Un-believeable twists of fate !

[Mahindinho]

Out of those listed, I'd go:

1. SL's WC win in '96 - while not quite equivalent to Bangladesh, SL were very much seen as a 2nd tier cricketing nation before that tournament. 50/1 outsiders, in fact. I was a student at the time, and watched most of it as the only SL fan in a TV room full of 100+ England supporters.

2. Ashes '05 - amazing, simply amazing. A ODI tournament (see above) cannot quite compare to five nail-bitingly riveting Tests. However, while it was a close series where one team stood up and got counted to an unexpected extent, I wouldn't rate it as that huge a twist - I think it's a bit over-hyped, really.

3. Cornered tigers - wow. A stunning example of the inspirational captaincy possible in cricket.

However, of the things not mentioned, I'd rate Botham's Ashes (specifically, Headingley '81) as my #2 and VVS's follow-on innings (281no? Kolkata? I can't remember off-hand) as #4, sandwiching the Ashes '05.

Ashes '05, I do rate as a wonderful contest (the best I've seen), but it's just not quite enough to top a list of twists.

Also, it cannot be underestimated how much the '96 WC win meant to SL as a nation. Cricket is one of the few things that puts SL on the world map, and the island is utterly obsessed. I'm here in England, so don't know exactly what it was like, but I'd be willing to put money on the celebrations/coverage being FAR in excess of anything seen in England after the '81 or '05 Ashes wins.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm surprised to see the notion that South Africa were unlucky in the 1992 Semi-Final. When England batted they were heading for a very large total and South Africa deliberately slowed the overrate down to the point where they only bowled 45 overs - in those days the innings ended, there was no running over time - consequently England never had the natural acceleration toward the end of the innings. This gamesmanship gave South Africa a better chance of winning, the fact that the rain interruption and subsequent recalulation gave them no chance was poetic justice.

For South Africa in the 1999 World Cup the real history changer was the group match against Australia when Gibbs attempted to throw up a "catch" from Steve Waugh before he'd caught. If he'd taken what was a very simple catch Australia would have lost that match and been out.

 

[Pratters]

I'm surprised to see the notion that South Africa were unlucky in the 1992 Semi-Final.

The point was that it was a big twist of fate - not regarding poetic justice or which team was lucky or unlucky. I wouldn't really blame South Africa for their tactics or England for coming off winning the game. The men who made the rules were at fault

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The point was that it was a big twist of fate - not regarding poetic justice or which team was lucky or unlucky. I wouldn't really blame South Africa for their tactics or England for coming off winning the game. The men who made the rules were at fault

It says in the poll "South Africa recahed the semis of 1992 WC and was un-fortunate!" I assume from the use of the word "un-fortunate" that the starter of the poll thinks they were unlucky.

 

[Richard]

There have been many in cricket.

XI twists of fate:

India winning at Eden Gardens after Australia enforced the follow on and VVS and Dravid had that partnership.

India winning that match after the Kaif-Yuvraj partnership.

India winning the world cup after being bowled out for a partly total. India winning the world cup at all!

Pakistan winning the world cup after being down and out in 1992.

Headingly '81 of course.

South Africa rain ruled out of the world cup in the 1992 semis.

South Africa mis-calculating themselves out of the 2003 world cup.

Bangladesh winning that ODI versus Australia.

Bradman, the run machine, not scoring in his final inning.

Australia losing versus South Africa after scoring that many runs.

Australia losing the Ashes in 2005.

Don't think India drawing in Australia was that much a twist of fate. By the time the series ended, Australia was far happier to have drawn the series and India rued not being able to win it. Maybe at the start of the series but then Australia didn't have that many great bowlers and an Indian thrashing shouldn't have been assumed to be a given by any one.

Edgbaston '81 was almost as big a single-game twist as Headingley. And this Test here was probably even more of an inexplicable collapse.

Think - 54 needed with 8 wickets left - and lose (the latter). 64 needed with 7 left - and lose those 7 for 34 (the former).

 

[Richard]

SL's WC win in '96 - while not quite equivalent to Bangladesh, SL were very much seen as a 2nd tier cricketing nation before that tournament.

I honestly don't think SL were any more second-tier than England currently are.

There was never any question about their ability to give serious international teams a decent game - as there always is with Bangladesh. The WC win was OOTB, indeed, but so would a New Zealand one be in 2007, and no-one's calling them second-tier.

 

[Richard]

I'm surprised to see the notion that South Africa were unlucky in the 1992 Semi-Final. When England batted they were heading for a very large total and South Africa deliberately slowed the overrate down to the point where they only bowled 45 overs - in those days the innings ended, there was no running over time - consequently England never had the natural acceleration toward the end of the innings. This gamesmanship gave South Africa a better chance of winning, the fact that the rain interruption and subsequent recalulation gave them no chance was poetic justice.

Spot the Englishman.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Spot the Englishman.

Here's a couple of good 'uns.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Spot the Englishman.

Well? It's complete truth. South Africa are always painted as the innocent party in this game but it was only through their own exploitation of the regulations that they got to a position where they had half a chance.

 

[Poker Boy]

Well? It's complete truth. South Africa are always painted as the innocent party in this game but it was only through their own exploitation of the regulations that they got to a position where they had half a chance.

And the way people go on you'd think they were certs to win but for the rain. Let's assume it hadn't rained. They would have needed 22 off 13 balls. They'd have needed to hit boundaries. McMillan and Richardson had hit one four between them.If they had lost a wicket? Snell, M Pringle and Donald to come. Fancy any of those three to score at more than a run a ball.? Then there's what we've since found out about SA. Its between them amd my favourite tennis player for the title "biggest choker in sport". They'd have probably choked anyway - their first big choke was a month away (1992 Test v WI - they lost eight wickets for nothing to lose a Test they had won).Is there any reason they would have held their nerve here when they haven't in pressure situations since? They were unlucky the rain ended their chance of winning - but it was a slim one anyway.

 

[Richard]

Here's a couple of good 'uns.

Well? It's complete truth. South Africa are always painted as the innocent party in this game but it was only through their own exploitation of the regulations that they got to a position where they had half a chance.

You both know perfectly well what I mean, in that the fact English laughter would have been the loudest after that game even if our team was instead, say, New Zealand.

The justice or otherwise of the result is neither here nor there.