2015 World Cup compared to other World Cups

[CricAddict]

How do you guys think that the teams in 2015 WC stack against the teams of previous World cups? To me, this looks the weakest of all. There is no team that we can say as very strong and has very few legends/reputed/world class ODI batsmen and bowlers compared to the previous cups.

Few current players might go on to become ODI greats but as of current status, I think there were more established players in the previous world cups.

 

[Cabinet96]

These never really work because the players involved haven't finished their careers. Half these guys could play on for another 5-10 years excelling and we could look back at now in a completely different light.

 

[CricAddict]

I mean, atleast from what I remember, during the previous world cups, Sachin,Lara, Ponting, Mcgrath, Warne etc were established legends with aura coming into the world cup. The whole old west indian teams and the last decade Australian teams were legends coming into the world cup.

But when I saw the consolidated players list of all teams today, such aura doesn't hit me. We can probably pick out Kohli, Warner, De Villiers etc. but they are only a handful and even they are not greats yet.

 

[Tec15]

If you take of the rose tinted glasses, then the 1992 World Cup emerges as the King of mediocrity. A lot of old fogies coming to the end of their careers, with the newer stars not yet hitting their peak. Chris Harris and Brandes were among the top five wicket tackers. Rameez Raja was the highest individual scorer with only 119*. No bowler took a fifer, the only single World Cup in which that has been the case. England got to the final on the back of electrifying performances from the likes of Derrick Pringle, Chris Lewis, Dermot Reeve, etc. South Africa got to the semis with their worst World Cup team of of the 90's. An ordinary New Zealand side won 7 in row on the back of home advantage, and the "revolutionary" tactics of Mark Greatbatch's "pinch-hitting" and opening the bowling with spin. Lara and Tendulkar were the best performers for their respective teams, but would perform much better in subsequent cups. Winners Pakistan didn't even have Waqar Younis and Saeed Anwar, but did have Zahid Fazal and Iqbal Sikander. Australia were just... there I guess.

And that's not even counting the slow, low pitches that were used, all the rain, and most of the cricket being of the generally dull early 90's variety of "team batting first struggles to 205-6 in 50 overs, team batting second races to 206-5 in 49.1, man of the match x with figures of 2-34". There was also a real paucity of close finishes compared to other Cups. Only the Australia-India encounter which ultimately didn't even matter because of both teams being ****. All in all, a very meh World Cup for anyone not blinded by either nostalgia or "everything now sucks compared to the glorious past" syndrome.

 

[CricAddict]

If you take of the rose tinted glasses, then the 1992 World Cup emerges as the King of mediocrity. A lot of old fogies coming to the end of their careers, with the newer stars not yet hitting their peak. Chris Harris and Brandes were among the top five wicket tackers. Rameez Raja was the highest individual scorer with only 119*. No bowler took a fifer, the only single World Cup in which that has been the case. England got to the final on the back of electrifying performances from the likes of Derrick Pringle, Chris Lewis, Dermot Reeve, etc. South Africa got to the semis with their worst World Cup team of of the 90's. An ordinary New Zealand side won 7 in row on the back of home advantage, and the "revolutionary" tactics of Mark Greatbatch's "pinch-hitting" and opening the bowling with spin. Lara and Tendulkar were the best performers for their respective teams, but would perform much better in subsequent cups. Winners Pakistan didn't even have Waqar Younis and Saeed Anwar, but did have Zahid Fazal and Iqbal Sikander. Australia were just... there I guess.

And that's not even counting the slow, low pitches that were used, all the rain, and most of the cricket being of the generally dull early 90's variety of "team batting first struggles to 205-6 in 50 overs, team batting second races to 206-5 in 49.1, man of the match x with figures of 2-34". There was also a real paucity of close finishes compared to other Cups. Only the Australia-India encounter which ultimately didn't even matter because of both teams being ****. All in all, a very meh World Cup for anyone not blinded by either nostalgia or "everything now sucks compared to the glorious past" syndrome.

I too do not agree with the `past is better` syndrome. I was speaking about the WC specifically. And from your argument, I agree that 1992 was the worst then. This one should be a second or third.

 

[ankitj]

If you take of the rose tinted glasses, then the 1992 World Cup emerges as the King of mediocrity. A lot of old fogies coming to the end of their careers, with the newer stars not yet hitting their peak. Chris Harris and Brandes were among the top five wicket tackers. Rameez Raja was the highest individual scorer with only 119*. No bowler took a fifer, the only single World Cup in which that has been the case. England got to the final on the back of electrifying performances from the likes of Derrick Pringle, Chris Lewis, Dermot Reeve, etc. South Africa got to the semis with their worst World Cup team of of the 90's. An ordinary New Zealand side won 7 in row on the back of home advantage, and the "revolutionary" tactics of Mark Greatbatch's "pinch-hitting" and opening the bowling with spin. Lara and Tendulkar were the best performers for their respective teams, but would perform much better in subsequent cups. Winners Pakistan didn't even have Waqar Younis and Saeed Anwar, but did have Zahid Fazal and Iqbal Sikander. Australia were just... there I guess.

