World Cup-1992?

[Lostman]

Stupid thing I had occasionally thought of but never got an answer.

Anyone know why the WC was scheduled for 92 instead of 91. 5 yrs from 87 instead of 4.
I am guessing then to bring it back to schedule 99 was scheduled after 3 years?

[Smudge]

It was scheduled in the 1991-92 season - it's just a much better option weather-wise to play cricket in Aussie and NZ in February-March rather than November-December.

[Days of Grace]

New Zealand should have won that world cup.

Anyone think that we would have gone on to beat England at the MCG if we had won that semi-final?

Mind you, Crowe in all likelihood wouldn't have played.

[Hurricane]

I have only watched highlights of the semi final where we lost. But Martin Crowe in one of his books talks about how he would have done a lot of things differently as captain if he could have taken the field in the second inning. We definitely would have scored more runs if he hadn't have gotten injured.

I had the world cup final on tape. And that partnership between Miandad and Khan was awesome. I think Pakistan were deserving winners.

But in terms of could we have beaten England - I think it would have boiled down to Martin Crowe again provided he was healthy.

[marc71178]

If there were any justice, Pakistan wouldn't have even made the semi-finals.

[AaronK]

all NZ had to do was defy Inzi..I thought he was the one who single handedly snatch the game away from them..

[slugger]

Pakistan had a slightly inferior run-rate than Australia, but received one point from their match against England which they looked set to lose (having made just 74 all out) until rain intervened. Without that vital point Pakistan would not have qualified for the semi-finals

[Aritro]

My earliest cricketing memories are from that World Cup. I turned five during that tournament, but remember adopting New Zealand as my team after hearing my family rave on about how well Martin Crowe was batting. When Crowe went off with his injury in that semi, I remember asking my dad why New Zealand didn't just go home.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Aritro

My earliest cricketing memories are from that World Cup.

Ditto.

I turned five during that tournament

I'd have been 6-and-a-half during it.

Anyway, since the original post hasn't had one direct reply yet... World Cups have gone: 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2007, 2010/11. The fact that it's been transferred between England (for whom a season is one number) to other countries (where mostly they're a combination of two) means that things haven't been straightforward, but whatever way you look at it, there've always been 4 years between World Cups.

[four_or_six]

Originally Posted by Aritro

My earliest cricketing memories are from that World Cup. I turned five during that tournament, but remember adopting New Zealand as my team after hearing my family rave on about how well Martin Crowe was batting. When Crowe went off with his injury in that semi, I remember asking my dad why New Zealand didn't just go home.

Some of mine, too. Remember a girl in my class at school being allowed to stay up all night to watch the South Africa games. I thought that was really cool!

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Richard

Ditto.

I'd have been 6-and-a-half during it.

Anyway, since the original post hasn't had one direct reply yet... World Cups have gone: 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987/88, 1991/92, 1995/96, 1999, 2002/03, 2007, 2010/11. The fact that it's been transferred between England (for whom a season is one number) to other countries (where mostly they're a combination of two) means that things haven't been straightforward, but whatever way you look at it, there've always been 4 years between World Cups.

There were clearly only three years between the 96 and 99 WCs...I know what you are trying to say but they brought it forwards on that occasion.

[nick-o]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

There were clearly only three years between the 96 and 99 WCs...I know what you are trying to say but they brought it forwards on that occasion.

Hmmm. Richard's maths clearly not functioning too well, as there cannot be two four-year periods between 1995/96 and 2002/03.

But it's 2002/03 that was brought forward, not 1999, which was in sequence (1999 WC is 20 years after the 1979 WC, as you'd expect on a four-year cycle).

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

There were clearly only three years between the 96 and 99 WCs

In terms of months, yes; in terms of cricketing seasons, no. 1995/96 and 1999 can be said to have 4 years between it.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by nick-o

Hmmm. Richard's maths clearly not functioning too well, as there cannot be two four-year periods between 1995/96 and 2002/03.

There certainly can. 1995-2003 = 8 years. 8\2=4.

[slugger]

Richard reminds me of a famous Homer Simpson quote... " I'm not always right but I'm never wrong"..