Talk:1992 Cricket World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

According to the article

  • It was the first World Cup to feature African Test nations:
    • South Africa returned from a 22 year old ban on cricketing relations with it.
    • Zimbabwe defeated eventual finalist England in a preliminary game. This was a major contributing factor to the ICC's decision to award Test status to Zimbabwe later in 1992.

- This was not the first world cup with African team playing. Though it was the first with an African team with a test status playing, but there was only one such team South Africa. This does not merit much as a first and there was one nation not two nations.

A big first, this was the first world cup, in which the fielding restrictions rule was used in the first 15 overs.

The fact the Kris Shrikant was a flamboyant batsman, was just his personal style it was not a tactic used by India. The fact that NZ used pinch hitters was almost a strategy since this was the first time that fielding restrictions were on and teams could exploit that. I fail to see how India should get credit for this? I am Indian btw.

Now about the prelim round NZ-Pak match. Well I believe in giving credit where it is due, and I do not want to rob Pakistan of their world cup winning performance. But the only game that NZ lost during the league match stage was against Pakistan, who had been struggling tell then. Pakistan had won 3 of the 7 games they had played, and the one against England was washed out by rain. Yet New Zealand was all out for 166 in 48.2 overs in the match against Pakistan. Seven of their batsmen (no. 2 through 8) made a total of 28 runs. Two days after Pakistan had won the cup I read an analysis in the newspaper that suggested that NZ lost that game on purpose. NZ had the option of trying to win the match and going to the semi final in Sydney playing against Australia (if Australia defeat West Indies), who had had a taste of New Zealand's shock tactic OR deliberately loosing to Pakistan and playing them at home turf in Auckland, and Shock them. Which they almost did, except that Crowe the man behind the shock tactic was out due to injury during the game and Inzamam shocked them more :-) Later on in an interview Crowe actually said that "...funny I should say this -- but we couldn't afford to win against them [Pakistan] in the preliminary game because then we would go to Sydney to face Australia..." There is no way it can be established unless Crowe admits this himself that the loss was deliberate, but then he would be under lot of fire.

The only external link on this page goes to the D/L rain rule, which was not even used at that time.

Here are some nice links - http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC92/ http://www.cricketnext.com/interviews1/interviews001.htm (staring at Q: You are remembered for your interesting tactics at the 1992 World Cup. Did you prepare those?)

Very interesting links. The first article on Cricinfo is rubbish. The 1992 tournament was a far better format than the nonsense that has followed. It did not involve any obvious mismatches (for the next one, we eagerly await the prospect of Australia facing off against Ireland, and Bangladesh v India; in past years Glen Turner scored NZ's highest ever ODI total against some outfit called East Africa). The format involved the best four teams qualifying for the semi finals. In 1996 you had South Africa winning all their qualifying matches and going out with one loss in the quarter finals; England on the other hand made it past the first round without beating a single decent team). The reason was that the eight best teams were obvious, so the opening round achieved nothing. The tournament lasted 33 days in 1992, we have 47 to sit through next time with all the rubbish sides involved. In 1992 every team played every other team, then the top four played the semis. What could be fairer than that? At least you got to see every match.

Pakistan won just like football teams and rugby teams win their respective world cups - by fiddling around at the early stage and coming good when it matters. That's how Australia won in 1999, and not doing it is the reason South Africa came unstuck in 1996 and 1999.

You're dead right about pinch hitting. Mark Greatbatch was the originator of the tactic and Jayasurea/Kaluwitharna perfected it in 1996. Greatbatch only did it as a desperate way of hitting himself back into form, since he'd been dropped before the tournament and got back in through Wright's injury.

As for NZ/Pakistan, no doubt it was at the back of the Kiwis' minds not to want to go to Australia flater on. Thats just what they did. They finished it with an over to spare (and four wickets mind you). Had it been the fact that Crow had scored his 20 odd runs, I don't think it would have been beyond Pakistan even then.

As for innovatiosn, here one.Throughout the 1980's the theory was that in ODI's bits and pieces players were more important than specialists. Well Pakistan under Imran Khan buckled that trend and it paid off big time.

"Rain rules"

"A controversial system of recalculating team totals for a reduced number of overs for matches affected by rain was introduced. See external link for rain-rules." The link is to the Duckworth-Lewis method, which was not introduced until 1998. What "rain rules" are referred to here? Lfh 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reference and removed the link. - Ctbolt 03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Player of the Series

No 'Man of the Series' was awarded in1975, 1979, 1983 and 1987. The first was awarded in 1993. The award was changed to 'Player of the Tournament' in 1999 and then to 'Player of the Series' in 2003 - Ctbolt 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Semi Final

The article wrongly stated that England's innings was cut short by rain, this wasn't the case. Play was delayed by 10 minutes due to early rain, and 10 minutes were removed from the lunch interval - there was no reduction in the number of overs. England only faced 45 overs due to South Africa's slow over rate. I have amended the article to reflect this. Can you imagine how a team would feel nowadays losing the final five overs through no fault of their own?Statto74 (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--

talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--

talk) 19:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Merging list officials into this article

I just noticed this article (

1992 Cricket World Cup Officials) was created recently and couldn't think of a reason why it should be split from this one. This is a somewhat long article, but adding the officials wouldn't add much to it. Cmprince (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Why 1992?

Why did this tournament take place in 1992 instead of 1991? Shouldn't the reason be mentioned, as all previous tournaments took place in the year before a summer olympic/leap year? M-1 (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aussie season runs across new year, so that was season 91/92 but the games happened to be played in the second half of the season.Statto74 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winners of subsequent Cups

The "Teams" section lists the winners of subsequent world cups. I do not think it needs to be included in this article, so I propose to remove it unless there is opposition. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1992_Cricket_World_Cup&oldid=1196265779"