If you study the world cup results as per matches played between teams, like the 1992 cricket world cup...there is sporting entertainment performances by various teams. Infact it even seems that new zealand should had been the 1992 world cup winner! But as cricket is viewed by global audiences and the spectators eventually play up as a social stigma in deciding the victors in cricket.
Like as in gladiator movie it says that the victor should win the crowd! If a victor then plays all by himself and still the spectator doesn't want him to play. Then whats the use battling!
So imagine martin crowe lifting the 1992 cricket world cup trophy! But the celebrations would had been only in new zealand and just the paperwork. Therefore the social stigma allowed pakistan to win with a world wide applause.
Then there are many such world cups like 1999, when south africa should had been victor! Or england should had been victor! But these team aren't!!!
So the social tantrums stigma might even match fix the latter half of each and every world cup like a wimbledon tennis event where one can't even win luckily!
Last edited by phantom005 : 05-05-2012 at 11:27 PM.