Which was the best Asian World Cup winning side?

[stevewittry]

Reading through the other thread about Pakistan celebrating 25 years of their world cup winning moment, makes me wonder about which world cup winning Asian team was be the better side and not sure whether we had a thread on this.

It all started in 83 when India regarded as a minnow team surprised the then number 1 team - the mighty West Indians. This was followed by the 92 Pakistan win when the team went on to win against all odds despite facing the threat of elimination during group stages. 96 Sri Lanka was another surprise factor similar to the 83 India win. Sri Lanka back in 96 reinvented the way modern ODI game is played. Then finally comes the MSD led Indian team reigning supreme in 2011 version.

In some way, except for the 2011 India win, other world cup winning teams were more of under dogs.

Which of these Asian teams will you rate as the better team ?

 

[Sanzcool]

SL had a better WC among all teams though. They brutally demolished all teams that they faced

 

[Snow]

India WC2011 side by a mile.

 

[Arsalan Pro]

Pakistan 1992.

 

[akki]

Batting lineup of sachin,sehwag,yuvraj,kohli,dhoni,raina........Do i need to say more?

 

[Hawkeye]

2011 India side wasn't good enough.

I mean comparatively. Both Pak and SL were strong and if not better than as good as India.

1992 wc Pak had the best bowling attack in the world but batting was lacking. Still that team was the best Asian side by a country mile.

 

[akki]

2011 India side wasn't good enough.

I mean comparatively. Both Pak and SL were strong and if not better than as good as India.

1992 wc Pak had the best bowling attack in the world but batting was lacking. Still that team was the best Asian side by a country mile.

Nope we beat you guys in 1992..you were probably worst asian side to won the cup....And you were lucky also to get through the finals...See our batting in 2011...is their any batting line up better than that you ever seen?? sachin,sehwag,kohli,dhoni,raina,yuvraj......all are best batsman....

 

[Hawkeye]

Nope we beat you guys in 1992..you were probably worst asian side to won the cup....And you were lucky also to get through the finals...See our batting in 2011...is their any batting line up better than that you ever seen?? sachin,sehwag,kohli,dhoni,raina,yuvraj......all are best batsman....

Very strong Pak and SL lineups too in 2011. All 3 had equal chance.

Don't live in a bubble.

 

[Itachi]

Very strong Pak and SL lineups too in 2011. All 3 had equal chance.

Don't live in a bubble.

Indeed they were. But question is, which Asian team was strongest to win the cup? There's an added criteria of "winning the cup".

1992 Pakistan team was lucky and a bit weak compared to other winning teams.

Imo, 1996 SL team hands down was the best. They could have give a tough contest even now. They were that much progressive.

 

[Syed1]

The Pakistan 1992 side went onto produce more legends of the game than any other Asian WC winning side.

 

[Bilal7]

The Indian side in the 2011 WC was the strongest in Asian conditions. Pakistan of '92 were strongest out Asia.

 

[Itachi]

The Pakistan 1992 side went onto produce more legends of the game than any other Asian WC winning side.

Smh weak logic.

When you use "went on to produce", you are talking about future. Though on the specified context, they were still rookie (going by your post) which make 1992 team actually weak.

 

[Bilal7]

Indeed they were. But question is, which Asian team was strongest to win the cup? There's an added criteria of "winning the cup".

1992 Pakistan team was lucky and a bit weak compared to other winning teams.

Imo, 1996 SL team hands down was the best. They could have give a tough contest even now. They were that much progressive.

2011 side was pretty lucky too. Had the first Tendulker chance been taken, it would have been a humiliating loss so let's leave luck out of it. Every sporting victory has some element of luck involved.

 

[Bilal7]

Voted for India 2011. They probably looked better than they were, because the WC happened in Asia, but on paper, they had the strongest batting lineup and Zaheer wasn't a poor bowler by any means.

 

[Itachi]

2011 side was pretty lucky too. Had the first Tendulker chance been taken, it would have been a humiliating loss so let's leave luck out of it. Every sporting victory has some element of luck involved.

Not necessarily ill agree but to make matters simple, yes, I'll take out the luck factor.

But still I do believe Pakistan was weak.

SL rewrote the approach to the ODIs in 1996. They combined as wolf pack haunted the other teams.

Even in 2017, no team could have beaten them.

 

[akki]

2011 side was pretty lucky too. Had the first Tendulker chance been taken, it would have been a humiliating loss so let's leave luck out of it. Every sporting victory has some element of luck involved.

