What's new

Which was the most competitive and fascinating World Cup?

Batman_DB

Batman_DB

Local Club Regular
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Runs
1,683
1996 was a breakthrough WC for me its when i started to understand cricket before that i don't rem much was too young to understand i guess...

1996 was a good WC i reckon it was a competitive WC and an underdog won.. india performed well so did SAF and AUS

1999 has to be the best WC for me it was not only it was held in england but is also had some good nail bitting matches.. australia came from no where to lift the trophy pakistan played really well so did SA and NZL.. minnows like Zim and Ban were great too but india had an average WC and lankans were a total disappointment.

2003- Although india had a great WC it wasn't a good WC we saw some walkovers and too many one sided matches as australia went unbeaten Kenya Zim qualified to super six and pakistan went home after the group matches so overall poor WC

2007- I think it has to be the worst not only India and Pak exited early but the overall quality was poor and the it was long tedious with super 8 coming into place for super 6 ..it was a great WC for Ban and SAF choked yet again. Same story for aussies they went unbeaten again

2011- it was a good WC all the asian teams performed well.. australians were finally conquered and we witness some good thrillers and top of it all the best FINAL since 1992 WC

what do u reckon guys?

please enlighten me about the pre 1996 WCs thank you
 
1992 is the best.... it was just totally different. 1996 one was the worst.
 
2003 was the best WC for me as an Indian....I enjoyed India's run to the final so much !

Be it the Pakistan match....bowling onslaught against srilanka....Ashish Nehra's 6/23 to restrict England from chasing....overall an amazing worldcup.

And then 2011 ,1999 are equal for me...
 
Although Pakistan won 1992 WC and i watched it too but my pick is 1999 WC it was the best WC so many memories Anwar,Klusener,Akhtar,Ganguly,Donald,Saqi,Akram,Warne everyone was performing like champions.
 
IgnitedMind said:
2003 was the best WC for me as an Indian....I enjoyed India's run to the final so much !

Be it the Pakistan match....bowling onslaught against srilanka....Ashish Nehra's 6/23 to restrict England from chasing....overall an amazing worldcup.

And then 2011 ,1999 are equal for me...
Click to expand...

but overall the quality of 2003 wasn't up2 the mark still 1 team dominated through out
 
Strike Rate said:
Although Pakistan won 1992 WC and i watched it too but my pick is 1999 WC it was the best WC so many memories Anwar,Klusener,Akhtar,Ganguly,Donald,Saqi,Akram,Warne everyone was performing like champions.
Click to expand...


true man 1999 WC brings many memories and yes and i become a zulu fan after that epic WC
 
Batman_DB said:
true man 1999 WC brings many memories and yes and i become a zulu fan after that epic WC
Click to expand...

I always feel sad for few players because of their short career and Zulu is on top of that list others are Saqi,Bond and Zahid
 
Batman_DB said:
ye zulu career was cut short by controversy and bond had serious injury issues
Click to expand...

Same was the story of Saqi,Akhtar and Zahid. Zahid injured his back and Saqi had the issues with his knees from day 1 and it only got worse just like Akhtar
 
Batman_DB said:
can u guys tell how competitive was 87 and 92 WC?
Click to expand...

92 was all about NZ nobody was able to beat them they were looking unstoppable and before the semi final they lost only 1 match in group stage that was against Pakistan and they faced Pakistan again in sem-final and lost again after winning 7 group matches and crowe was batting brilliantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strike Rate said:
92 was all about NZ nobody was able to beat them they were looking unstoppable and before the semi final they lost only 1 match in group stage that was against Pakistan and they faced Pakistan again in sem-final and lost again after winning 7 group matches and crowe was batting brilliantly.
Click to expand...

thanx man
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has to be 1999 for many South Africans. Just about everybody remembers where they were and how they cursed at Donald.
 
Strike Rate said:
92 was all about NZ nobody was able to beat them they were looking unstoppable and before the semi final they lost only 1 match in group stage that was against Pakistan and they faced Pakistan again in sem-final and lost again after winning 7 group matches and crowe was batting brilliantly.
Click to expand...

