India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

@phoenixdesi

Well, well, an interesting debate. Let this old timer help you guys who was already in his mid seventies when that match took place!

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Pakistan had lost its match against England and that the result of all other matches following Eng-Pak clash remained the same. The next logical question is to determine whether Pakistan would have been able to proceed to semifinals under this scenario or not? The answer is NO. Not only Pakistan avoided a defeat against England, owing to rain, but more importantly they also earned a point that resulted in 9 points for Pakistan at the end of round matches. Had Pakistan lost its match against England, Pakistan would have tied with Aus and WI with 8 points each and would be knocked out due to poor run rate. I am relying on my memory but I am petty sure that my numbers are correct.

Coming back to current debate between khan sahib and Some1 jee, I truly believe that both of them are right and NO I am not trying to be political. YES, in retrospect, Eng-Pak match turned out to be crucial and therefore, Some1 has a valid point by stating that "Your country would not have won the World Cup had it not rained that day after your team was bundled out for 75”. But technically speaking khan sahib, who is almost always correct when it comes to cricket records/history, has a valid point that make or break match was the match against Australia.

Now if I were a judge and had to make the decision taking into account the background of discussion, India’s narrow escape from a certain defeat due to rain, I would have awarded this case in favor of Some1.

Justice PD bhai, kidhar hotay hain aaj kal. Market say out hain aap???

Anyway I can’t believe we are still having this stupid discussion based on false memories of some1. Pakistan got a lucky break during the early half of the tournament and then performed well during the later half to qualify for the semis. Had it been the last game of the round or had it been a make or break game when Pakistan was saved from a certain defeat, then I would have agreed that yes Pakistan avoided a certain exit from the tournament.

The problem here is that Some 1 is mixing 2 entirely different situations.

Let me take the example of the recently concluded first test match between India and England and try to explain it to Some 1.

You cannot compare India’s narrow escape here with rain affected Pakistan-England game of 92’ WC. Because here India was saved when there was no hope for them. Pakistan on the other had, still had matches left with India , Saffies, Lankans, Aussies, and Kiwis and there was plenty of hope still left for Pakistan even if they would have lost the England game.

Now come back to the recently concluded test match and lets assume that the 2 hours loss which happened towards the end of the day actually had happened in the beginning of the day. And then imagine India saving the match by batting till the end of the day with 9 wickets down. Same amount of overs bowled during the day, same number of wickets fell but situation entirely different.

Now in the above mentoned situation, Some 1 what will you say?? Are you going to say that:

India was saved by the 2 hour rain delay which happened during the first half of the day? Are you going to claim that India would have certainly lost the game, had there not been that 2 hour delay? The make or break moment was the first 2 hour period which was washed away by the rain.

OR you are going to say that yes no doubt India was benefited by the rain delay however it is not correct to say the India would have definitely lost the game had it not rained. It is possible that India could have lost few key wickets during the first half of the day but then they could still have saved the match just liked they saved after the 2 hours delay, and that was the exact senario of Pakistan team in WC 1992. They could have lost the game against England but could have won the Cup just like they won after the abondoned game with England.

Agar Some 1 ko yeah philosophy samjh aagie hay then good for him. Otherwise never mind, I will have 2 extra cup of tea to celebrate Pakistan’s deserving 1992 victory and India’s undeserving draw with England

[dhobi_bhai]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

I terribly agree with fkhan2 moderator ko paan khilanay wala icon

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

That said, I will hold my ground (and you will have to agree with me on this), that the rain-affected England match proved to be decisive in the end for Pakistan. Now you could say , ...."but Pak also got done in by rain against SA"....possibly true...but that does not change the above fact (as stated). One other thing about the match against SA is that the match was not totally in Pak's bag when rain interrupted proceedings. Sure...Pak seemed to be in strong position...but there have been innumerable times where Pak has lost matches from that kind of position.

.

Some 1 Jee, aik mazay kee baat bataonnn. You said that the game against Saffies was not completely in Pakistan's bag. Actually the rain affected game against Pakistan was also not in England's bag completely.

After Pakistan was dismissed cheaply, the pitch was further deteriorated by the rain. Then came the stupid D/L method. You won't believe but at one point england needed 55 runs of 9 overs and the ball was doing wonders for Wasim Akram. You never know but in that situation Pakistan could have won that game as well. That was the point when another rain shower had the final say.

[Some1]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

I never intended to say that Pak’s good fortune in the WC’92 was exactly similar to India’s luck with rain at Lord’s. My intial post about this was made jestfully in response to a similarly intended comment by Ehsan.

But now that the subject is being discussed intensely, I will say that there is no denying the FACT - that had it not rained that day (March 1st, 1992) at Adelaide - Pak would still be looking for its first World Cup Victory.

That, my friend, is an undeniable statement.

As for the match in question :
http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC92/LEAGUE/PAK_ENG_WC92_ODI13_01MAR1992.html

[Some1]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

Some 1 Jee, aik mazay kee baat bataonnn. You said that the game against Saffies was not completely in Pakistan's bag. Actually the rain affected game against Pakistan was also not in England's bag completely.

