Talk:1999 Cricket World Cup

Untitled

"17th June 1999 Australia v South Africa, Birmingham, tied (Australia go through due to victory in game 39)* "

I think you'll find Australia progressed because they finished higher on the Super Six table.

I remembered it as Australia went thru because they beat SA previously, so I believe the article is correct. Nb I was not the orignal author Steven jones 00:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're both correct. Australia finished ahead of South Africa on the Super Six table because Australia had beaten South Africa in Game 39. They were tied on points in the Super Six, but the tournament rules stated that such ties would be broken by head-to-head results, thus making game 39 the determinant. I'll amend the article to indicate this. --dmmaus 01:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. There was a three-way tie at the top of the S6 table. Pak, Aus, SA all on 3 wins. Pak d Aus, Aus d SA and SA d Pak; so head-to-head was redundant. The top three were split on net run rate.

That was the method used to decide the match-ups for the semi-finals. On run rate, Pakistan finished top of the Super Six table, Australia second, South Africa third, New Zealand fourth. According to the tournament playing conditions, the top team played the fourth (Pak v NZ) and the second played the third (Aus v SA) in the semi-finals. The winners of the semi-finals progressed to the final. When Aus and SA tied their semi-final, splitting them no longer involved Pakistan, and so the head-to-head result was the determinant. If South Africa had had a higher run rate that Australia, Australia still would have progressed from the semi into the final. From the official tournament web site: [1] --dmmaus 07:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake, you're right. The relevant section of the tournament playing conditions reads: "If a Semi-final is tied or there is no result, the team that finished higher at the end of the Super Six stage as decided by clause 11.3 shall proceed to the Final." So yes, Australia progressed to the final because they had a better run rate than South Africa, placing them above SA in the Super Six table. I'll amend the article. --dmmaus 08:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Correct is: ...because Australia finished higher in the super six table. "because they had a better run rate than South Africa" is not correct, because you can have a better NRR and less points than an other team!--93.242.185.214 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Player of the Series

No 'Man of the Series' was awarded in1975, 1979, 1983 and 1987. The first was awarded in 1993. The award was changed to 'Player of the Tournament' in 1999 and then to 'Player of the Series' in 2003 - Ctbolt 03:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in World Cup-1999, "man of the series" award was given to Shane Warne while "player of the tournament" to Lance Kluesner. 1999 in fact was the only year in which two such titles were awarded simultaneously. Discussions invited.

Own page required for 2nd semi final

since there are still some people who consider that semi final to be the best of all time. I would suggest that its own seperate page is made for that match. The 438 game has its own page.Scubasteve55 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Change it, they are listed as full member when they were associates till 2000 and same for kenya in the 2003 page, they were full odi( neither full associate nor full test but an in between stage which was offered by ICC at the time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.248.27 (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Super Six table

The Super Six table seems to be accurate, in that it reflects the source accurately (see here). However, the source doesn't seem to accurately reflect the facts, since it says each team played five matches in the Super Six stage when they actually only played three. I assume this is to add the correct number of points to the "Points Carried Forward" column, but it doesn't make sense to say each team played five matches when they only played three. – PeeJay 10:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi PeeJay: Forming a view on whether the table is correct depends on the assumptions made.

1. Is the ladder based on only three matches per team - with additional points carried over from the group stage?
2. Or is it a round-robin, with each team playing every other team once? That would mean calculating the ladder for five matches per team - although, in cases where teams had already met in the group stage, the previous result counts instead of a rematch being played.

I think the latter applies. If I pick a side (e.g. Australia) and calculate its net run rate on this basis (for a five-match round-robin) I get the following result:

Based on 5 matches in Super Six (incl. 2 group games)

Australia	Opponent					Totals	RPO
	v NZL	v PAK	v IND	v ZIM	v RSA
Runs	213	265	282	303	272	1335	5.35
Overs	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	49.67	249.67
Runs against	214	275	205*	259	271	1224	4.99
Overs against	45.33	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	245.33
Net run rate							0.36

Note: * denotes all out, with the run rate calculated as if for 50 overs.

This NRR of 0.36 does match the number in the source. Now, calculating Australia's NRR based only on 3 matches:

Based on 3 matches played in Super Six

Australia	Opponent			Totals	RPO
	v IND	v ZIM	v RSA
Runs	282	303	272	857	5.73
Overs	50.00	50.00	49.67	149.67
Runs against	205*	259	271	735	4.90
Overs against	50.00	50.00	50.00	150.00
Net run rate					0.83

Note: * denotes all out, with the run rate calculated as if for 50 overs.

A higher result - and also better than Pakistan's and South Africa's NRR calculated on the same basis. The NRR (and the Super Six table itself) is based on 5 games per team. -- Ham105 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cricket World Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)