South Africa's 1992 World Cup campaign & Big Mac's claim

[Xuhaib]

Agree with this. We got dicked when it didn't rain in the semi-final when you were 4/140.

it did not rain because we had already had our quota of getting dicked.

What happened with SA in the SF was quite sad but they were the one who got the benefit of the rain rule in their group match versus England but still ended up loosing the game.

 

[honestbharani]

Believe the choker tag really took hold after they lost to the WI in the 1996 WC QF, especially since they pissed and moaned about it, that the format was unfair, etc.

They might as well moan the genius of Lara was unfair or that left arm over the wicket slow bowling was unfair..

 

[vic_orthdox]

South Africa also had a couple of tri-series where Aus was involved and they dominated during the series, and then lost the finals - including one where they won the first final, and then lost the next two. Added to the choke tag in a big way, and was before the 1999 WC IIRC.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Brian McMillan interview:

"I promise you," McMillan says. "If we had played Pakistan in the final, we would have beaten them. We had beaten them before that, we had a mental edge. They just couldn't play us."

Source : Brian McMillan interview: 'Always had the thing for a difficult catch, the dive' | Specials | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

I would say that regarding his claim that they would have defeated Pakistan, they had beaten Pakistan in the league game by virtue of the same "rain rule" that resulted in the farce in the semi final otherwise Pakistan were cruising along. Kepler Wessels himself admitted that the overs reduction had helped his side.

I have always found these "would have" and "should have" arguments preposterous. If you would have...then you would be the champions in 92..fact is you couldnt qualify for the finals. I can also claim that Pakistan would have won the World Cup in 99 if they had played South Africa as they don't have the mental strength to play in crucial games.. Does it make any difference? No.

 

[G.I.Joe]

We Indians got our first taste of SA's chokingness after they they lost the Titan Cup Final after winning all 4 league games.

What a tournament that was.

 

[vcs]

We Indians got our first taste of SA's chokingness after they they lost the Titan Cup Final after winning all 4 league games.

What a tournament that was.

6 actually. They actually did exactly that in another tournament in Sharjah and beat India in the final as well, around the same time. Pakistan were involved in that tournament.

 

[Walter]

I read that article the other day and thought that quote was a bit odd.

I saw MacMillan in a bar once, he's seriously large.

 

[weldone]

I think Pakistan were more favorites going into the 1987 WC than India.

It has to be one between India and Pakistan, undoubtedly.

India won the '83 WC unexpectedly. But they won the '85 Prudential Cup, and this time not so unexpectedly. Given that they won these two major tournaments away, and given that they were always much better at home than away I thought they had a slight edge over Pakistan (though that Pakistani side looked better than India on paper).

 

[smash84]

It has to be one between India and Pakistan, undoubtedly.

India won the '83 WC unexpectedly. But they won the '85 Prudential Cup, and this time not so unexpectedly. Given that they won these two major tournaments away, and given that they were always much better at home than away I thought they had a slight edge over Pakistan (though that Pakistani side looked better than India on paper).

These two were the favorites but as somebody mentioned that they had previously beaten India comprehensively in their last encounter suggests that Pakistan were indeed favorites.

In fact there was recently an article on cricinfo from some Indian guy who was in USA while the 87 WC was taking place. He mentioned that while it seemed that there could be an India Pakistan final but for the Indians in the USA "we were not overly eager to face Imran's not-so-cornered tigers in the final". That Pak team was wonderfully well led and Imran was at his best.

 

[Black_Warrior]

6 actually. They actually did exactly that in another tournament in Sharjah and beat India in the final as well, around the same time. Pakistan were involved in that tournament.

There was another one in 2000.
South Africa, India and Pakistan
South Africa won all matches, faced Pakistan in the finals and lost

 

[Hit Wicket]

As someone who was alive and kicking in '87, the bookies had India slight favorites over Pakistan before the tournament started, probably because the final was in India.

However, midway during the tournament India were in a definitively more favored position than Pakistan because of Pakistan's comprehensive loss to WI as opposed to India's 1 run loss to Australia and the Pakistani win against West Indies being on the basis of Walsh.