There were no quater-finals in 1992
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For me, the 99 and the 2011 world cup were the best
:misbah:warne
 
2011 was more commercialized compared to any other world cup. For example: type ICC world cup 2011, you can find every single match.

for me so far, I have to say it's 99. I remember I used to copy Shoaib Akthar and Wasim Akram bowling. BEST PAK TEAM EVERY!!!
 
Strike Rate said:
Although Pakistan won 1992 WC and i watched it too but my pick is 1999 WC it was the best WC so many memories Anwar,Klusener,Akhtar,Ganguly,Donald,Saqi,Akram,Warne everyone was performing like champions.
Click to expand...

except the final. damn which side of bide our team woke up that morning with a hangover.
 
1996 wasn't that bad, you had some cracking matches (WI vs Aus, WI vs Kenya, WI vs SA, Pak vs Eng) to name a few along with Sri Lanka's dream run.
 
tauseef_mahmood said:
except the final. damn which side of bide our team woke up that morning with a hangover.
Click to expand...

Saqi just mentioned yesterday that we selected to bat on that pitch because we were not sure about our chasing ability and same is the story of Pakistan after a decade we always struggle while chasing.
 
1999 and 2011. Highly competitive and you couldn't tell which side would win the whole thing.
 
2003 world cup. Fast bowling was at its peak for every team. Akthar, Brett Lee, Shane bond, . Even Indian bowlers were bowling pretty quick. Picture quality was also better for 2003 world cup. 1999 world cup was played in gloomy weather conditions. Players wearing oversized sweaters, looking very fat. Lol. Although Pakistan did well in 1999, I prefer 92, 2003 world cup. I disagree cricket quality was bad in 2003 world cup. Imo, it was the best. In 1999 we didn't had waqar.
 
Raw deal said:
2003 world cup. Fast bowling was at its peak for every team. Akthar, Brett Lee, Shane bond, . Even Indian bowlers were bowling pretty quick. Picture quality was also better for 2003 world cup. 1999 world cup was played in gloomy weather conditions. Players wearing oversized sweaters, looking very fat. Lol. Although Pakistan did well in 1999, I prefer 92, 2003 world cup. I disagree cricket quality was bad in 2003 world cup. Imo, it was the best. In 1999 we didn't had waqar.
Click to expand...

Still 2003, there was 95% chance Aus would be winning it. They were just too strong and it kind of kills the interest else everyone else looking for the 2nd best spot.
1999 was a good contest among top 3-4 teams which were neck to neck.
 
Raw deal said:
2003 world cup. Fast bowling was at its peak for every team. Akthar, Brett Lee, Shane bond, . Even Indian bowlers were bowling pretty quick. Picture quality was also better for 2003 world cup. 1999 world cup was played in gloomy weather conditions. Players wearing oversized sweaters, looking very fat. Lol. Although Pakistan did well in 1999, I prefer 92, 2003 world cup. I disagree cricket quality was bad in 2003 world cup. Imo, it was the best. In 1999 we didn't had waqar.
Click to expand...

Still 2003, there was 95% chance Aus would be winning it. They were just too strong and it kind of kills the interest as else everyone else looking for the 2nd best spot.
1999 was a good contest among top 3-4 teams which were neck to neck.
 
1992 WC was the one when I started watching cricket, and for me it was probably the best, although 1999 would come close as well. 1992 had the best of formats and was the fairest possible world cup till date, the way Pakistan bounced back was incredible, that heart breaking semifinal for the south africans and I will never forget Wasim Akram's bowling in the final, I became a fan of the legendary man! 1999 again had lots of fine memories, and it was a very very competitive WC with teams like Zimbabwe also in the frame, almost all the top teams barring Sri Lanka were very competitive in that WC.

for me the worst was 2007, didn't enjoy that at all, more so because India and Pakistan were knocked out early, and after the death of Bob Woolmer the entire tournament just looked gloomy, I just wanted it to end as soon as possible.

1996 actually wasn't that bad, as mentioned in one of the posts above, it actually had some cracking games, the AUS-WI semi final is an unforgettable one, so was the Quaterfinal between India and Pakistan and I will never forget the start India got in the semi final against Sri Lanka, Sanath and Kalu out in the first over and then India crumbling on a dust bowl!

