijaz
S. Malik
Spin batting all rounder
R. Latif
W.Akram
Bowling all rounder
Waqar
Mustaq

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Biggest reason is Martin Crowe's decision to deliberately lose to pakistan to avoid playing semi at the SCG. They were 100% confident they could beat Pakistan. That little plan backfired in the form of fate. Martin Crowe picked up an injury. He seemed to think long and hard whether to come on to field. Seems like he got advise from mediccs that he can't play the final if he is out on the field. So he decided to sit out. He was one of the brightest mind as onfield captain especially using of Deepak Patel. Without him actually doing the captaining they lost the plot. It is similar to how Pant lost the plot after Gill pulled up something. Everything went in favor of NZ until that match.

Feel for Deepak Patel and Indians, Inzi ruined their post match celebrations plans

 

[jnaveen1980]

Feel for Deepak Patel and Indians, Inzi ruined their post match celebrations plans

Deepak patel was the reason why we also lost to them. Not sure why we have to celebrate because he is an Indian origin. If anything many fans hated that NZ team because of their tactical usage of short boundaries. Crowe was a genius. He was the trailblazer for NZ team in the coming years. How strategy plays a role in cricket he gave a blue print for alll the NZ captains that came later. First strategy was using a tuk tuk batsman Greatbatch for power play use. Second was use of Deepak patel.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Javed should have been the captain or not in the squad altogether. The selection battle between Moin and Rashid also made the team weaker & not having a pace bowling all-rounder just hurt the balance of the side. The injury to Wasim before the all-important quarter final just meant that there were four tail-enders and on that day, that just didn't work out.

Personally, I dislike the 90s as a whole because while we had talented players, none of these players actually valued the team. Can distinctly remember articles & statements of the players where they'd be like "if we play with unity, no team can beat us". Like what does that even mean, you are a team, you have to play united but it almost felt that they were more interested in captaincy, favoring their clique, & putting their own selfish interests above the overall results.

When you look at the amount of talent and skill this team had, and what they actually accomplished; they were the ultimate underachievers

 

[NishanKonar]

N

Biggest reason is Martin Crowe's decision to deliberately lose to pakistan to avoid playing semi at the SCG. They were 100% confident they could beat Pakistan. That little plan backfired in the form of fate. Martin Crowe picked up an injury. He seemed to think long and hard whether to come on to field. Seems like he got advise from mediccs that he can't play the final if he is out on the field. So he decided to sit out. He was one of the brightest mind as onfield captain especially using of Deepak Patel. Without him actually doing the captaining they lost the plot. It is similar to how Pant lost the plot after Gill pulled up something. Everything went in favor of NZ until that match.

Naah. New Zealand was always going to play semi final on their own ground. They did not lose deliberately

 

[NishanKonar]

The unity thing doesn't make as much sense in cricket full stop. It is a sport made of 1 v 1 battles.

What can it really mean in cricket? Is it just a euphemism for a batsman or bowler didn't give it his all because he couldn't be bothered? I mean how does lack of unity affect a bowling performance?

A bad dressing room can be bad for the mood / motivation. A united dressing room can make players feel more confident & buoyant

Imagine Wasim & Waqar who hated eacj other. Now if Waqar had a bad game , he wud be under immense stress bcoz it wud make him look bad in front of Wasim.

Plus there might be taunts from rival players which can further dampen ur mood.
Imagine Shoaib Akhtar under the pump & Waqar Younis says something mockingly during the game. Or take him of the attack immediately ( like 2003 Centurion game ). That can ruin Shoaib's confidence further. Given how much Shoaib hated Waqar - that probably happened few times

 

[DeadlyVenom]

A bad dressing room can be bad for the mood / motivation. A united dressing room can make players feel more confident & buoyant

Imagine Wasim & Waqar who hated eacj other. Now if Waqar had a bad game , he wud be under immense stress bcoz it wud make him look bad in front of Wasim.

Plus there might be taunts from rival players which can further dampen ur mood.
Imagine Shoaib Akhtar under the pump & Waqar Younis says something mockingly during the game. Or take him of the attack immediately ( like 2003 Centurion game ). That can ruin Shoaib's confidence further. Given how much Shoaib hated Waqar - that probably happened few times

That's some good points. You are right.

