I have little memory of 1987, hardly anything I can recall, must have read lot which actually makes me visualize lot more than I saw. Before that, it's archive.
Coming to WCs, I think 1975 & 1979 were too short - only 3 matches in group, then SF & F. '75 wasn't a great tournament because, they put top 3 sides in same group & WI beat PAK in group match (Not in SF, AUS-ENG, WI-NZ made the semi) by last wicket partnership of 64. I think, AUS was the best team then (they beat WI in group game, I believe), followed by WI & PAK. AUS lost to Lloyd's batting & Viv's fielding - 6 (or 5) run-outs for WI, otherwise AUS were cruising
1979, everybody was playing for 2nd spot - that WI side was almost unbeatable. At the end, I think, top 2 sides met in the Final - PAK had a great team, but lost to ENG in Group match & then faced WI in SF. Apart from those 3, rest sides were not up to the mark & IND lost to SRL. But this WC 'll be remembered for 2 things - WI-PAK SF, a great match on the quality aspect & Viv's 138*, undoubtedly the best ever WC innings to me. I believe, Garner had the best figure for a WC Final as well (5/17 ?)
1983 was an upset Final, but noway undeserving. IND beat WI in Group match & defended 181 in a 60 overs Final - no rain, no DWL, plain & simple they took 10 wickets after Lloyd put them on a green top. If any team that didn't deserve to be in top 4, it was PAK - anyone can check their bowling attack for that WC '83. Imran played only as a batsman & it was his leadership that took an extremely unbalanced side to SF. Barring Javed, Qadir & half Imran, most PAK greats were expired sell by date, were playing by names, while none of the youngsters made any career later. Every WC has given PAK some players who had great career later .... none from 1983.
1987 was the year when both the hosts bolted it in SF. Led by two of the best ever ODI all-rounders, both IND, PAK (& WI) had the best team but none made it to the finals, in fact WI failed in group stage. No complaints - ENG beat them twice in Group stage. That was one of the best & open WC for the balanced amount of talent available. It was a great experience for me, for someone left Aussie schools just a year or so back & learned my first cricket lessons from the best school cricket systems in world. & it was a great sorrow for me - 2 men that made me cricket fanatic left the WC (though Imran made a comeback, by Viv should have played in 1992).
I am not sure, how PAK was the best team in 1992 - around that time, PAK indeed was one of the best Test sides, but in ODI, WI, AUS & ENG were ahead of PAK, particularly in AUS. Still, they should have been among top 3, but lost 5 starters in about a year time before WC - Saeed, Qadir, Waquar, Akram Raza & Salim Yousuf; in fact Salim Zafar, Tauseef & Manzoor Elahi also should have been in the mix. Great visionary leaders make their team & make fortune with whatever they have. On head to head - even this 2015 team is better than that team, but they had KHAN. That was a great WC format, last WC before being r*p*d by Cricket Globalization - every match had a meaning. No other WC introduced the amount of future greats like that one in 1992 - Lara, SRT, MWaugh, Donald, Ambi, Bishop, Cairns, Srinath, Sanath, Mushi, Hick, Cronje, De Villiers, Hooper.............. BUT, that WC 'll always remain controversial for the Rain law. It was procedural justice though - PAK got away with ENG, lost to SAF, who had the bad luck against ENG, but, they had to pay higher penalty as it was SF.
Should ENG deserve to win - ABSOLUTELY. If I were in charge, I would have made SAF's life measurable for few matches - this is why people should watch the match & study key elements. SAF always comes with "street smart" ideas, but then bolt things when it becomes more than bat-ball. After 30 overs ENG was 150 for 1 or so, then SAF took 85 minutes to bowl 15 overs & left ENG stranded at 250/5 in 45 overs - full 50 overs, they would have chased 310................
1996 was the worst WC that I have ever seen. It had every ugly things - boycott, crowd disturbance, horrible format, under prepared tracks, dew factor ..what not. Only positive was, probably the best team for the condition won it & they introduced something that changed the LO cricket strategy for ever (barring PAK) & the innings of some one Brian Charles. This format is ideal for encouraging match fixings.............
1999 was the best WC, by far. It had everything - quality of the team, quality of players, balance between bat & ball, format. I don't think any other WC has seen or 'll ever see so many greats in a single tournament. Putting names 'll make this 2 pages, but PAK, AUS, SAF, IND, SRL, even WI, ENG, ZIM & NZ 'll have most of their all-time best ODI team playing in this WC & most of them at their peak. That WC had 3 teams, which could have won the cup walking in some other tournaments.
At the end, I believe 1, 2 & 3 came in proper order - SAF looked shiny, but they had 2 bites on Aussie cherry to eliminate them, failed - 3rd is fair enough. PAK had the best team for the condition with Afridi, Razzak, Mahmood, Akram, Saq making a bottomless tail - but they bolted for their lifetime nemesis - we can't chase, so whatever, bat first. PAK had 7/8 people well aware of English weather/conditions/wickets - if they still thought on a gloomy, overcast Lords morning in early June, it was a better idea to test their skills against Aussie pacers, I have not much to complain. I must have lived 2 years in different London early summer. This WC 'll not score a perfect 10 from me though - some Pakistani players made money & someone undeserving, enjoyed the fortune.................
2003 was the same format of 1999, had a great pool of talent as well, albeit a bit aged. But, 3 things devalued it big time - the boycott which led Kenya to SF, Shane's doping failure & the contest - it was boys against men. Like 1979, everybody was fighting for the 2nd spot. IND was the 2nd best team in the WC - they lost to those frightening Aussies once by 9 wickets (inside 25 overs) & once by almost 100 runs, one can understand. On papers PAK had a top team, but most greats in decline & I successfully won a bet that a team led by WY 'll not go to 2nd round (I would have sticked to that, had even 4 teams been allowed to advance). Besides, players practiced a bit WWF during training session as well - this was one of the failure of Mussarraff's military regime, he (& Gen Zia) was too soft. Some those players were convicted fixers, fought in between & bolted a WC - should have been given 3rd degree ........
I don't have a single word praising 2007 - it was pathetic. Only positive for me was BD advancing to 2nd round, though I am not sure should I take it positively or negatively in broader perspectives. May be the second positive was that the best team won & top 3 teams made the SF. And it had an unfortunate death of one of the great contributors to ODI cricket.
2011 was unique for me - went to see a WC match at my home (wish I hadn't gone for the WI match - thought we are going to QF beating a disintegrated WI side - Man posses, God.....). That WC was decent, at the end, I think the best side, led by the best Captain won it, though the format sucks. Ugly side of the format was exposed in this WC - MSD had a pathetic WC before SF & Final, Gul & Afridi had a great WC before the first match that mattered. If morons make a WC 7 match affair, this 'll be common. 2011 loses lot more point for the format....
Over all, if I am to score for the WCs, my score (& rank) 'll be
1999 - 9.99
1992 - 9
1987 - 8.5
2003 - 8
1979 - 7
1983 - 6
1975 - 5.5
2011 - 2
2007 - 0
1996 - (-) 1
)
But it was good world cup to watch