2011 was also a very entertaining WC, the highlight for me was the India-Pakistan semi-final and Kevin O Brien's knock against England, and the way Pakistan played throughout the tournament despite being hit by one of the biggest scandals in cricketing history and losing three of it's key players!
 
I think, 1999 was played under very good format - at the end of the day, best sides through out the tournament made it to the SF & Final after a good number of matches. In 1999, ZIM surprised everybody, but they earned that. Overall, 1, 2 & 3 came as per merit.

1999 & 2003 format was the best for me - every match had a meaning, though for unique circumstances, Kenya made the SF. 1983, 1987 & 1992 at least gave the teams a second chance & there was enough qualifying matches to filter out the best 4.

2007 was pathetic for the schedule, but the format wasn't bad & top 3 sides came at 1,2 & 3.

1996, 2011 are the worst, could be 2015 as well - you know what is common in between these.........
 
Calibre of talent in 1999 in their primes were unmatched
 
No doubt, 1999 was best quality wise. As lots of great players performing well. Format wise 1992 was good.
2007 was as pathetic as it can get. Infact i only remember pak and india exits in that world cup.
 
1999 has to be the best. 2007 and 2011 were both pretty bad, can't pick which one was the worst.
 
For me, it's easier to say which ones are the worst. 1996, 2011, and very likely 2015. First 42 games out of 49 are played, only to decide which of the top eight teams will play against whom in the quarterfinals. At best, one of the other six teams may replace one of the big cricketing teams, but it's very unlikely.

The smaller teams are far more likely to qualify, if the groups are smaller (four groups of four teams). This horrible format on the other hand makes it harder for the smaller teams to get out of the group stages (because they need more than just one upset), while at the same time, equalizing the chances of the top each teams to reach the finals. And it achieves this financially safer play format by robbing most group games of any urgency.
 
1999 was best mainly because of team southafrica....they played like a champ won almost every game....and fav to lift the cup....but unfortunetely.they tied with aus because of donald.....tears came in my eyes at that time i was 13....2003 second best and 2011......2007 is worst as ind pak kicked out of tournament....
 
dravid the wall said:
1999 was best mainly because of team southafrica....they played like a champ won almost every game....and fav to lift the cup....but unfortunetely.they tied with aus because of donald.....tears came in my eyes at that time i was 13....2003 second best and 2011......2007 is worst as ind pak kicked out of tournament....
Click to expand...

I would have payed a million bucks to watch SA vs Pakistan final in 1999.. Donald Kallis Klusener Gibbs pollock Wasim Akhtar Anwar Inzamam all at their peak, mouth watering prospect
 
1996 was the best (I was a kid 'n it was my 1st WC) - defiant SL stunned the world.

2007 was the worst. It could have been one of the best as SL joined in hands with Banglabros to knock India outta the WC. :D But that final made it the worst WC - rain, sluggish pitch, wet outfield, darkness and then D/L method :facepalm:
 
McGarrett said:
1996 was the best (I was a kid 'n it was my 1st WC) - defiant SL stunned the world.

2007 was the worst. It could have been one of the best as SL joined in hands with Banglabros to knock India outta the WC. :D But that final made it the worst WC - rain, sluggish pitch, wet outfield, darkness and then D/L method :facepalm:
Click to expand...

1996 was my first worldcup too....but only remember semifinal anr final match....aravinda desil
 
99 was the most competitive. I was never a fan of any formats introduced apart from the 99 world cup. 92 was right up there too.

If you want more competition, key is to weed out the weaker teams first and leave the competition for top teams to make their way back in even after some early losses till the semi final stage. After that, it is anybody out of the final four's game.

In 92, there were 9 teams and they all played each other. So even if some teams lost matches early on, they still had a chance till the very last week. I remember England, NZ and South Africa had already secured the three semi spots but it was between Pak, WI and Aus in the last week and any one of the three could have made it. So it was consistently competitive till the last few games.

The quarterfinal system is pretty flaky. Either you are a shoo in (19960 if you win one or two games) or you get knocked out after losing a couple (Pakistan and India in 2007)

99 is my personal favorite. There was a super six round after the first round and the top 6 teams played against each other. Points they earned the round before carried on. It was truly one of the most intriguing and enthralling of the world cups. Australia and India were at the bottom and the way Australia fought their way into the semis was simply amazing. They truly deserved to win that year the way they played after initial hiccups.

