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

[Hitman]

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

Yea, Warne was banned for a year for doping just before the 2003 World Cup. He announced his retirement from ODI cricket after that.​

 

[CricVet]

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.

That is a load only some neighbors can deliver LoL. AU has ALWAYS been the epicenter of cricket strength. They were weak only in mid 80s due to certain circumstances, and then Alan took over captaincy which enabled AU cricket recovery IN NO TIME. That AU team of 2003 did not need much luck vs others, let alone A LOT!

Yes, luck plays its part in any real life event, but making a sweeping statement that luck is needed, and A LOT OF IT, to win any tournament is not true for EVERYONE.

 

[sweep_shot]

That is a load only some neighbors can deliver LoL. AU has ALWAYS been the epicenter of cricket strength. They were weak only in mid 80s due to certain circumstances, and then Alan took over captaincy which enable AU cricket recovery IN NO TIME. That AU team of 2003 did not need much luck vs others, let alone A LOT!

Yes, luck plays its part in any real life event, but making a sweeping statement that luck is needed, and A LOT OF IT, to win any tournament is not true for EVERYONE.

LOL. He probably didn't watch 2003 WC.

Australian team in the 2000's was the greatest cricket team in cricket's history.

 

[Van_Sri]

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.

Hmm true

 

[Van_Sri]

I also feel Australia won 1999 World Cup due to match fixing by Hansie Cronje and Wasim Akram. They have Umpires doing them favour.

 

[Van_Sri]

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

Brad Hogg was doing as good as Warne and also a better batsman

 

[Justcrazy]

Brad Hogg was doing as good as Warne and also a better batsman

Yes , but he was a replacement , that means Warne was better.

It was a big loss, any team would do anything to have someone like Warne in their team.

 

[Rafale Nidhal Fan]

Imran Khan's "cornered tigers" came from behind in the 1992 World Cup to claim the title against all odds. Many people had written them off back then but they tailored a script of their own to defeat top teams like Australia, New Zealand and England at the crucial junctures and knock out stages of the tournament. But still there are some people who consider this triumph a fluke like England former great all rounder Ian Botham.

So what's your opinion share it below.

by many you mean indians, just say as it is

 

[uppercut]

Tukkey lag jaate hain.

Let’s not distort history here…Bangladesh cricket was invented so that India can stop feeling like the Bangladesh of world cricket.

No tukka possible in long test series and that too with no neutral umpires. Whereas 1992 WC is still the Gold standard for mother of all tukkas

 

[Van_Sri]

by many you mean indians, just say as it is

Ian Botham out was a wrong decision in the final

 

[Rafale Nidhal Fan]

Ian Botham out was a wrong decision in the final

thanks for proving my point

 

[Hikaru]

The poll aligns very well with the global perception of that triumph. 50% deserved, 50 percent fluke.

 

[Rafale Nidhal Fan]

pajeets still crying I see

You won't see Pakistani saying their 83 final was a fluke when if we go by pajeets logic is like the biggest fluke win till date

 

[CricVet]

pajeets still crying I see

You won't see Pakistani saying their 83 final was a fluke when if we go by pajeets logic is like the biggest fluke win till date

That is not true!

83 was the the biggest fluke against WI in the WC history.

The same WI team brought the Indian dhoti down in the following tour.

 

[Van_Sri]

That is not true!

83 was the the biggest fluke against WI in the WC history.

The same WI team brought the Indian dhoti down in the following tour.

India defeated same West Indies in the group match

 

[CricVet]

India defeated same West Indies in the group match

Now you see that things get twisted the way one wants it.
IF someone is unwilling to give credit to one team for winning a WC, then must accept the alternate reality as well. IF Pakistan winning 1992 was a fluke, then 83 was a bigger fluke.

 

[Van_Sri]

Now you see that things get twisted the way one wants it.
IF someone is unwilling to give credit to one team for winning a WC, then must accept the alternate reality as well. IF Pakistan winning 1992 was a fluke, then 83 was a bigger fluke.

1983 final India was a bit lucky to win but you can’t take away the credit by calling it lucky. India played all group matches and knockout matches fairly. In fact Pakistan was lucky as rain interrupted England match and they won a point which they definitely could have lost and it also could have affected their run rate at the same time I believe they might have won the group game vs South Africa. 1992 World Cup itself was a bit unfair as the rain rule was ridiculously unfair to teams which chase. Pakistan was lucky in the semi final as rain didn’t interrupt the match.

 

[CricVet]

1983 final India was a bit lucky to win but you can’t take away the credit by calling it lucky. India played all group matches and knockout matches fairly. In fact Pakistan was lucky as rain interrupted England match and they won a point which they definitely could have lost and it also could have affected their run rate at the same time I believe they might have won the group game vs South Africa. 1992 World Cup itself was a bit unfair as the rain rule was ridiculously unfair to teams which chase. Pakistan was lucky in the semi final as rain didn’t interrupt the match.