After Pakistan was dismissed cheaply, the pitch was further deteriorated by the rain. Then came the stupid D/L method. You won't believe but at one point england needed 55 runs of 9 overs and the ball was doing wonders for Wasim Akram. You never know but in that situation Pakistan could have won that game as well. That was the point when another rain shower had the final say.

Well, you know as well as I do that you can't compare the Pak-Eng match with the Pak-SA match.

Anyways, I have conceded a DRAW with you. What else do you want, aap ko World Cup de doon.

[Some1]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

I terribly agree with fkhan2 moderator ko paan khilanay wala icon

Such betrayal...makes me want to sing this song :

*Dost dost na raha, pyaar pyaar naa raha
Zindagi hamein tera, aitbaar na raha, aitbaar na raha

Amaanatein main pyaar ki, gaya tha jisko saunp kar
Woh mere dost tum hi the, tumhi to the
Jo zindagi ki raah me bane the mere hamsafar
Woh mere dost tum hi the, tumhi to the
Saare bhed khul gaye, raazdaar na raha
Zindagi hamein tera, aitbaar na raha, aitbaar na raha
Dost dost na raha...

Safar ke waqt mein palak pe motiyo ko taulti
Woh tum na thi to kaun tha tumhi to thi
Nashe ki raat dhhal gayi ab khumaar na raha
Zindagi hamein tera, aitbaar na raha, aitbaar na raha
Dost dost na raha...*

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

@Some1

I never intended to say that Pak’s good fortune in the WC’92 was exactly similar to India’s luck with rain at Lord’s. My intial post about this was made jestfully in response to a similarly intended comment by Ehsan.

But now that the subject is being discussed intensely, I will say that there is no denying the FACT - that had it not rained that day (March 1st, 1992) at Adelaide - Pak would still be looking for its first World Cup Victory.

That, my friend, is an undeniable statement.

As for the match in question :
http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC92/LEAGUE/PAK_ENG_WC92_ODI13_01MAR1992.html

Quite a strong statement. Chaloo jee for your sake lets assume that Pakistan had lost the game against England. Do you know what change that would have brought in the final points table?

This was the actual table

 
    P    W   L   T   RR       RD     .s
 
NZ  8    7   1   0   4.761  +0.5918  14
Eng 8    5   2   1   4.355  +0.4701  11
SA  8    5   3   0   4.363  +0.1385  10
Pak 8    4   3   1   4.327  +0.1657   9
Aus 8    4   4   0   4.223  +0.2009   8
WI  8    4   4   0   4.139  +0.0744   8
 

That would have been the revised table

 
     P   W   L   T   RR       RD    .s
NZ   8   7   1   0  4.761  +0.5918  14
Eng  8   5   2   1  4.355  +0.4701  **12**
SA   8   5   3   0  4.363  +0.1385  10
Pak  8   4   3   1  4.327  +0.1657   **8**
Aus  8   4   4   0  4.223  +0.2009   8
WI   8   4   4   0  4.139  +0.0744   8

you can see that Pakistan was sitting with australia with equal points and slightly lower average. Don’t you think that during the last pool match against NZ after Pakistan dismissed them cheaply on 165, Pakistan could have chased the target in less than 40 or 35 overs instead of 44 overs to improve their run rate and make it better than Australia?

[fair_balance]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

Quite a strong statement. Chaloo jee for your sake lets assume that Pakistan had lost the game against England. Do you know what change that would have brought in the final points table?

This was the actual table

    P    W   L   T   RR       RD     .s

NZ  8    7   1   0   4.761  +0.5918  14
Eng 8    5   2   1   4.355  +0.4701  11
SA  8    5   3   0   4.363  +0.1385  10
Pak 8    4   3   1   4.327  +0.1657   9
Aus 8    4   4   0   4.223  +0.2009   8
WI  8    4   4   0   4.139  +0.0744   8

That would have been the revised table

     P   W   L   T   RR       RD    .s
NZ   8   7   1   0  4.761  +0.5918  14
Eng  8   5   2   1  4.355  +0.4701  **12**
SA   8   5   3   0  4.363  +0.1385  10
Pak  8   4   3   1  4.327  +0.1657   **8**
Aus  8   4   4   0  4.223  +0.2009   8
WI   8   4   4   0  4.139  +0.0744   8

you can see that Pakistan was sitting with australia with equal points and slightly lower average. Don't you think that during the last pool match against NZ after Pakistan dismissed them cheaply on 165, Pakistan could have chased the target in less than 40 or 35 overs instead of 44 overs to improve their run rate and make it better than Australia?

Flaw in your logic :
Dont you think, If England had won that game then Pakistans NRR would have suffered very badly and Pak NRR would have been much lower than 0.1657. Thus making it impossible for Pak to beat AUS run-rate. :D

But that is not the point. Point is that that one point made the difference.

[fair_balance]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

Mods,
Please close the thread. It has served its purpose. Lets make the 2nd test match thread a sticky thread.

[maihu_don]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

But that is not the point. Point is that that one point made the difference.