 

[jnaveen1980]

N
Naah. New Zealand was always going to play semi final on their own ground. They did not lose deliberately

Did you listen to Martin crowe interview. He said the same. They were happy to lose to pakistan. He gave teh full account how it went down

 

[shaz619]

They were one of the best teams in the world & it was 5 years in the making, just look at their run in ODI’s prior to that WC, they put themselves in a position where they could take advantage of a few events going their way. You don’t fluke tournaments.

 

[TheSultan]

Alot of people dont know is that the rained off match that saved Pakistan, was a match that certain defeat was written as they barely posted a score on board.

I always believe that a win is a win, no matter what. But do accept that flukes happen.

Still i would take a fluke tournament over a tournament where we won all games and lost 1

And what about the match vs SA that Pakistan lost. It started raining and Pakistan were given a much much tougher target when they resumed because of that ridiculous rain rule. Pakistan would have won that match.

So it all evens out.

 

[Local.Dada]

Pakistan was “lucky” to qualify to the semis for sure. Keyword “lucky” and not fluke

They still played good enough cricket to be in the contender for top 4 and a couple of results went there way and it worked out. So Pak were definitely lucky.

However at the end of the day you need to win knockouts to be champion. As we saw with India in 2023 or multiple times with SA and Nzl, that’s what matters.

So not a fluke but definitely lucky but that’s not a reflection on the cricket Pam played which was high quality.

Also one underrated luck factor that gets ignored is not the rained off game vs England but the England vs SA semis

If SA had been in the final I feel results would have been different: SA did not have baggage of choking or expectations like England had in 1992, SA bowling would have been too hot to handle for Pak batting and SA batsmen was batter equipped to handle the quality pace bowling from Pak. However that is couldda wouldda shoudda so fair game to Pak

 

[TheSultan]

They were one of the best teams in the world & it was 5 years in the making, just look at their run in ODI’s prior to that WC, they put themselves in a position where they could take advantage of a few events going their way. You don’t fluke tournaments.

Very well said - they were a formidable side and one of the pre-tournament favourites. They were sweeping up tournaments left right and centre in the 3 years leading up to that tournament

 

[shaz619]

Very well said - they were a formidable side and one of the pre-tournament favourites. They were sweeping up tournaments left right and centre in the 3 years leading up to that tournament

Whether it’s the Pakistan fans themselves or the those who got all romantic over the footage of Pak/Eng being rained off during re-runs of the tournament in years gone by, a myth began to form that the 92 WC was entirely the result of divine intervention, with our cricket starting to regress and needing such ‘miracles’, it lead to that unpredictability tag which in itself wasn’t as disastrous as the state of our cricket today, but it lead to complacency, a poor work ethic & a psyche began to form which put more of an emphasis on the supernatural because ultimately, God helps those who help themselves, and these misguided souls were sold a complete fallacy.

But every media pundit from that time, sports journalists & especially all the teams, players & management staff which took part in that tournament; knew how good Pakistan were and it wasn’t luck that took them to glory, they were just bloody good and worked extremely hard cohesively.

 

[tiger_khan]

It was a fluke

But luck has always played a big role in cricket

Australia won the 87 and 99 world cup by luck

Sri Lanka the 1996 one

And England the 2019 one



Pakistan lost the 1987, 1996 & 1999 world cups due to bad luck

So in summary, although Pakistan won the 1992 WC due to Lady Luck but in general the lady has not been kind to Pakistan because the latter was the best team in three other world cups but didn't win the tournaments

 

[CricVet]

Pakistan was “lucky” to qualify to the semis for sure. Keyword “lucky” and not fluke

They still played good enough cricket to be in the contender for top 4 and a couple of results went there way and it worked out. So Pak were definitely lucky.

However at the end of the day you need to win knockouts to be champion. As we saw with India in 2023 or multiple times with SA and Nzl, that’s what matters.

So not a fluke but definitely lucky but that’s not a reflection on the cricket Pam played which was high quality.

Also one underrated luck factor that gets ignored is not the rained off game vs England but the England vs SA semis

If SA had been in the final I feel results would have been different: SA did not have baggage of choking or expectations like England had in 1992, SA bowling would have been too hot to handle for Pak batting and SA batsmen was batter equipped to handle the quality pace bowling from Pak. However that is couldda wouldda shoudda so fair game to Pak

The same SA that beat Pak in the group stage for luck (rain) while Pakistan was cruising to victory prior to the rain.

