The man who saw it comming a light year away!!

[Ringua]

So what happend to the "Bizzare theory"?, the theory by Bazza according to which all three Asian countries should have been a big flop in the World cup!!!

I had a detail discussion with Bazza on "world cup prediction "thread and i quote his words.

My point was that all three of the major players from the subcontinent have been hugely outclassed in South African/Australian type conditions, and as a result can be expected to struggle in the world cup.Don't worry this is the last time I will try and get this across. We will wait and see what happens, but I am safe in the knowledge that if India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka all have a poor world cup campaign, I saw it coming a light year away.I won't go back any further - you get the idea. Subcontinental teams tend to suck in SA/Aus type conditions (ie pace, bounce, large outfields, etc).Here is the evidence right there. It's not an opinion, it is fact, and I would be surprised if any subcontinental side makes it to the final.

Only 1 Asian team was a big flop, 2 made it to the semis while 1 reached the finals....Something which our Nostradamus wasn't able to see!

 

[royGilchrist]

in SA - India reached the finals, and were easily the second best team in the tourney

in Aus - Pak won

 

[warrioryohannan]

Well he was certainly very vocal about it, thats a different thing that the theory was rubbish!:P

 

[masterblaster]

Yeah, the theory was rather a 'expect the asians will do bad on the bouncy pitches theory' rather than their batsman will find the ball coming nice on to the bat, and with fast outfields.

 

[marc71178]

It's all well and good having a go after the thing finishes, but leading into the competition, Bazza was using facts, and a lot of people could see his point.

Granted that India reched the final, but SL were very fortunate to reach the semis (lucky to even get out the group!) and overall the World Cup had a lot of surprises in it - I mean who would've picked Kenya to even qualify for the SS?

 

[Gotchya]

Granted that India reched the final, but SL were very fortunate to reach the semis (lucky to even get out the group!) and overall the World Cup had a lot of surprises in it - I mean who would've picked Kenya to even qualify for the SS?

Does that hold any water when :

in SA - India reached the finals, and were easily the second best team in the tourney

in Aus - Pak won

Sub-Continent teams all dont rely on slow pitches, Pakistan was ultimately ousted by a sub-continent team (they wouldn't have gone far anyway), Sri Lanka played good cricket until they got beaten by Kenya.

Above all, as I said then, all the three teams rely on different strengths. Pakistan had the pace battery, India had the batting order, while Sri Lanka had the spin attack.....so technically one of them SHOULD have performed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Is there really any point to this thread other than to publically ridicule Bazza?

in Aus - Pak won

That's disingenuous. In case you don't remember, the 1992 WC was played in New Zealand AND Australia. As far as Pakistan ultimately winning the tournament, in their Australian matches, they beat Australia, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe (both of whom were hardly world powers at the time) and lost to India, West Indies, South Africa and were well on the way to being hammered by England in Adelaide (which would have certainly cost them a semi-final spot) before the rain stopped that. They managed to win all of their matches in New Zealand too.

Of course they then beat England in Melbourne on a relatively slow deck. I'm sorry but the fact the won that WC still did nothing to dispell any doubts about their abilities on faster, bouncier pitches, particularly against the great pace attacks of SA and WI of the time.

And also, I think we can all agree that other than Jo'burg, the pitches were remarkably slow in this WC in general. india played very well to get where they were but Sri Lanka were relatively lucky to get the matches they did in order to reach the semi-finals.

 

[royGilchrist]

TC, long time buddy

The point was that SubC teams will not perform well in SA/Aus conditions.

It didnt say fast tracks, or seaming tracks, or tough opposition etc. If we start going deeper into it then Pak batting played reasonably well against a powerful WI bowling lineup, without Imran (who according to Ian Chappel was the best middle order bat in the world at the time), Pak lost to SA mainly due to the stupid D/L rule, and would have gone on to probably win the match had it not been for the heavy penalty the team playing second had to pay. So if there was no rain in their matches against SA and eng, they would have lost to England and won against SA, so a net addtion of one point.

But i do agree that this is a stupid thread.

In WC type tournaments it really doesnt matter much as to what kind of conditions teams are playing in, but its all to do with which teams get in the right groove. India are not the second best ODI team in the world but they got hot and certainly played like that, India were not the best ODI in '83 and that too in Eng, Aus won in Ind/Pak '87, where the SubC teams are supposed to do well. So the world cup script does not follow any logic.

The track record is more a criteria to judge teams in test series, or World Series type competition where one odd victory doesnt mean that much, and you are playing many matches against the same opposition.

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually you're right. Pakistan had no real momentum int he early stages of 1992 but when they got going, no-one could beat them or even get close.

Having said that, I think if the pitches in SA were bouncing seamers, only India would have gotten through to the super sixes.

 

[Paid The Umpire]

yes, not the only Pitch that Australia had trouble on was the slow spinner.

 

[aussie_beater]

Actually you're right. Pakistan had no real momentum int he early stages of 1992 but when they got going, no-one could beat them or even get close.

Having said that, I think if the pitches in SA were bouncing seamers, only India would have gotten through to the super sixes.