Pakistan's semifinal was a day before India's and when Pakistan lost, India were the undoubted favorites to lift the cup. Fair play to Gooch and Gatting for sweeping India out of the tournament.

 

[smash84]

As someone who was alive and kicking in '87, the bookies had India slight favorites over Pakistan before the tournament started, probably because the final was in India.

However, midway during the tournament India were in a definitively more favored position than Pakistan because of Pakistan's comprehensive loss to WI as opposed to India's 1 run loss to Australia and the Pakistani win against West Indies being on the basis of Walsh.

Pakistan's semifinal was a day before India's and when Pakistan lost, India were the undoubted favorites to lift the cup. Fair play to Gooch and Gatting for sweeping India out of the tournament.

I didn't know that the bookies had India slight favorites.

 

[smash84]

Cricinfo on the SA Pak match in group stages. SA really gained

Superman Rhodes
Pakistan v South Africa, Brisbane
South Africa had been restricted to 211 but the rain rule helped them after Pakistan started confidently - an asking-rate of 4.9 in 28 overs suddenly became 8.5 in 14. Pakistan's hopes of getting to the revised target rested largely on Inzamam-ul-Haq - who was in awesome form and had clattered 48 from 44 balls - and Imran Khan, who had helped add 85 runs for the third wicket.

In the 31st over Inzamam missed a heave to leg off Brian McMillan, but took off for a leg-bye. Imran, the non-striker, took a couple of strides and then stopped. Jonty Rhodes, already established as an outstanding fielder, chose this instant to produce one of the defining moments of the tournament. Sprinting in from a fairly deep backward point, Rhodes swooped on the ball with his right hand and then, ball in hand, charged towards the wicket even as Inzamam, who'd already run a third of the length of the pitch, desperately tried to return. An underarm throw would have sufficed, but Rhodes attempted the spectacular: he threw himself, feet in the air and body parallel to the ground, and razed all three stumps to the ground. Inzamam was marginally short of the crease, and for a moment South Africa had Superman in their line-up.

"I was appealing for lbw," said McMillan, "but out of the corner of the eye I saw Jonty diving in. I'd never seen a bloke dive at the wickets ever before." Rhodes had a simple explanation: "There was a 50% chance that I'd hit the stumps if I threw, and a 100% chance of hitting the stumps with ball in hand. The fastest way I could cover the last metre and a half was head first. It was just the right thing to do at the time."

Pakistan needed 59 from less than six overs when Inzamam fell, and their plight became dire when Imran went in the next over. Rhodes had turned the game, but he wasn't done: Ijaz Ahmed fell to another piece of brilliance, as Rhodes held on to a steepler while almost falling backwards. The rest of Pakistan batting's fell away and South Africa stole victory by 20 runs.

 

[zaremba]

"I promise you," McMillan says. "If we had played Pakistan in the final, we would have beaten them. We had beaten them before that, we had a mental edge. They just couldn't play us."

It's not as though England pissed all over Pakistan in the first round either, obviously

Talk is cheap for the semi-final losers

 

[smash84]

It's not as though England pissed all over Pakistan in the first round either, obviously

Talk is cheap for the semi-final losers

 

[Jeremiel]

What's McMillan's basis for saying that "they just couldn't play us" ? Was it just the league game or were there earlier games between the two teams? Anyway the whole thing just comes across as some rather pathetic whining.

I found this report after a lot of searching.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket.scores
From: Mr RK Laubscher <z...@hippo.ru.ac.za>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1992 16:43:24 EET
Local: Sun, Feb 16 1992 3:43 pm
Subject: SA vs Pakistan: Friendly one day match, Canberra.

SA vs Pakistan: Unofficial one day international.

South Africa defeated an understrength Pakistan team in Canberra on
Saturday, 15 February. Pakistan lacked their two pace bowlers, Wasim
Akram and Waqir Younis, as well as leading batsman Javed Miandad. This
was indeed unfortunate as a clash between Younis and Alan Donald, both
top wicket takers in County cricket, was eagerly anticipated. However,
Donald failed miserably, going for 57 runs off 10 overs and bowling 7
no-balls and 4 wides. While SA regarded the match as a full-scale
international, Pakistan camp made it known beforehand they would not
back full status, as required by the ICC. This was confirmed by Imran,
who said: "It was only a friendly". The biggest disappointment for SA
cricket fans was the lack of live coverage, and cricket fans in SA had
to be content with sporadic news bulletins over radio and TV.
Unfortunately, as the event was not covered by Australian TV, no
highlights could be shown.