Cricinfo: When Pakistan was 74/2 after 21.3 overs, rain halted the play for an hour and the target was revised to 194 in 36 overs. (a Duckworth/Lewis calculation under the rules in 2006 would have set a target of 162

Get your blue glasses off and build rationale.

 

[TheSultan]

Whether it’s the Pakistan fans themselves or the those who got all romantic over the footage of Pak/Eng being rained off during re-runs of the tournament in years gone by, a myth began to form that the 92 WC was entirely the result of divine intervention, with our cricket starting to regress and needing such ‘miracles’, it lead to that unpredictability tag which in itself wasn’t as disastrous as the state of our cricket today, but it lead to complacency, a poor work ethic & a psyche began to form which put more of an emphasis on the supernatural because ultimately, God helps those who help themselves, and these misguided souls were sold a complete fallacy.

But every media pundit from that time, sports journalists & especially all the teams, players & management staff which took part in that tournament; knew how good Pakistan were and it wasn’t luck that took them to glory, they were just bloody good and worked extremely hard cohesively.

I nominate this for POTW. Excellently written.

By every metric Pakistan were the pre-tournament favourites. Salim Malik was one of the most destructive ODI batsmen in the world (along with Dean Jones). Waqar and Wasim - nuff said, Aqib Javed a very able support act with a relatively unknown but emerging leggie in the mould of Qadir in Mushtaq. Imran - inspirational captain and player in his own right (albeit declining in bowling), Javed Miandad experienced, cunning and the game’s greatest innovator at that time.

Pakistan had won the Nehru cup and 1990 Australasia Cup too.

Waqar’s injury did dampen their chances, but it was still a formidable team. The irony is prior to the World Cup they were known as “formidable”, post World Cup “unpredictable”.

 

[TheSultan]

The same SA that beat Pak in the group stage for luck (rain) while Pakistan was cruising to victory prior to the rain.

Cricinfo: When Pakistan was 74/2 after 21.3 overs, rain halted the play for an hour and the target was revised to 194 in 36 overs. (a Duckworth/Lewis calculation under the rules in 2006 would have set a target of 162

Get your blue glasses off and build rationale.

Exactly my point earlier - thanks for putting numbers against it to solidify the argument

 

[tiger_khan]

People are rightly talking about rain and other factors during the fascinating journey of the Pak team during the 1992 WC

But there is one extremely important factor which has only to do with fate and luck. That factor had nothing to do with the rain or individual and team performances of the tournament participants


Javed Miandad was actually dropped from the 1992 WC team & players departed for Australia without him. While in Australia Waqar Younis was diagnosed with a stress fracture in his back. He was sent back to Pakistan and his replacement flew to Australia, Javed Miandad. Don't ask me why a batsman was sent as a replacement for a genuine fast bowler

Javed Miandad, to the best of my recollection, was the highest scorer in the tournament and scored a 50 in most of the games he played

Waqar Younis, although a Pakistani legend, has a very underachieving record in Australian conditions

Had a genuine fast bowler, not been replaced by a recognized batsman, we would have not won the WC

Fate had a plan for Pak Cricket in 1992, which nobody knew, including the Pak fans

 

[Vikram1989]

Imagine Shoaib Akhtar under the pump & Waqar Younis says something mockingly during the game.

After watching topless Akhtar antics forever in the aus vs row series, Flintoff taunted him " u cant look like Tarzan to bowl like Jane".I expect such fights are common everyday in pak team.even akram said he used to taunt waqar as non playing captain and does not deserve the place.

 

[Van_Sri]

South Africa rightfully should have qualified to the final and Pakistan could have struggled against them but we can never know. Rain helped Pakistan in group stage vs England and South Africa losing in semi final to a controversial system also helped them. But Pakistan was not weak team back then as they were doing pretty well in benson and hedges series in the late 80s due to the rise of Wasim Akram. Waqar Younis was injured and if he played in 92 World Cup they might have been heavy favourites.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Putting everything on rain is not fair... Pakistan did get something out of it but making rain the core reason of win is not fair... Inzi's knock in semi, wasim akram's spells were something you cannot forget.. They worked hard

 

[Van_Sri]

I think Pakistan could have won the match vs South Africa if the rain rule was not there. So Pakistan can be called a deserving champion

 

[NishanKonar]

After watching topless Akhtar antics forever in the aus vs row series, Flintoff taunted him " u cant look like Tarzan to bowl like Jane".I expect such fights are common everyday in pak team.even akram said he used to taunt waqar as non playing captain and does not deserve the place.