Actually none of the pitches where India played was like the one at Port Elizabeth....so to say that the pitches where India played were slow turners or such, doesn't hold water.Yes they weren't like the one at Wanderers but they had good even bounce and carry.Actually India played SL at the Wanderers as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually none of the pitches where India played was like the one at Port Elizabeth....so to say that the pitches where India played were slow turners or such, doesn't hold water.

Read my post again because I didn't say that. I said, had the pitches been bouncy, only they would have gotten through because only India (compared to Bang, Pak and SL) would have played well on bouncier pitches.

Having said that, only Jo'burg was a really quick pitch. The rest were fairly even paced early on, just like those places like Pakistan.

 

[Ringua]

It's all well and good having a go after the thing finishes, but leading into the competition, Bazza was using facts, and a lot of people could see his point.

I had a detail discussion with the theorist when he came up with his theory, he did came up with some selected facts on the basis of which he was claiming that Asians simply had "zero chance", and the fact that India in '83 and Pak in '92 won world cup on seaming/bouncy pitches was overlooked as it was said that the composition of those teams were different and the current teams simply didn't had the talent to last till the knock out stage on SA pitches.And yeah some people did agreed with Bazza, which proves what?? Not hard to get it isn't it?

Granted that India reched the final, but SL were very fortunate to reach the semis (lucky to even get out the group!) and overall the World Cup had a lot of surprises in it - I mean who would've picked Kenya to even qualify for the SS?

You need luck to make it to the K.O stages (often is the case) The kind of mistakes SA made in this world cup(leading to Lanka's fortune) were somewhat similar to the one which they made in '99 world cup which benifitted Australia.
Kenya's case was different, they were simply gifted four crucial points by NZ, because NZ didn't wanted to play Kenya coz of security concern.

And even if SL were just plain lucky, another Asian country did made it to the final , something which was considered as impossible by some pundits in the game of one day cricket!

 

[marc71178]

I think you've misconstrued my comments - I was pointing out that have been a lot of surprises in the World Cup compared to what was expected prior to the Tournament.

If you actually read what Bazza posted, he at no point said anything was impossible, merely that all 3 of the major Asian Nations have been hugely outclassed in South African and Australian conditions (which is true when they've toured those nations i recent times) and as such could be expected to struggle in the World Cup.

Everything there is based on facts leading up to the competition, and his conclusion based on those facts was legitimate.

 

[Gotchya]

In WC type tournaments it really doesnt matter much as to what kind of conditions teams are playing in, but its all to do with which teams get in the right groove. India are not the second best ODI team in the world but they got hot and certainly played like that, India were not the best ODI in '83 and that too in Eng, Aus won in Ind/Pak '87, where the SubC teams are supposed to do well. So the world cup script does not follow any logic.

Precisely. Which renders the discussion useless. No matter what the track record of the teams up there, its always different in a World Cup. Before this one, we were wondering wether India would go t othe super sixes. after Pakistan's first 5 or 6 games in 92, we wrote them off. There is a definitive pattern though, on bouncier tracks, as time goes by, Sub-continental teams find their form and start doing well.

 

[Legglancer]

Granted that India reched the final, but SL were very fortunate to reach the semis (lucky to even get out the group!) and overall the World Cup had a lot of surprises in it - I mean who would've picked Kenya to even qualify for the SS?

The stuff about Sri Lanka being lucky to get into the Semi's is utterly ludicris. Eventhough they were not at their best they Beat New Zealand quite comfortably, West Indies, and a victory against South Africa was Emminantly possible. They only lost to the Top 3 teams of the World Cup. Although Kenya being a "top team is arguable"

 

[marc71178]

They were far and away the biggest winners from rain.

SA should've beaten them, and if WI hadn't been rained off against Ban then SL would've been on the next plane home!

 

[krkode]

If SA beat them, NZ would be the ones going home, not SL, no?

 

[Legglancer]

They were far and away the biggest winners from rain.

SA should've beaten them, and if WI hadn't been rained off against Ban then SL would've been on the next plane home!

Ohh .... the "If's" and "Butt's" theory :rolleyes:

The Fact of the the matter is ... that South Africa could have just as easyly lost the match if the game want on without rain. They had lost 6 wickets and had to score 40 runs in 5 overs where the most prolific wicket taker of the world cup Vass still had 3 more to go and Muraldhiran 1 over left. In addition the match refree ... perhaps not wanting to antoganize the host country (according to some press reports) did not enforce the required 2 over penelty for their slow over rate. This was grossly unfair for the Sri Lankens.

However when the rain came down the D/L method made it easy for SA to win the match which unfortunatly for them they bungled up. Its unpardonable the mistake they made .... especially given SA's previous WC history.

But Even if SA beat Sri Lanka they would have not eliminated Sri Lanka as Sri Lanka beat Both NZ and WI.

 

[marc71178]

If SA beat them, NZ would be the ones going home, not SL, no?

I also pointed out the West Indies being robbed of 2 points they were certainties to get.

Then it's all 5 on the same number of points, and NRR would've left SL in a great deal of trouble.

They did not play well in the WC, and were IMO undeserved of where they ended up.