Your Favourite World Cup

[UncleTheOne]

Are you Gambino from Pak Passion forums?

Funniest.Forum.Ever.

 

[Richard]

- steve eleworthy

Stephen Elworthy?

Full kudos to you for remembering him, mind - he was superb in that Cup and I'll not long forget the way he, a relatively unheralded 34-year-old "trunder", outbowled the star quartet of Donald, Pollock, Wasim and Shoaib in the SA-Pak game. He was an all-too-easily forgotten but vital cog in that fantastic SA side that Cup.

 

[haroon510]

i say 99 becuase that is when i started watching cricket. shoaib's speed, Klusesner's batting and The sami Finally Aus VS SA.

 

[Richard]

i say 99 becuase that is when i started watching cricket. shoaib's speed, Klusesner's batting and The sami Finally Aus VS SA.

Fortunately for Pakistan his career had not yet started.

 

[meatspx]

As a NZer, the 1992 world cup (I was about 9).

NZ were quite clearly the 'unbeatable' side until the last game of the round-robin. No teams came even close....a pretty good effort considering we were hammered but England in the series before.

The format of everybody having a crack against each other was the best.

And the 2 semi-finals were thrillres. I'm not sure how Pakistan won against NZ, Inzy must have hit 60 odd off 30-40 balls out of the blue. It was a very desperate situation for NZ, the players just stood there looking hopeless. I have most of the tournament highlights on a VHS cassette, but I always turn it off after the first innings of that semi-final.

I don't think NZ will loose a game that will ever hurt as much as that, even in a hundred years. The whole country was behind them and in about 15 overs it was taken away.

 

[Mahindinho]

'96 for me, but then, I am just a bit biased

I wasn't all that much into cricket* back in '92, so didn't watch many of the games. '99 was something of a damp squib for me, plus I didn't like the format at all, and '03 was just silly.

* Standard childhood "rebelling against father" sort of thing. Why couldn't I pick something else to rebel against?!

 

[Lillian Thomson]

With England not yet having won the trophy my favourite is still the first one in 1975. No white balls, no coloured clothing, no powerplays or fielding circles and no commercial gimmicks. It was just the six Test playing nations (South Africa five years into their exile) gathered in one spot for the first time and unusually for an English summer no matches were interrupted by rain. Sri Lanka were still six years away from Test status but showed promise for the future against Australia. The other associate member was East Africa who boasted in their side the father of future England player Derek Pringle. Although the game has to move on it was the fact that the teams just played cricket without getting bogged down with too many tactics that made it more memorable.

 

[Fiery]

'99 was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zimbabwe thing. '92 was brilliant for NZ up till the point that meatspx mentioned when Inzi entered the world stage with that phenomenal innings.

 

[wpdavid]

'99 was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zimbabwe thing. '92 was brilliant for NZ up till the point that meatspx mentioned when Inzi entered the world stage with that phenomenal innings.

Are you sure it wasn't 2003 that was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zim thing?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are you sure it wasn't 2003 that was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zim thing?

I'd imagine that's the case.

'99 was ruined by Dave Stewart, IIRC.

 

[Richard]

If that wasn't such an appalling waste of a money-making opportunity it'd be beyond , it'd be ROTFLMAO. Released the day after England were knocked-out, and London's 2 biggest record-stores reported zero sales the following day.

And IMO it was a crap tune in any case.

I'd say Anneka Rice ruined WC99 more than Dave Stewart, mind.

 

[Richard]

'99 was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zimbabwe thing. '92 was brilliant for NZ up till the point that meatspx mentioned when Inzi entered the world stage with that phenomenal innings.

Are you sure it wasn't 2003 that was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zim thing?

It was.

Zim were actually quite good in 99, but I was still pleased when they and India went after the Super Six, given that they were responsible for knocking-out England.

 

[haroon510]

Fortunately for Pakistan his career had not yet started.

you joking right lol. another way to make fun of spelling

i meant to say semi final

it was fortunate for pakistan in 2000 when he played his first test. winning a match for them. no one knew back then that he would be a rubbish bowler by 2006.

 

[Richard]

With England not yet having won the trophy my favourite is still the first one in 1975. No white balls, no coloured clothing, no powerplays or fielding circles and no commercial gimmicks. It was just the six Test playing nations (South Africa five years into their exile) gathered in one spot for the first time and unusually for an English summer no matches were interrupted by rain. Sri Lanka were still six years away from Test status but showed promise for the future against Australia. The other associate member was East Africa who boasted in their side the father of future England player Derek Pringle. Although the game has to move on it was the fact that the teams just played cricket without getting bogged down with too many tactics that made it more memorable.

IMO white-balls\black-stumps\coloured clothing is neither here nor there. It's not improved the game, it's not done it any damage. I'm completely indifferent to such things. Maybe if I'd been born 20 years earlier my attitude'd be different. I can only speak as a child of my age.

I do think that Powerplays (be it the original 15-over rule or the new 10\5\5 one) and fielding-circles have improved the game. They've taken it away from the longer game and IMO that was a good thing.

One thing I'll say I think is a shame, and am really rather surprised you didn't mention it, is that 1975 (and 1979, and 1983) was a competition of 60-over games, and IMO that was the one thing about old ODIs that was superior to those of the last couple of decades (albeit England clung to the rather bizarre 55-over stuff well into the 1990s). A return to 60-over ODIs might just be the way forward (and more possible with the advent of more floodlit grounds) now that Twenty20 becomes ever more intrusive - but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd love to see some 60-over game with the new Powerplay rules, personally.

 

[Richard]

you joking right lol. another way to make fun of spelling

i meant to say semi final

it was fortunate for pakistan in 2000 when he played his first test. winning a match for them. no one knew back then that he would be a rubbish bowler by 2006.

Or by 2002.

Yeah, I was joking. Some typos are good!

 

[haroon510]

i am trying avoid them now. before i come to this website. i go to dictionary.com first.
type the word there find the right spelling then type here back lol

 

[nightprowler10]

1992 was the first thing that really got me interested in cricket, and 1999 was the thing that really made me sit-up and take note of the fact that other countries did actually exist when they weren't playing England. So both played a massive part in my interest in the game.

And had they not been such good tournaments I doubt it'd have happened.

So pretty much: Pakistan in a WC final = Good tournament

Good man

 

[nightprowler10]

i am trying avoid them now. before i come to this website. i go to dictionary.com first.
type the word there find the right spelling then type here back lol

Too much effort, but we appreciate it. You could always download the latest version of Mozilla Firefox. It has a spell check that comes in handy when making posts.

 

[Fiery]

Are you sure it wasn't 2003 that was spoiled by the whole Kenya/Zim thing?

Correct you are wpdavid.

 

[Richard]

So pretty much: Pakistan in a WC final = Good tournament

Good man

Or maybe... good tournament = Pakistan in final.