Dropping catch is another thing....Then we can include many many matches where catches were dropped,run out missed,tosses and all and all...dnt go in to that......batting line up of sachin ,sehwag,kohli,yuvraj,dhoni,raina.....they can play anywhere in the world against any bowlers and can rip apart bowling lineups....bowling was weak though.........

 

[Executioner]

Lanka 1996

 

[MenInG]

In terms of overwhelming odds the Pakistan side did really well so my vote for them

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Sri Lanka 1996

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Voted for Imran's 1992 team

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

The '92 team.

Both Indian teams after winning their respective WCs were phaintad all around the world. Heck even Afridi's side would have won, were it not were a DRS and dropped catches™

 

[Sidilicious]

The 83 and 92 teams were lucky to win the World Cup. They were not even the best sides of the WC.

Its between the 96 and 11 winning teams. But I am tempted to go for 96 because they didn't lose a single match on their way.

 

[Madplayer]

Nope we beat you guys in 1992..you were probably worst asian side to won the cup....And you were lucky also to get through the finals...See our batting in 2011...is their any batting line up better than that you ever seen?? sachin,sehwag,kohli,dhoni,raina,yuvraj......all are best batsman....

Pak 92 team had players like wasim akram, imran khan, javed miandad, amir sohail, inzimam, saleem malik, ijaz ahmad, moin khan , mushtaq the leggie and aqib javed.

Thats a much better team than india's 2011 team. It is capable of performing in different conditions rather than just the subcontinent. The worst among them is aqib javed and even he is better than most fast bowlers in Indian history let alone 2011 world cup.

 

[Watsupdoc]

In terms of prowess definitely the 2011 indian side

 

[akki]

Pak 92 team had players like wasim akram, imran khan, javed miandad, amir sohail, inzimam, saleem malik, ijaz ahmad, moin khan , mushtaq the leggie and aqib javed.

Thats a much better team than india's 2011 team. It is capable of performing in different conditions rather than just the subcontinent. The worst among them is aqib javed and even he is better than most fast bowlers in Indian history let alone 2011 world cup.

But in 1992 team most of them were not legends back then....but, sachin tendulkar,yuvraj singh,vurender sehwag,virat kohli, gautam gambhir ,ms dhoni,suresh raina,zaheer khan,harbhajan......you see these were already established players...and can beat any team anywhere in the world and batting is the best batting line up can perform in any conditions and rip apart bowling line ups.......but 1992 most of the players were not established big players back then and that team were perhaps the most lucky team ever to won the cup perhaps our 1983 team were the next ....you know that how you guys won that....

 

[Hasan123]

Pakistan 92 team.

 

[Raja Danish]

But in 1992 team most of them were not legends back then....but, sachin tendulkar,yuvraj singh,vurender sehwag,virat kohli, gautam gambhir ,ms dhoni,suresh raina,zaheer khan,harbhajan......you see these were already established players...and can beat any team anywhere in the world and batting is the best batting line up can perform in any conditions and rip apart bowling line ups.......but 1992 most of the players were not established big players back then and that team were perhaps the most lucky team ever to won the cup perhaps our 1983 team were the next ....you know that how you guys won that....

Batting wise Indian team of 2011 World cup was the strongest to win the world cup, Sri Lankan team of 1996 world cup was most exciting one and Pakistani team of 1992 world cup was a complete package, as a unit they were strong with ATG Captain Imran Khan ATG odi bowler Wasim Akram ATG Batsman Javed Miandad and Great odi batsman Inzamam, imagine saeed anwar and waqar younas weren't injured before that world then hands down it would have been an indisputed best asian team side to win a world cup... Adding to it, if our pakistani team of 1999 world cup had won that world cup they would have been termed as may be the best team to win a world cup after the undisputed kings west indies let alone the best asian team but players egos and dressing room disputes and fights led to shameful loss in the final at lords........ It was a great chance to build a legacy that imran khan left but the players didnot realised it and they had their egos, playing for country should have been their first priority and they would have been called as legends of game by now specially younger players.........

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I don't know how Pakistan team of 92 can be strongest considering matches were rained off, South Africa required 22 of 1 ball suddenly and all the other results happened which were not supposed to happen which put Pakistan in semis.

Yes after reaching semis, Pakistan side was unbeatable.

But Group matches?

Meh!

Even lost to India.

The 96 Sri Lankan side was the strongest and that side with Arjuna as captain even right now with same ages as in 96 would probably beat every team two times a week.

The 99 Pakistan side would have been the strongest ever, but they never won.

The Indian 2011 side was strongest team but not more stronger than 1996 Arjuna's men.

