I mean no one took it at all seriously until quite recently IIRC. Certainly the Aus sides of the early 00s seemed to think it an annoying distraction.Actually, they needed 4 attempts to win the CT considering they were runaway favourites and clearly the best team in the world going into the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 editions. Not that it should be much of a factor when it comes to ranking teams historically.
Only the first two were knockout tournaments. Been a traditional group+knockout format since 2002Originally the CT was a pure knockout tournament, wasn't it?
When did that change?
Cheers.Only the first two were knockout tournaments. Been a traditional group+knockout format since 2002
I don't remember them sending weakened teams etc. to any CT, TBH. I'd say no one took the WT20 2007 particularly seriously, for example. There were a lot of experimental teams and weird tactics in that event.I mean no one took it at all seriously until quite recently IIRC. Certainly the Aus sides of the early 00s seemed to think it an annoying distraction.
It wasn't so much that weakened teams were sent so much as flat out weak teams like the USA were involved to pad numbers.I don't remember them sending weakened teams etc. to any CT, TBH. I'd say no one took the WT20 2007 particularly seriously, for example. There were a lot of experimental teams and weird tactics in that event.
The 2000 match was a very tough contest and a really sweet win for India, coming after the match-fixing scandals.
Oh, it was baiting all right. Wasn't a fail, reeled in quite a few fish as can be seen from all the thrashing and flailing from a few people.I'm about 90% convinced it's a fail attempt at baiting.
honestbharani you need to drop this narrative regarding Australia's '99 WC campaign
they lost a couple of close games in the first group stage but then dominated the super 6 and the rest is history
dont make it sound like they fluked it
I would say that it was the format more than anything that often meant it was more of a "on the day" better team winning it than the world's best. The WC took a lot more time to arrive at their denouements and thus, we always knew who the best side were. And the post 1996 WC editions had a HUGE league stage which meant it was always going to come down to the quality of the side during the semis and the finals. The CT, being a more condensed tourney, I think helps slightly lesser sides spring surprises in the KOs far more frequently than the WC KO stages do.