Cricket Needs to Move Past the Outdated Label of Upset

When Afghanistan shocked Pakistan at the 2023 Cricket World Cup, when Ireland shocked England at the T20 World Cup in Melbourne, or when Kenya shocked the world by reaching the semi-finals of the ODI World Cup in 2003, the headlines read “UPSET.” The word has become the shorthand used in cricket to talk about results that would not have been anticipated. But when is it reasonable – or of significance – to understand such instances as upsets rather than continuance?

In cricket, several “big” nations have taken historical dominance that has never been seen in football. Despite the high-level development of the game, and widespread access to understand how to make meaningful improvements and development in the game. The mindset that had developed and solidified with the belief that only England, Australia, or India could be the only sides that could ever consistently reach the peak of any major tournament dismissed victories from emerging sides as upsets.

Nevertheless, here we are in 2025, where Afghanistan, Ireland, and the Netherlands are now producing world-class players and infrastructure around these players. And the word “upset” seems irrelevant and unfair, even to these teams, because they do not see it as merely a win; they see it as the culmination of years of hard work and waiting.

The weight of language in sport

In many ways, words are important in cricket. By calling a victory an “upset,” we are subtly creating a narrative that, despite the achievements involved with the victory, is detrimental. The idea of an upset implies that the winning team stumbled into a fortunate outcome but not through their talent, skills, preparedness, or determination.

Let’s look at Afghanistan. Since they have been in ODI status since 2009, they have built up a formidable talent pipeline, especially in spin bowling. They now have players who are the envy of the world’s T20 leagues. Rashid Khan is just as recognisable as any star from cricket’s traditional power. Yet when Afghanistan beat former champions, they were often portrayed in reports as a “giant-killing act” rather than a result based on continuous developmental improvement in cricket.

This is also true for Ireland. Their beating Pakistan in 2007 was a genuine shock, sure, but few believed that at the time. But by 2011, when they chased down 329 to beat England in Bangalore, to still think of it as an “upset” seemed to ignore what we expected. Ireland had a well-established domestic pathway and had players like Kevin O’Brien and Paul Stirling who could win matches. Even using “upset” nearly two decades on feels a little dismissive of how far they’ve come.

Double standards in cricket

Curiously, cricket seems more hesitant than other sports to accept “the underdog shock”; for example, in football, Japan beating Germany at the 2022 FIFA World Cup was viewed as Japan’s tactical maturity beating Europe and not just a good day.

Although there is structural inequality in cricket that reinforces the language. The “Full Member vs Associate” divide within the ICC keeps emerging nations in a second tier, limiting their matches and exposure. So when a team like the Netherlands beats South Africa, it is called a David vs Goliath situation, while not recognizing that the Dutch players are professional cricketers who train and play with the same South Africans in county cricket and international leagues.

Growth demands recognition

For cricket to become a truly global sport, it must acknowledge wins by the emerging nations on their own merits. The rise of Afghanistan is not accidental; it is a product of talent, investment, and perseverance in a country at war. Ireland was not given Test status; they earned it. The Netherlands’ World Cup victories in 2023 did not come off the back of “luck,” but hard work, disciplined bowling, and savvy batting.

To label the outcomes as “upsets” also disregards the decline, complacency, or tactical errors of traditional powers. Pakistan collapsing under scoreboard pressure, or South Africa losing against spin, becomes part of the story the same way a “smaller” team excelling under pressure is. Generally depicting one as shocked and the other as a fluke, while not inaccurately characterizing the contest, oversimplifies it.

This must change with the sport. Rather than having headlines that say “Shock Defeat,” it could say “Afghanistan Outclass Pakistan” or “Ireland Too Strong for England.” The story becomes about merit, not surprise. It is important to keep in mind that “upstarts” are frequently tomorrow’s mainstream events. Sri Lanka used to be the Cinderella story in international cricket. Their 1996 World Cup victory was labeled an upset. Today, they are a nation of former champions. Sri Lanka was able to go from being an outsider to an insider; so why not Afghanistan, Ireland, or Nepal in the next 10 or 20 years?

Beyond Semantics

At first glance, this might feel like a semantic debate. But the reality is that the word “upset” has structural implications. It influences the way fans think about teams, the way governing bodies organize schedules, and the way young players from those countries view their own possibilities.

Cricket is richer, more competitive, and more unpredictable when victories by so-called smaller teams are normalised rather than sensationalised. They should be celebrated as markers of progress, not treated as accidents in a sport still clinging to old hierarchies.

The next time Afghanistan, Ireland, or the Netherlands beat a cricketing powerhouse, perhaps it’s time for journalists, commentators, and fans alike to retire the word upset. The game and its emerging nations deserve better.