 

[Madplayer]

But in 1992 team most of them were not legends back then....but, sachin tendulkar,yuvraj singh,vurender sehwag,virat kohli, gautam gambhir ,ms dhoni,suresh raina,zaheer khan,harbhajan......you see these were already established players...and can beat any team anywhere in the world and batting is the best batting line up can perform in any conditions and rip apart bowling line ups.......but 1992 most of the players were not established big players back then and that team were perhaps the most lucky team ever to won the cup perhaps our 1983 team were the next ....you know that how you guys won that....

Thats a valid point. ( although Virat kohli was anything but an established player).
Bowlers like zaheer or harbhajan cannot really be compared to wasim akram and imran khan. Indian Batting is quite clearly superior but the gulf in bowling quality is massive. This bowling quality would allow Pakistan to compete in most conditions. On the other hand, apart from sachin, virat and perhaps gambhir, other batsmen would struggle in alien conditions (pakistani batsmen would struggle too) but Indians dont have the bowling which Pakistan have to save the day.

Question is, did the indian 2011 team even need such a bowling attack? The answer is : Not really. I guess it all comes down to the era and conditions these teams have played in, which affected their team selections. Pakistan have historically had bowlers who can perform in most conditions especially in ODIs. Thats why it is so difficult to compare teams from two different eras.


Luck can go against or in favour of any team in a particualr tournament. The best/ stronger teams like SA can lose one knockout match and get eliminated but that doesnt mean they were weaker than a srilankan team which reached the finals. Imo its not a good criteria to evaluate the quality of a world cup winning team by seeing how many matches they won in the tournament. Rather we should look at the quality of players in that team to understand how strong that team is. For me , i would back that Pakistani team to perform better if we put them in different Eras and conditions. Indian 2011 wc team is just a modern day team for flat batting pitches which makes it inferior for me.

 

[dildildalwalla]

How can anyone look beyond SL 96? They had the best all round side of the lot. Very good batting and decent enough bowling.

Pakistan 92 had a pretty good bowling attack but it was far from great (Akram was truggling with the swing the new white ball generated at the time, Waqar was injured and his replacement was average) but they did click throughout the tourney. The batting was pretty woeful apart from one off performances by a Khan, Inzy and some consistency by Miandad (think he might have top scored in 92).

As for India 2011, they were a very batting heavy side who lucked out by having the tournament at home and a similar sides failed to win world cups on either side of 2011. They were humiliated by BANG in 2007 and in 2015 after all that hype, they fell short. Kohli apart from a single century, didn't really fire in 2011. A similar run for Sehwag. HOwever, it realy was tendys tournament and he deserved it but a team that wouldnt win anywhere but India.

 

[stevewittry]

I would back the 1983 Indian side. Beating the champion West Indian side not once but twice is no mean feat.

 

[stevewittry]

It's surprising no one even considered the 1983 side given the above fact. Besides the 83 side had a couple of ATGs too besides a few good to great players.

 

[Slog]

Toss up between SL 96 and India 2011

 

[Slog]

It's surprising no one even considered the 1983 side given the above fact. Besides the 83 side had a couple of ATGs too besides a few good to great players.

by everyone including most indians, India 83 win was considered a nice surprise and no one gave them a chance at the start of the tournament

which makes it seem like they werent a great side

 

[Slog]

I dont think India 2011 would have won the WC outside Asia though

Would SL 96 have?

 

[Sidilicious]

by everyone including most indians, India 83 win was considered a nice surprise and no one gave them a chance at the start of the tournament

which makes it seem like they werent a great side

I too thought the same.

But the same ODI side went on to win the World Series (or whatever it was called) 2 years later in Australia and reached the semis of the 87 WC in Asia. So, their victory was not just luck. Had thy won in India, they would have been considered one of the greatest sided as they would have major tournament wins in England, Australia and Asian conditions.

Finally, if Pakistan had won the WC in 99, this discussion would have been much shorter.

 

[akki]

I dont think India 2011 would have won the WC outside Asia though

Would SL 96 have?

india won previous champions trophy in england as well so in limited over format quite a gun side.......and india is only team who has won the world cup played at home...you cannot even imagine the amount of pressure ....

 

[Slog]

india won previous champions trophy in england as well so in limited over format quite a gun side.......and india is only team who has won the world cup played at home...you cannot even imagine the amount of pressure ....