So let's discuss your logic. Per your logic, India deservedly won the 83 WC since it beat the same team twice. On the flip side, When Pak beat the same team twice in the same WC, it was due to luck. Then you will complain if people start abusing you for being Indian? LoL...

 

[Van_Sri]

So let's discuss your logic. Per your logic, India deservedly won the 83 WC since it beat the same team twice. On the flip side, When Pak beat the same team twice in the same WC, it was due to luck. Then you will complain if people start abusing you for being Indian? LoL...

Please read the comment properly what I said was rain rule made the results skewed in 1992 World Cup. 1983 World Cup went very well and India won it fairly without any obstruction to their matches. 1996 was much more skewed as Sri Lanka got 2 easy wins without playing matches against 2 Strong Teams Australia and West Indies which gave them more time to rest and free points. So I am not blaming Pakistan but blaming the rain rule for making the tournament results skewed and not fair. It’s debatable if Pakistan benefited from rain rule or did not benefit.

 

[CricVet]

Please read the comment properly what I said was rain rule made the results skewed in 1992 World Cup. 1983 World Cup went very well and India won it fairly without any obstruction to their matches. 1996 was much more skewed as Sri Lanka got 2 easy wins without playing matches against 2 Strong Teams Australia and West Indies which gave them more time to rest and free points. So I am not blaming Pakistan but blaming the rain rule for making the tournament results skewed and not fair. It’s debatable if Pakistan benefited from rain rule or did not benefit.

Are you capable of thinking straight? What has rain got to do with the logic you applied? YOU claimed that since WI was beaten twice in the same WC, India deservedly won the 83 Cup. Pak did the same against NZ in the uninterrupted games - actually they thrashed them in the first group game and won easily in SF. AFA rain is concerned, it helped Pak in one game and otherwise in the other - luck factor is offset in that case.

 

[uppercut]

Are you capable of thinking straight? What has rain got to do with the logic you applied? YOU claimed that since WI was beaten twice in the same WC, India deservedly won the 83 Cup. Pak did the same against NZ in the uninterrupted games - actually they thrashed them in the first group game and won easily in SF. AFA rain is concerned, it helped Pak in one game and otherwise in the other - luck factor is offset in that case.

the thing is Pak would have been evicted from that worldcup after the Eng match that was rained out after they were bundled out for 74 in 40 overs batting first lol

 

[Van_Sri]

Are you capable of thinking straight? What has rain got to do with the logic you applied? YOU claimed that since WI was beaten twice in the same WC, India deservedly won the 83 Cup. Pak did the same against NZ in the uninterrupted games - actually they thrashed them in the first group game and won easily in SF. AFA rain is concerned, it helped Pak in one game and otherwise in the other - luck factor is offset in that case.

India did win fairly. Truth is West Indies was too over confident while chasing and payed the price. England should have won the group match vs Pak in 92 and the match against South Africa could have gone either way but if they applied Duck worth Lewis method in those days then paksitan could have most probably won the match vs South Africa and lost the match vs England.

 

[Van_Sri]

In the Match vs South Africa Rain interrupted the match Pakistan were at 74/2 and if duck worth Lewis method was there the target could have been reduced to 164 means Pakistan should chase 90 runs with 8 wickets in hand. So Probably Pakistan could have won it or might have choked but giving 70% chance to Pakistan. England match they could have 100% lost it. So Pakistan could have ended up with 10 points and progressed to semi finals. South Africa could have been disqualified due to poor run rate and Australia could have qualified to semi finals. So Pakistan vs England in semi final and Australia vs New Zealand could have been in another semi final.

 

[Runner Up]

I don’t know if it was a fluke or a proper achievement, but one thing is clear: Pakistan won that semi-final purely on luck. Moin Khan was clearly run out. If there had been a proper run-out check back then, he wouldn’t have stayed to hit those two big shots. Videos are still available on YouTube that clearly show this.

 

[Van_Sri]

I don’t know if it was a fluke or a proper achievement, but one thing is clear: Pakistan won that semi-final purely on luck. Moin Khan was clearly run out. If there had been a proper run-out check back then, he wouldn’t have stayed to hit those two big shots. Videos are still available on YouTube that clearly show this.

When was this run out ? Didn’t know

 

[Runner Up]

When was this run out ? Didn’t know

Here you go. Forward to 16:21

 

[Van_Sri]

Here you go. Forward to 16:21

It was out but why did they not appeal ?

 

[CricVet]

Could have, should have, would have - only whiners use that logic. Pak won the WC as deservedly as any other team. Now go cry in the corner

 

[Van_Sri]

It was too close and Moin Khan was lucky but we can never know how many more decisions could have gone in favour or against Pakistan. So cannot take it too seriously

 

[Van_Sri]

My Pakistan All Time XI : 1) Anwar 2) Fakhar 3) Hafeez 4) Miandad 5) Inzamam 6) Rizwan+ 7) Imran* 8) Razzaq 9) Wasim 10) Saqlain 11) Waqar