I remember Wasim Akram was doing commentary. He mentioned an incident during the 1999 series in Australia , where Shoaib Akhtar did a tv interview saying " he is the best , better than the rest ". Wasim took great offence bcoz Shoaib was implying he was better than Wasim ( who was captain at that time )

I found the whole thing so childish - imagine a captain getting upset bcoz his junior said he is the best !

 

[Vikram1989]

I found the whole thing so childish - imagine a captain getting upset bcoz his junior said he is the best !

I think all 3 of them loathed each other. In his autobiography, akram said akthar always used to look for the speed gun during 2003 wc to break 100 mph barrier.akram used to chide him after every delivery to look at the purpose than himself. Its big stuff coming up from a crooked match fixer.

 

[Jazx]

1996 was indeed strong team , except one thing. If Pakistan had played another decent spin bowling all rounders instead of finished Javed Miandad , it would have been a very very strong team.

Finished Miandad was included in place of Basit Ali who was at his peak at that time. Akram's injury and not being 100% fit throughout the tournament was a nail in their coffin.

 

[Local.Dada]

The same SA that beat Pak in the group stage for luck (rain) while Pakistan was cruising to victory prior to the rain.

Cricinfo: When Pakistan was 74/2 after 21.3 overs, rain halted the play for an hour and the target was revised to 194 in 36 overs. (a Duckworth/Lewis calculation under the rules in 2006 would have set a target of 162

Get your blue glasses off and build rationale.

194 in 36 overs looks a lot more fair to me than 22 runs of 1 ball due to DL

 

[CricVet]

194 in 36 overs looks a lot more fair to me than 22 runs of 1 ball due to DL

Whataboutism is an art you Indians have mastered. Stick to your point about SA "deserved to be in the final" while the fact remains, SA got lucky to win point against Pakistan in the group stage for rain.

 

[TheSultan]

Whataboutism is an art you Indians have mastered. Stick to your point about SA "deserved to be in the final" while the fact remains, SA got lucky to win point against Pakistan in the group stage for rain.

My man wanted a Pakistan to score 92% of the runs in 62% of the overs.

211 off 50 overs
194 off 36 overs

Anybody see something wrong with that?

It doesn’t have the optics of 22 of 1 ball but no fairer.

 

[CricVet]

My man wanted a Pakistan to score 92% of the runs in 62% of the overs.

211 off 50 overs
194 off 36 overs

Anybody see something wrong with that?

It doesn’t have the optics of 22 of 1 ball but no fairer.

Don't ask smart questions to the spin doctors.

 

[Van_Sri]

194 in 36 overs looks a lot more fair to me than 22 runs of 1 ball due to DL

In those days 196 of 36 overs is a huge task. Pakistan should have won it easily in 50 overs. Pakistan also playing without Waqar probably best odi bowler in the world at that point of time so they deserve to win the World Cup.

 

[pratiktc]

It was a series of glorious flukes but how does it detract from the magnitude of the achievement?

Winning a tournament is like hitting a six. Whether it went just over boundary or out of stadium the result is same.

At the end of the tourney Pak was the only team standing and had scripted one of the great underdog stories in sporting history. It is and should be remembered in that way

 

[Van_Sri]

It was a series of glorious flukes but how does it detract from the magnitude of the achievement?

Winning a tournament is like hitting a six. Whether it went just over boundary or out of stadium the result is same.

At the end of the tourney Pak was the only team standing and had scripted one of the great underdog stories in sporting history. It is and should be remembered in that way

Pakistan was not underdog they were one of the stronger teams. In 1987 they could have won it if not for the choke of the tailenders in the semi final.

 

[Van_Sri]

Pakistan in 92 played without Waqar Younis, in 96 QF without Wasim Akram, 1999 Final was Fixed. 1987 semifinal they could have easily won it. Pakistan was an underachiever given the talent they had.