India of 2014 was very different to 2011 WC side

Also other teams who have won home world cups. australi 2015, SL 96

 

[Pakpak]

I don't know how Pakistan team of 92 can be strongest considering matches were rained off, South Africa required 22 of 1 ball suddenly and all the other results happened which were not supposed to happen which put Pakistan in semis.

Yes after reaching semis, Pakistan side was unbeatable.

But Group matches?

Meh!

Even lost to India.

The 96 Sri Lankan side was the strongest and that side with Arjuna as captain even right now with same ages as in 96 would probably beat every team two times a week.

The 99 Pakistan side would have been the strongest ever, but they never won.

The Indian 2011 side was strongest team but not more stronger than 1996 Arjuna's men.

We beat Australia in Australia and NZ in NZ in group games as well.

 

[Last Monetarist]

That Sri Lankan team has become quite underrated as the years fade from memory. People forget that gun middle order of De Silva, Ranatunga, Mahanama and Tillakeratne that complemented the explosive top order. They had variety in the bowling too with Vaas supporting the asphyxiating spin attack. They peaked at the right time with Ranatunga's leadership elevating that side beyond what was imaginable. Conditions might have been in their favour but it was a bigger fairy tale than any other modern cricket story.

 

[akki]

India of 2014 was very different to 2011 WC side

Also other teams who have won home world cups. australi 2015, SL 96

yeah sorry australia have won last ..till 2011 it was only india.....but not sri lanka actually technically..they won matches in pakistan and india as well

 

[stevewittry]

by everyone including most indians, India 83 win was considered a nice surprise and no one gave them a chance at the start of the tournament

which makes it seem like they werent a great side

Same applies to 1996 Sri Lanka side. It's a question of different strategies across different eras but both equally effective. Hence the 83 side has a strong case too.

Moreover someone did say that they did win the championship trophy in Australia in 1985 followed by semi final berth in 1987. So the 1983 win was no aberration

 

[Markhor]

Not sure why Pakistan fans underrate our 92 team so much. Yes we benefited from luck in the WC and we had a combination of players out of form and the injury to Waqar - but that Pakistan team of the late 1980s-early 1990s was the best we ever had in terms of consistency.

We won the Australasia Cup in 1985/86, beat India 5-1 in 1987, the Champions Trophy in 1989/90, the Nehru Cup in 1989/90, beat India again in 1989, won the Australasia Cup again in 1990, whitewashed both New Zealand and West Indies at home in 1990 and won the Wills Trophy in 1990. That team deserved a World Cup at some stage.

 

[silent ischemia]

Pak 99 was amazing. Should have won

 

[Protea Fan]

The 2011 indian line up has 3 ODI ATG's in the form of sachin,kohli and dhoni ,had 2 high impactful performers who can literally change the game own their day like sehwag and yuvraj and a clutch performer like gambhir

Their bowling was not that great but those batting powerhouses make them far superior over the counterparts

 

[BeautifulGame]

Apart from Imran and Akram not a single player from the 92 WC team would get into Indian 2011 or SRL WC team.

Pak 92 along with India 83 were the worst of the four teams.I mean Pakistan didn't even deserve to qualify if not for rain .

SRL is slightly better than India 2011 because they had Murali and they were real game changers.Srl 96 also Absolutely dominated the whole tournament.

SRL 96
India 2011



Pak 1992
India 83

 

[silent ischemia]

Apart from Imran and Akram not a single player from the 92 WC team would get into Indian 2011 or SRL WC team.

Pak 92 along with India 83 were the worst of the four teams.I mean Pakistan didn't even deserve to qualify if not for rain .

SRL is slightly better than India 2011 because they had Murali and they were real game changers.Srl 96 also Absolutely dominated the whole tournament.

SRL 96
India 2011



Pak 1992
India 83

Mate it's not luck or rain that helped Pakistan. Had it not rained Pakistan would have defeated SA and finished with 10 points despite losing to England

 

[Justcrazy]

Lanka in 96 .

They were best in those conditions no doubt.

 

[Messiah]

Srilanka. It's not really close. I guess too many teenagers in this forum who haven't watched them

 

[ask_analyse_act]

lanka in 96... they revolutionized the ODI game... Actually they are inventors of the modern ODI game...

some teams even tried to copy them in the same tournament... Hands down they were the team of the tournament and the team to beat even after the CWC'96 in every condition until Arjuna was their captain...

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Srilanka. It's not really close. I guess too many teenagers in this forum who haven't watched them

yeah thats what i felt too. some people might be young and didnt watch the 1996 wc. Now if we look, we might not find their players as big names but at that time they revolutionized the odi game and had an impact in what we now have: the modern odis.