Reason? One of the greatest teams ever assembled. No other country came close. Worthy champions.
1979
Who won? West Indies
Should Have won? West Indies
Reason? Continuing where they left off. West Indies were dominant and worthy champs.
1983
Who won? India
Should Have won? West Indies
Reason? Taking nothing away from Kapil Dev’s men, West Indies simply outclassed India, and it was only through sheer fluke that India won.
1987
Who won? Australia
Should Have won? England
Reason? England’s 1987 team was one of the greatest teams ever fielded by England, it was just bad luck that they failed to perform in the finals.
1992
Who won? Pakistan
Should Have won? New Zealand
Reason? Given Pakistan’s disastarous start, it was a miracle they snuck into the semi-finals, while New Zealand was on a tear. England also had luck on their side when they defeated South Africa in a rain delayed match to reach the finals. New Zealand was the most dominant team and should have won in 1992.
1996
Who won? Sri Lanka
Should Have won? South Africa
Reason? 1996’s South Africa team was one of the greatest overall teams ever put together. Every player balanced each other out and they were totally dominant. It was again bad luck that they lost to West Indies. South Africa should have won in 1996.
1999
Who won? Australia
Should Have won? Pakistan
Reason? Pakistan’s 1999 Team was its greatest ever. With a devastating bowling attack and superb batsmen, they were the most talented team and should have won. But a disastarous performance in finals doomed them but they should have won.
2003
Who won? Australia
Should Have won? Australia
Reason? Australia’s team of 2003 was the greatest cricketing team ever put together. Even surpassing the much vaunted West Indies teams of 1970’s. worthy champs. No other country came close.
2007
Who won? Australia
Should Have won? India
Reason? India’s 2007 team was its finest ever sent to a world cup tournament. With superb indepth batting lineup and good bowling, they were favourites to win it all. But given the format of the world cup, where they only played 3 games. If the format had been different, they would have been the current defending champs.
I agree Pakistan were not the best team around in 1992 but they did beat the best & the only undefeated (NZ had beaten 7 test teams before they met Pak) team of the tournament twice. so you cannot simply dismiss it as a fluke! NZ excelled even their own expectations in that tournament thanks to Martin Crowe inspired self-belief in the team and his wonderful batting. He was the top scorer of the tournament with 456 runs followed by Miandad (437 runs)
Only 3 of the 9 previous world cups were also won by the best team of the time
Windies (1975 and 1979)
Australia (2003). Australia were still very good in 2007 though perhaps not (debatable) the best side
I agree. Thats why I decided to create this list. Teams on pure talent
1975 - West Indies
1979 - West Indies
1983 - West Indies
1987 - England
1992 - New Zealand
1996 - South Africa
1999 - Pakistan
2003 - Australia
2007 - India
Chill dude ! He also said Pak was favorite in 1999 :D
After Pakistan Beat Australia in round match by 10 runs, Australia had to win all 8 remaining games in the world cup to become champs and they did the miracle (thanks to Donald).
Africa was riding on Lance Klusner's one Man Show too.... I guess India was left as Favorites.
And Forget everything, Lets Consider India Fav's for 2007.... tell me if there was a worst way for Favorites to Exit such a big tournament. If they were favs and the outcome was that bad i wonder what wud have happened if they had a weak team.
True but we lost all our super 6 games against South Africa, India and Bangla
We lost from Bangla in group stage not super 6.
If you check the Point Table even after loosing from India and S.A we still eneded #1. in super 6. Thats why we played kiwis in semi becoz they were # 4.
