Yeah, Ireland and Bangladesh didn't help though. I am 100% certain India and Pakistan in the Super 8 would have helped that stage of the tournament significantly, but whether it would have helped make the tournament on the whole a good one? Dunno, not for sure as has been the said, the problems are much more deep seated (ie the format, organising etc)
It would have helped in terms of atmosphere, but tbh i wasn't sad to see either team go out. If i were to pick two test teams to go out early, they'd have been the two hands-down. India and Pakistan are always so shrouded in controversy there'd have been at least three meltingly out-of-proportion scandals involving either team and a borderline umpire decision, catch that maybe kinda looked like it might have been grounded, racist comment or fight between team-mates. Tbh at the time i thought the only people who'd miss them would be Neighbours-watchers and effigy salesmen. Shame it didn't work out that way.
Perhaps. But on sporting reasons Ireland and Bangladesh deserved to be there, not their fault India and Pakistan went MIA and played like a bunch of imposters.
)
Cricket without romance would be juuuuuuuuust fine AFAIC - it's something you only see occasionally, after all. There is much to appreciate about the game without that one small factor.
While those involved with England made a hell of a lot of errors in that tournament, the two above being two of the most notable but by no means the only ones, for just about all other teams it was an excellent tournament. The fundamental thing was there were a hell of a lot of good games, making organisational ****-ups more forgettable. And yes, there was so much more than just the SA-Aus games.
England only missed out in 1999 because India's bowling finally clicked, and Zimbabwe pulled off a freak win against SA. And in 2003, England only missed out because they forfieted Zimbabwe.I'm generally very parochial in such matters, so prefer tournaments where England do well to those where we don't. So I'll say here & now that all world cups since 92 have been uniformly dire. (
Actually, seriously, I was interested to read that a few people included the 99 WC in their favourites. I suppose it shows the difference in perceptions according to one's partiality. Up here I think it was regarded as a bit of a Horlicks because, not only did the hosts fail to progress, but (in a typically inspired piece of marketing) Dave Stewart's tie-in England official song was released the day after this exit. Couple of good Yarp/Oz games tho, admittedly.
I doubt they would've had much of a chance of progressing to the semis anyway, with Australia, and decent New Zealand and Pakistan teams in the other group to play in the Super 6s. Its probably best to get the minnows out as early as possible anyway.