And that's not even counting the slow, low pitches that were used, all the rain, and most of the cricket being of the generally dull early 90's variety of "team batting first struggles to 205-6 in 50 overs, team batting second races to 206-5 in 49.1, man of the match x with figures of 2-34". There was also a real paucity of close finishes compared to other Cups. Only the Australia-India encounter which ultimately didn't even matter because of both teams being ****. All in all, a very meh World Cup for anyone not blinded by either nostalgia or "everything now sucks compared to the glorious past" syndrome.

In other words, Pakistan won the least exciting and least interesting world cup of them all. Suck it Imran Khan.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I thought the 1992 WC was considered one of the best ever.

 

[Tec15]

I thought the 1992 WC was considered one of the best ever.

I know, that's why it's also highly overrated, along with being mediocre. Also it's only considered the best because of stupid reasons like "It had the best format; All the teams played each other; No Minnows; My team (Pakistan, England) did well, etc". If you look at the actual players involved, the type of cricket played, the massive amount of rain, and try to compare the best performances and the most thrilling matches to that of other Cups, then it falls well short of the rose tinted memories.

Ask anyone who calls the 1992 Cup the best, to articulate reasons for why it is better than say, the 1999 World Cup and see if they offer a coherent one.

 

[harsh.ag]

Shahid Afridi: 'The 1992 World Cup defined my cricket' | Cricket Features | World Cup Timeline | ESPN Cricinfo

Confirmed then. 1992 = Sporadically brilliant while being consistently mediocre

 

[cnerd123]

Honestly a WC that consists of evenly matched but flawed sides, low scoring, the unpredictability of rain, unheralded cricketers starring, and several tight finishes sounds fantastic to me.

 

[anil1405]

Honestly a WC that consists of evenly matched but flawed sides, low scoring, the unpredictability of rain, unheralded cricketers starring, and several tight finishes sounds fantastic to me.

Yup. Some of the more entertaining WC's have been those with no clear fav's. I'd rather watch a series of close games instead of big margin victories or the ones where we clearly know who would win.

 

[smash84]

yeah awta, having watched so many world cups I must say the 2007 WC was just awful.

 

[Athlai]

2007 was the best WC in yonks IMO. Absolutely dominated by an ATG Australian team but there were a lot of great moments. Ireland winning, Bangladesh winning, Leverock's catch, Malinga's 4 in 4 Gibbs getting that Dutch guy to retire.

Classic.

 

[smash84]

yeah, that Aus side never looked like getting beaten for a second. It is so much better to have an open tournament

 

[Tec15]

Honestly a WC that consists of evenly matched but flawed sides, low scoring, the unpredictability of rain, unheralded cricketers starring, and several tight finishes sounds fantastic to me.

Except there were not "several tight finishes". Just one or two, and a whole lot less than other cups. Most matches simply meandered to long foreseen conclusions. The rain certainly did not improve matches, it transformed potential close finishes into non-contests. And the scoring wasn't low due to good bowling/tough batting conditions, so much as it was part of the generally dull early 90's type of slow batting where scoring 220-5 was seen as a good total. Such totals saw neither good bowling or good batting.

The 1999 World Cup was one that did have tough batting conditions and plenty of low scores, but it also had much better cricket played and more great players at their peak. It was what what fans of the 1992 cup wish their tournament was more like.

 

[harsh.ag]

Fans of the 1992 cup is a first one.

 

[Immenso]

There wasn't lots of rain in 92?

Definitely the best tournament I've seen IMO, , due to the format, although 96 was fun as well, and before I grew up and realised how dull ODI cricket is.

All from 03 onwards have been quite dull.

If I'm not burnt out by the endless warm-up games thus year, I will be by the end of the group states designed not to knock anyone out.

 

[Prince EWS]

These never really work because the players involved haven't finished their careers. Half these guys could play on for another 5-10 years excelling and we could look back at now in a completely different light.

Exactly. Plus, performance is relative in cricket. The teams being closer together doesn't necessarily mean the quality is lower. It's possible but CricAddict hasn't really made a coherent argument for it.

I'd argue that the more individuals are able to stand out above the pack, the more likely it is that the overall quality is actually lower; not the other way around.

 

[javaperth]

2015 world cup will be uniq than ever koz 5 fielder will field inside 30 yards. plus bowler will bowl both side of wicket plus both team must select 5 specialist bowler for better for team. koz of new rule of fielding restriction
possibaly its a batsmens advantage so we can see more runs in bountry and six but its difficult to score 2 and 3s

fielding restriction apply during batting powerplay. see Rahul dravid for more

 

[harsh.ag]

Man, Dravid needs a better social media manager.