Ever since then, the ICC WC has been a miss. I in fact enjoyed the ICCT in SR a few years back a lot more than I enjoy the current iterations of the world cup.
 
99 was the most competitive. I was never a fan of any formats introduced apart from the 99 world cup. 92 was right up there too.

If you want more competition, key is to weed out the weaker teams first and leave the competition for top teams to make their way back in even after some early losses till the semi final stage. After that, it is anybody out of the final four's game.

In 92, there were 9 teams and they all played each other. So even if some teams lost matches early on, they still had a chance till the very last week. I remember England, NZ and South Africa had already secured the three semi spots but it was between Pak, WI and Aus in the last week and any one of the three could have made it. So it was consistently competitive till the last few games.

The quarterfinal system is pretty flaky. Either you are a shoo in (19960 if you win one or two games) or you get knocked out after losing a couple (Pakistan and India in 2007)

99 is my personal favorite. There was a super six round after the first round and the top 6 teams played against each other. Points they earned the round before carried on. It was truly one of the most intriguing and enthralling of the world cups. Australia and India were at the bottom and the way Australia fought their way into the semis was simply amazing. They truly deserved to win that year the way they played after initial hiccups.

Ever since then, the ICC WC has been a miss. I in fact enjoyed the ICCT in SA a few years back a lot more than I enjoy the current iterations of the world cup.
 
All world cups were pretty phenomenal. The crowd atmosphere and format is what makes the difference every time. More the minnow matches, more boring the world cup becomes initially. The 2007 one was awfully simply because India/Pakistan crashed out too early and you had Bangladesh/Ireland playing all their super six matches instead otherwise even that one could have been memorable.

2003 world cup felt boring because you had 2 teams playing far superior cricket compared to rest. Aussies and Indians were out of reach of everyone throughout the tourney.

1999 was pretty awesome. Thought Pakistan playing the final was bit of a shame though considering they were outplayed in super sixes by India/RSA and then destroyed in final.

1996 world cup was great but again you had Lankans playing final thanks to walk outs and a semi win against India thanks to the pitch breaking apart in the middle of the match.

1992, another travesty with the least favourite team going all the way due to sheer luck.




My personal pick is 2011 world cup. The skill at display were pretty phenomenal. No flukish journeys. Great pitches and lots of big knock out games.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
All world cups were pretty phenomenal. The crowd atmosphere and format is what makes the difference every time. More the minnow matches, more boring the world cup becomes initially. The 2007 one was awfully simply because India/Pakistan crashed out too early and you had Bangladesh/Ireland playing all their super six matches instead otherwise even that one could have been memorable.

2003 world cup felt boring because you had 2 teams playing far superior cricket compared to rest. Aussies and Indians were out of reach of everyone throughout the tourney.

1999 was pretty awesome. Thought Pakistan playing the final was bit of a shame though considering they were outplayed in super sixes by India/RSA and then destroyed in final.

1996 world cup was great but again you had Lankans playing final thanks to walk outs and a semi win against India thanks to the pitch breaking apart in the middle of the match.

1992, another travesty with the least favourite team going all the way due to sheer luck.




My personal pick is 2011 world cup. The skill at display were pretty phenomenal. No flukish journeys. Great pitches and lots of big knock out games.
Click to expand...

This guy takes Indian delusional bias to a whole new level... and lol at trying to make it seem like India were anywhere near the same league as Australia
 
freelance_cricketer said:
1996 world cup was great but again you had Lankans playing final thanks to walk outs and a semi win against India thanks to the pitch breaking apart in the middle of the match.[/QUOTE
Yeah that pitch seemingly crumbled in a mattter of overs with the Sri Lankan spinners extracting some vicious turn and zip from it. Nearly every ball was turning square - hell even Jayasuriya seemed to be turning it at right angles !

So then why did Azharuddin decide to bowl first ? The curator apparently told him it'd turn square in the second innings ! And it wasn't even surprising at Eden Gardens - Kumble took something like 6-12 a few years before. India should've known better.