Here is the scorecard (Pakistan won the toss, SA to bat first):

SA 6s 4s Min Balls
Kepler Wessels c Ijaz (midwkt) b Aaqib 72 - 3 193 114
Andrew Hudson c sub (Mustaq)(cover) b Ijaz 18 - 1 54 45
Peter Kirsten b Iqbal 30 - 4 56 44
Adrian Kuiper c Aamer (midwkt) b Jaffer 10 - 1 24 25
Hansie Cronje c Iqbal (long-off) b Khan 19 - 1 21 37
Jonty Rhodes not out 21 - 2 21 18
Brian McMillan not out 7 - - 9 7
Extras (2b, 8ib, 14w, 4nb) 28
Total (5 wkts, 50 overs) 205
Did not bat: Dave Richardson (wk), Richard Snell, Meyrick Pringle and
Alan Donald.

Fall of wkts: 1/35 (Hudson), 2/94 (Kirsten), 3/116 (Kuiper), 4/162
(Cronje), 5/182 (Wessels).

Bowling: Imran Khan 9-3-33-1 (1w); Aaqib Javed 10-039-1 (3nb, 3w); Ijaz
Ahmed 10-0-29-0 (3w); Saleem Jaffer 10-0-45-1 (1nb, 7w); Iqbal Sikander
10-0-41-1: Aamer Sahail 1-0-8-0.

Pakistan 6s 4s Min Balls
Rameez Raja c Richardson b McMillan 11 - 1 27 20
Aamer Sohail c Richardson b McMillan 58 - 3 168 90
Inzamam-ul-Haq lbw Pringle 30 - 2 65 48
Imran Kahn b Pringle 43 - 1 133 95
Zahid Fazal c Snell (mid-on) b McMillan 0 - - 2 3
Ijaz Ahmed b Snell 15 - 1 33 28
Salim Malik b Snell 0 - - 2 2
Moin Khan (wk) run out (Pringle/Richardson) 1 - - 1 1
Iqbal Sikander b McMillan 4 - - 11 7
Saleem Jaffer b McMillan 0 - - 2 0
Aaqib Javed not out 0 - - 2 0
Extras (4b, 2lb, 11nb, 9w) 26
Total (all out, 49.3 overs) 188

Fall of wickets: 1/23 (Raja), 2/85 (Inzamam), 3/146, (Aamer), 4/146
(Zahid), 5/172 (Ijaz), 6/172 (Malik), 7/173 (Moin), 8/186 (Iqbal), 9/186
(Jaffer).

Bowling: Donald 10-0-57-0 (7nb, 4w); Pringle 9.3-1-34-2 (1nb, 2w);
McMillan 10-0-32-5 (2nb, 2w); Snell 10-1-27-2; Kuiper 6-1-18-0 (1w);
Cronje 4-0-14-0).

An important win for SA from a psycological point of view. It would
seem that SA will have rely on their bowling and fielding to restrict
their opponents to a low enough score for their batsmen to attain.
Howeverr, it seems that SA's younger batsmen are beginning to grow in
confidence as they play more matches.

--
Richard Laubscher - Rhodes University - Grahamstown - South Africa
Internet: z...@hippo.ru.ac.za
Phone: +27 [0]461 22023 ext 524 Fax: +27 [0]461 24377

SA vs Pakistan: Friendly one day match, Canberra. - rec.sport.cricket.scores | Google Groups

 

[smash84]

the most impressive part is that you actually were able to dig up this match

 

[robelinda]

Footage *does* exist too.......

 

[smash84]

woah........dude....that would be REALLY impressive

 

[Jeremiel]

Footage *does* exist too.......

If you have footage then please share with us. It'd be great!

Provide a link.