:D

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

Flaw in your logic : Dont you think, If England had won that game then Pakistans NRR would have suffered very badly and Pak NRR would have been much lower than 0.1657. Thus making it impossible for Pak to beat AUS run-rate. :D

But that is not the point. Point is that that one point made the difference.

0.1657 was the run differential not run rate. Pakistan's RR was actually higher than Aussies. I don't think there would have been that much difference as a result of a loss against England which Pakistan could not have improved later against Kiwis.

[Some1]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

0.1657 was the run differential not run rate. Pakistan's RR was actually higher than Aussies. I don't think there would have been that much difference as a result of a loss against England which Pakistan could not have improved later against Kiwis.

So ...are you going to make this thread non-sticky , only if we all concede defeat at your hands.

*Yaar dekho...*Pakistan got through the preliminary round through the back-door in that World Cup...This I remember because it was the talk of the town then.....but now you get into the technical nitty-gritties.....and my memory of that WC is slighlty out of focus now to refute or accept your argument....esp with regards to how Pakistan performed on-the-field after that England match (whether or not it would have been able to better its NRR etc).

Ab to maaf kar do...

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

So ...are you going to make this thread non-sticky , only if we all concede defeat at your hands.

Ab to maaf kar do...

Some 1 jee, mein nay aap ko kahan pakra hay???

If my memory serves me right, you have brought this issue of Pakistan winning WC 1992 just because of the abondoned match on several occasions in the past as well in this forum. Only this time I decided to respond. And I am glad I did that since I helped you out realizing that it was never a do or die situation during that game against England.

So it was never me but you who instigated every time :)

[fair_balance]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

@fkhan2

0.1657 was the run differential not run rate. Pakistan’s RR was actually higher than Aussies. I don’t think there would have been that much difference as a result of a loss against England which Pakistan could not have improved later against Kiwis.

I am talking about NRR ( Net run rate). Are you suggesting me that If England had scored those runs in half of the overs then it wouldnot have made difference. In your enthusiasm of proving some1 wrong, you screwed it up man. This loss would have been a huge blow to NRR.

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

@fair_balance

:rotfl:

I am talking about NRR ( Net run rate). Are you suggesting me that If England had scored those runs in half of the overs then it wouldnot have made difference. In your enthusiasm of proving some1 wrong, you screwed it up man. This loss would have been a huge blow to NRR.

Unkil have a look at the scorecard and see where england was at the halfway stage

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_data…01MAR1992.html

[teaser]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

O yaar miti pao sari thread te.

At the end its all leveled now.

Once upon a time Pakistan was saved by rain AND they went on to win the world cup in that same tournament to show the world who's the DADY.

Recently India was saved by the rain of a possible defeat AND ..... lets see if they can manage to win or at least draw the series against England to show their worth.

I'd say we should lock this thread here and come back to it once the Test series is over.

[fair_balance]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

@fkhan2

Unkil have a look at the scorecard and see where england was at the halfway stage

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_data…01MAR1992.html

Unkil.that is whole point… After getting budled out for 75 in 40 overs. Rain reduced taget to 64 in 16 overs and then completed washed off the game. If rain has not stopped play. England could have score those 75 runs in 20-25 overs easily and your run-rate would have been in negative or close to zero.

[fair_balance]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

Recently India was saved by the rain of a possible defeat AND ..... lets see if they can manage to win or at least draw the series against England to show their worth.

So what are you offering if India managed to draw the series. How about keeping your mouth shut for few months at KK. I bet you dont have guts to offer that.

[fkhan2]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

Unkil.that is whole point.... After getting budled out for 75 in 40 overs. Rain reduced taget to 64 in 16 overs and then completed washed off the game. If rain has not stopped play. England could have score those 75 runs in 20-25 overs easily and your run-rate would have been in negative or close to zero.

Oh.... I got your point now. So basically we are talking about the IF. Like If Windies and Saffies had not beaten India in that WC, India could have been the champ there. If Srilanka had not beaten India in 1996 semi final, India could have won that WC as well. And if ponting had not scored a century in WC 2003 final, India could have taken that Cup as well. Like bat was infront of the ball otherwise it was a certain clean bowled.

Sorry yar zara dair may baat samjh aiieee. Pehlay bool daitay:D

[ehsan]

Re: India vs England: 1st Test Match Lords

@Some1

I never intended to say that Pak’s good fortune in the WC’92 was exactly similar to India’s luck with rain at Lord’s. My intial post about this was made jestfully in response to a similarly intended comment by Ehsan.

But now that the subject is being discussed intensely, I will say that there is no denying the FACT - that had it not rained that day (March 1st, 1992) at Adelaide - Pak would still be looking for its first World Cup Victory.

That, my friend, is an undeniable statement.

As for the match in question :
http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC92/LEAGUE/PAK_ENG_WC92_ODI13_01MAR1992.html

My point was about India having been outplayed. The shinning batting stars of this planet were humbled by a second string bowling attack. Obviously it was too much for some to digest so much so that they had to go back in history to dig some other **totally unrelated match to soothe their ego.

**