 

[harshjoshi87]

Pakistan alongside West Indies & Australia were top 3 teams during that era.

The no result against England helped Pakistan especially after they were bowled out for 75.

Pakistan also beat the #1 team in that World Cup twice - New Zealand.

Kapil won the World Cup in 1983.
Hadlee won the test series in Australia in 1985.
Imran won the World Cup in 1992.
Botham won the Ashes singlehandedly in 1981.

 

[Van_Sri]

Pakistan alongside West Indies & Australia were top 3 teams during that era.

The no result against England helped Pakistan especially after they were bowled out for 75.

Pakistan also beat the #1 team in that World Cup twice - New Zealand.

Kapil won the World Cup in 1983.
Hadlee won the test series in Australia in 1985.
Imran won the World Cup in 1992.
Botham won the Ashes singlehandedly in 1981.

Among the 4 - Kapil was the best allrounder vs West Indies

 

[Katwalindian]

2017 champions trophy.

They literally hammered England and india in semi and final...like they were not even in picture

 

[Katwalindian]

It was a fluke

But luck has always played a big role in cricket

Australia won the 87 and 99 world cup by luck

Sri Lanka the 1996 one

And England the 2019 one



Pakistan lost the 1987, 1996 & 1999 world cups due to bad luck

So in summary, although Pakistan won the 1992 WC due to Lady Luck but in general the lady has not been kind to Pakistan because the latter was the best team in three other world cups but didn't win the tournaments

Don't forget pakistan easy match vs srilanka in 2019 also washed out..

 

[Justcrazy]

Finished Miandad was included in place of Basit Ali who was at his peak at that time. Akram's injury and not being 100% fit throughout the tournament was a nail in their coffin.

I am not debating who should have been included or not , but Miandad was done and dusted , just like Salim Malik was in 1999 WC

Yes Basit Ali could have been a game changer in middle order.

But I would have liked another spin bowling batting all rounder in the middle order and played only two fast bowlers .

 

[Van_Sri]

Pakistan is a Good Sporting by Genes but not by Infrastructure

 

[Local.Dada]

In those days 196 of 36 overs is a huge task. Pakistan should have won it easily in 50 overs. Pakistan also playing without Waqar probably best odi bowler in the world at that point of time so they deserve to win the World Cup.

Huge or tough task <> impossible task (22 runs of 1 ball). It’s not like 5 rpo was impossible in 1992.

 

[Van_Sri]

Huge or tough task <> impossible task (22 runs of 1 ball). It’s not like 5 rpo was impossible in 1992.

It doesn’t matter fact is that if Pakistan played 50 over match they could have won it easily means 2 points so losing englands group match wouldn’t mean much as they would have anyway won this match vs South Africa. Rain Rule Ruined the fairness of the Tournament but Pakistan Prevailed and did a great job in the semi final and final. Pakistan was also not playing with full strength as their best bowler in 92 was out of the tournament - Waqar Younis. If both Wasim and Waqar Played in this Tournament they could have made it much more easily to lift the trophy.

 

[Justcrazy]

I nominate this for POTW. Excellently written.

By every metric Pakistan were the pre-tournament favourites. Salim Malik was one of the most destructive ODI batsmen in the world (along with Dean Jones). Waqar and Wasim - nuff said, Aqib Javed a very able support act with a relatively unknown but emerging leggie in the mould of Qadir in Mushtaq. Imran - inspirational captain and player in his own right (albeit declining in bowling), Javed Miandad experienced, cunning and the game’s greatest innovator at that time.

Pakistan had won the Nehru cup and 1990 Australasia Cup too.

Waqar’s injury did dampen their chances, but it was still a formidable team. The irony is prior to the World Cup they were known as “formidable”, post World Cup “unpredictable”.

Saeed Anwar was also injured , He would have been much better than Ramiz raja

 

[Jazx]

I am not debating who should have been included or not , but Miandad was done and dusted , just like Salim Malik was in 1999 WC

Yes Basit Ali could have been a game changer in middle order.

But I would have liked another spin bowling batting all rounder in the middle order and played only two fast bowlers .

Well, that's exactly what I was trying to say about Miandad

 

[Van_Sri]

Pakistan 87 World Cup Semi Final gifted Australia a victory when they were in winning position, 1996 World Cup Aamir Sohail’s over confidence at the important moment and no Wasim made an impact, 1999 Final Inzamam wrong decision by umpire, Wrong Toss decision by Wasim (May be fixed) cost them the match.