It was a poor decision and it wasn't just the pitch - Aravinda de Silva played a magnificent counter-attacking knock (66 off 47) and Indian bowlers were shell shocked, it all went downhill from there.
Click to expand...
 
[MENTION=65183]freelance_cricketer[/MENTION] And the Sri Lankans deserved to win, walkovers or not - the Jayasuriya-Kaluwitharana partnership was brilliant as were their spinners, combined with the absolute genius of Aravinda de Silva. They murdered the Australians in the final.
 
I liked the 1987, 1999, 2003 and 2007 WC the most.

2011 was awful, 1996 was OK, 1992 was a farce because SA were robbed blind.
 
Markhor said:
Yeah that pitch seemingly crumbled in a mattter of overs with the Sri Lankan spinners extracting some vicious turn and zip from it. Nearly every ball was turning square - hell even Jayasuriya seemed to be turning it at right angles !

So then why did Azharuddin decide to bowl first ? The curator apparently told him it'd turn square in the second innings ! And it wasn't even surprising at Eden Gardens - Kumble took something like 6-12 a few years before. India should've known better.

It was a poor decision and it wasn't just the pitch - Aravinda de Silva played a magnificent counter-attacking knock (66 off 47) and Indian bowlers were shell shocked, it all went downhill from there.
Click to expand...


Only Azharuddin can tell what made him opt to bowl first on such a pitch in a big match against a team full of spinners. 15 overs into India's batting, the pitch had become a dust bowl. There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side. From that to crumbling in the semi final, it was totally bizzare.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
All world cups were pretty phenomenal. The crowd atmosphere and format is what makes the difference every time. More the minnow matches, more boring the world cup becomes initially. The 2007 one was awfully simply because India/Pakistan crashed out too early and you had Bangladesh/Ireland playing all their super six matches instead otherwise even that one could have been memorable.

2003 world cup felt boring because you had 2 teams playing far superior cricket compared to rest. Aussies and Indians were out of reach of everyone throughout the tourney.

1999 was pretty awesome. Thought Pakistan playing the final was bit of a shame though considering they were outplayed in super sixes by India/RSA and then destroyed in final.

1996 world cup was great but again you had Lankans playing final thanks to walk outs and a semi win against India thanks to the pitch breaking apart in the middle of the match.

1992, another travesty with the least favourite team going all the way due to sheer luck.




My personal pick is 2011 world cup. The skill at display were pretty phenomenal. No flukish journeys. Great pitches and lots of big knock out games.
Click to expand...

You are a see you next Tuesday.
 
I'm sticking to 2011 for:

a) No walk overs
b) No carry over points
c) 3 knock out stages
d) Fair pitches
e) No flukes
f) Two best teams meeting in the final
g) Well contested knock outs and final match
 
i don't think 2015 will be as successful as 2011 when it comes to viewership and buzz but quality can match the 1999 WC finger crossed
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Only Azharuddin can tell what made him opt to bowl first on such a pitch in a big match against a team full of spinners. 15 overs into India's batting, the pitch had become a dust bowl. There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side. From that to crumbling in the semi final, it was totally bizzare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was totally bizzare as the Indians were trying to burn down their own stadium. :)))

I wonder what the excuses are for getting knocked outta the tournment by SL in 2007 WC, 2010T20, 2014T20. :)))

What an ..........
 
freelance_cricketer said:
I'm sticking to 2011 for:

a) No walk overs
b) No carry over points
c) 3 knock out stages
d) Fair pitches
e) No flukes
f) Two best teams meeting in the final
g) Well contested knock outs and final match
Click to expand...


Very much logical points to rank a WC as best - completely agree with a.

I have my reservations for b, c, d, e, f & g though.........
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Only Azharuddin can tell what made him opt to bowl first on such a pitch in a big match against a team full of spinners. 15 overs into India's batting, the pitch had become a dust bowl. There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side. From that to crumbling in the semi final, it was totally bizzare.
Click to expand...

You were not born then, when Sanath ended Manoj's career at Delhi few days back. IND Beat PAK on a surface which had the same characteristic as the Eden one, but at a lower intensity & PAK Captain (& the best cricketer that time) managed to get himself injured while batting in a meaningless match against NZ.............
 
