Why is the 1999 Cricket World Cup the best in history?

The World Cup is quite a grand concept. When cricket finally got around to it, after 98 years of Tests, it seemed like a format that couldn’t go wrong. Maybe it was: the initial structure – eight teams, two groups, the top two from each progressing to the semifinals – worked well for two tournaments, and then administrators began to tinker. It seemed as if they, like certain companies they later sought as sponsors, took a good thing and replaced it with something bloated. As a result, there hasn’t been a great World Cup in the 21st century.

But the last one of the 20th century was a real gem. The final may have been the mother of all non-contests, but that was just one day: judging a World Cup by its final, as football fans know, is like judging a meal by the hot drink at the end. A tournament’s job is to keep us enthralled over weeks, and the 1999 World Cup did just that. It had the kind of suspense and adrenaline rush you might experience, say, playing at Pin-Up casino India.

This tournament followed four golden rules.

There should be upsets

Firstly, favorites must be beaten. Steve Waugh’s Australian team was a phenomenal side, with Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne performing like two bowlers each, both front-liners and shields, and a batting line-up led by Adam Gilchrist that could afford to leave out Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer. But the Aussies lost two of their first three games, against New Zealand and Pakistan, and found themselves with their backs against the wall, facing a series of tense matches.

Multiple teams should be title contenders

The second rule is that at least three teams should look like worthy winners. Under Hansie Cronje, South Africa was magnificent; Pakistan, under Wasim Akram, was on fire; India, under Mohammad Azharuddin, was more than handy. England, under Alec Stewart, was less than handy, but you can’t have everything. (India and England had better captains in the squad – Sourav Ganguly and Nasser Hussain. They quickly recognized this.)

At least one of the underdogs should cause an upset

The third rule is that you need underdogs who don’t just bark, but bite too. Zimbabwe, the only team in its group to beat South Africa, reached the Super Sixes in the World Cup tournament, defeating England and Sri Lanka, the hosts and reigning champions. The spring air made heroes out of players like Geoff Allott, and New Zealand exhausted all its energy in a shutdown.

There should be at least one great match in the tournament

The fourth rule is that there needs to be one unforgettable day, as good as any final. The semi-final played at Edgbaston between Australia and South Africa had everything: ebb, flow, duels, contrasts, scraps, cunning, folly, and insurmountable drama. Shaun Pollock and Allan Donald took 9 wickets for 68 runs between them; Warne responded with 4 for 29. Michael Bevan played a crucial endgame inning; so did Lance Klusener, whose disciplined bludgeonry blazed a trail for T20.

He came in with 39 needed off 31 balls and hit 31 off 14, leaving South Africa needing just one from the last four. They survived a run-out (missed by Lehmann) with him and Donald but succumbed to another off the very next ball. The match ended in a tie, allowing Australia to advance due to their superior net run rate in the Super Sixes. It was Bob Woolmer’s last game as coach of South Africa, and it was loaded with pathos.

Sadly, it’s been a long time since any match evoked such emotions and experiences. Nor has any tournament managed to replicate that success.