 

[CricVet]

Pakistan 87 World Cup Semi Final gifted Australia a victory when they were in winning position, 1996 World Cup Aamir Sohail’s over confidence at the important moment and no Wasim made an impact, 1999 Final Inzamam wrong decision by umpire, Wrong Toss decision by Wasim (May be fixed) cost them the match.

87 and 96 were definitely lost opportunities. 99 final was a total disaster after beating AU in group stages. In the other 2 cups, at least Pakistan competed really well most of the time. Also, don't forget about 1979 SF which Pakistan lost to WI collapsing big time.

 

[Van_Sri]

87 and 96 were definitely lost opportunities. 99 final was a total disaster after beating AU in group stages. In the other 2 cups, at least Pakistan competed really well most of the time. Also, don't forget about 1979 SF which Pakistan lost to WI collapsing big time.

2003 World Cup they were strong too but batting choked vs England, vs Australia they needed an early Symonds Wicket and vs India Razzaq dropping Sachin turned to be fatal.

 

[sweep_shot]

Pakistan defeated the two best teams of the tournament (England in the final and NZ in the semi-final).

Nothing fluke about their final win.

1996 and 1992 were both genuine wins. Nothing fluke. 1983 was a fluke, however.

 

[CricVet]

2003 World Cup they were strong too but batting choked vs England, vs Australia they needed an early Symonds Wicket and vs India Razzaq dropping Sachin turned to be fatal.

2003 beating was epic. They got thrashed by all the 3 major teams. AU was a monster of the WC which ended up bulldozing every team.

 

[sweep_shot]

2003 beating was epic. They got thrashed by all the 3 major teams. AU was a monster of the WC which ended up bulldozing every team.

Enjoyed 2003 WC. It was a classic one.

Icing on the cake was Australia destroying India in the final.

 

[CricVet]

Enjoyed 2003 WC. It was a classic one.

Icing on the cake was Australia destroying India in the final.

They did not spare anyone to be honest. At least, Pak got humiliated only once by them; Ind got it twice. That was a monster AU team.

 

[Sachin fan]

No country in the world, even the mighty Aussies, have ever won a world cup without a lot of luck going their way, whether it's toss, pitch, umpire decisions, missed catches, etc.

 

[Justcrazy]

Well, that's exactly what I was trying to say about Miandad

The template followed by Lanka was good. They went in with two fast bowlers.

They had part time bowlers like jayasuria and D Silva

They had explosive openers but had a cushion in deep batting with mahanama a specialist batter at number 7 , even Vaas and Dharmasena coming at 8 and 9 could bat.

 

[Justcrazy]

87 and 96 were definitely lost opportunities. 99 final was a total disaster after beating AU in group stages. In the other 2 cups, at least Pakistan competed real

ly well most of the time. Also, don't forget about 1979 SF which Pakistan lost to WI collapsing big time.

In 1979 Pakistan were not that strong , but yes they were in very very strong position ... should have won that game.

 

[Justcrazy]

They did not spare anyone to be honest. At least, Pak got humiliated only once by them; Ind got it twice. That was a monster AU team.

India lost once batting first and also lost bowling first ...... Aussies were impossible to beat at that team.... also , they were without Shane Warne.

 

[harshjoshi87]

Pakistan 87 World Cup Semi Final gifted Australia a victory when they were in winning position, 1996 World Cup Aamir Sohail’s over confidence at the important moment and no Wasim made an impact, 1999 Final Inzamam wrong decision by umpire, Wrong Toss decision by Wasim (May be fixed) cost them the match.

India too gifted 87 WC semi to England.

It should have been India-Pakistan final in 1987 just like the 1985 World Series in Australia.

 

[harshjoshi87]

Pakistan defeated the two best teams of the tournament (England in the final and NZ in the semi-final).

Nothing fluke about their final win.

1996 and 1992 were both genuine wins. Nothing fluke. 1983 was a fluke, however.

1996 was biggest fluke ever, with Australia & West Indies forfeiting their matches in Colombo.

Sri Lanka wouldn't have crossed 1st round if Australia & West Indies played in Colombo.