Nothing beats a 99 World Cup.

I would have said 92 but the way South Africa was robbed, as Random Aussie said, was a mockery of system.

I still don't understand why they don't use the 99 format? Super Sixes. Points carried over from group stages. All the matches are interesting and everyone is glued for every match.

I think it has something to do with ( now sue me for this Indian fans) the fact that India cannot be guaranteed a semi final sport if Super sixes come into picture as that means winning at least three matches in group stage and one match in Super six Stage or if you don't win 3 in group stage, then win 2 in group stage and 2 in Super Six Stage which would be incredibly difficult against NZ and Australia.

In 1999, India missed out the Semi final spot and I think after that , they ensured that Super Six would never happen again.

Now at least India is assured of quarter final spot, and because they won't probably top the group,they will likely play SL in quarter finals and semi-final is assured for India.

I know I am reaching a bit, but since the 99 format has been ditched, I believe it's to do with India not making the semi final. Same as in 2007 where shock losses caused India to be out of the tournament even before it started.
 
most of u are saying 99 WC is the best and i completely agree i don't think we will have another competitive WC like this
 
i wish they go back to the 12 teams and super 6 format and its most competitive and keep 16 teams in the t20 wc

top 6 means 2 top teams will miss out so there will more fierce competition in the group matches
 
99 WC format was the best


Group stage matches actually carried importance because points had to be carried into super Six stage

Each match in super six was important and one bad day didnt led to knock out of a good team

92 Format was good but rain rule was pretty stupid which robbed SA
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Only Azharuddin can tell what made him opt to bowl first on such a pitch in a big match against a team full of spinners. 15 overs into India's batting, the pitch had become a dust bowl. There is no way in hell Lankans would have beat India on a fair surface. They had just beaten Pakistan in QF, and Pakistan were a dangerous side. From that to crumbling in the semi final, it was totally bizzare.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why we gave you a good ol hiding in the group stages as well eh?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65179.html

Only won by what 6 wkts :))

Boo hoo!
 
Missed both 96 and 99 WCs only a lil fella back then. First WC was 2003 so 2011 WC prolly the most entertaining one since then.
 
SL_Fan said:
Oooo You said it. Not me :))) Run for cova!

Btw good to see ya back around here again. Long time :)
Click to expand...

Same here. Haven't been following SA much recently, but couldn't afford to miss out on another historical world cup and the obvious hilarity that will ensue :kallis
 
vandokkum said:
Same here. Haven't been following SA much recently, but couldn't afford to miss out on another historical world cup and the obvious hilarity that will ensue :kallis
Click to expand...

:))

No doubt. Gonna be some good times ahead hahaha. Hope either you guys or NZ take this one out tbh. Should be a cracker!
 
SL_Fan said:
:))

No doubt. Gonna be some good times ahead hahaha. Hope either you guys or NZ take this one out tbh. Should be a cracker!
Click to expand...

The odds of either NZ or SA winning the world cup are about as good as India winning a test series away from home.. even those odds are solely due to NZ.....
 
2011 was good, especially in the group stages. England and their antics were awesome!
 
vandokkum said:
The odds of either NZ or SA winning the world cup are about as good as India winning a test series away from home.. even those odds are solely due to NZ.....
Click to expand...

SA v NZ final I reckon. Bookmark it :))
 
I seemed to have hurt some brothers. Nothing personal guys, just some hard facts.
 
1999 world cup was by far the best. The competitive nature of wickets and the nail biters.

The only blemish was the one sided final but a great tournament indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Being a Pakistan fan, which defeats haunt you the most across formats?
Replies
28
Views
681
BunnyRabbit
B
B
Which cricketing nation produces the most talent?
Replies
44
Views
1K
BunnyRabbit
B
msb314
  • Poll Poll
Should the PCB pull out of the match against India in the Women’s World Cup later this year?
Replies
25
Views
547
light
L
T
Mitchell Starc versus Wasim Akram in ODIs/LOIs: Who is better?
Replies
30
Views
2K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
jamie smith fan
Was 2015 World Cup the best edition of Cricket World Cups?
Replies
9
Views
345
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
Back
Top