India tour of New Zealand - March 2009

[King Cricket]

India only beat Australia because Phillip Hughes wasn't playing,

And Australia only defeated India because Steve Bucknor was the umpire.

Australia's still the best team in the world

Exactly. And a "best" team getting packed for 131, with King Philip the great very much in the team, that is = :laugh

 

[SaiSrini]

India only beat Australia because Phillip Hughes wasn't playing, Peter Siddle or Jason Krezja didn't play the entire series and because Cameron White played the entire series.

South Africa actually beat us on our home soil, something that India has never acchieved but we bounced back and beat South Africa in South Africa, another thing that India has never acchieved.

Australia's still the best team in the world. South Africa & India both still have flaws in their claims to being number 1 in the world.

Philip Hughes? Who's that? All these guys perform big against others but when it comes to India, they will start peeing in their pants. Ask him to come and play on the turning tracks in India.

India cannot win on Aussie soil when the umpires gang up against them (a'la Sydney). Also, you guys have not faced Dhoni with his current team in Australia (luckily you encountered Anil Kumble). We can also get into if's and but's. Kumble doesnt play a game and the very next match Dhoni captains, and we crush Australia by 320 runs at Mohali. Kumble is back and the next game is a draw where Kumble retires. Dhoni captains next game and we win again thereby making it 2-0. You havent faced Gambhir in his current form. When Dravid played in Australia, he was not in the form that he is now.

 

[King Cricket]

Jason Krezja didn't play the entire series

I really wish he played. Then we would have thrashed you guys by bigger margins. Everybody remembers the 8 wicket part, nobody remembers that he got hammered for more than 220 runs in that same test.

South Africa actually beat us on our home soil, something that India has never acchieved but we bounced back and beat South Africa in South Africa, another thing that India has never acchieved.

You know what that means? It means neither Australia nor SA is a dominant side. SA is winning against Australia alright, but they are failing to maintain a consistency. They are getting thrashed by that same side some days later. Same with Australia. They are so dominant that they struggled to beat (what were those adjectives?) even the Black Caps last year. India is the only team in the world which is unbeaten for 9 test matches (sorry, the figure is not 13), the other contenders of the top spot are winning and losing- they are not consistent at all. Not saying India is a dominant side right now. But we are very near of being the world's no 1, in all three forms of the game and "dominant". Our closest opponents are quite lagging behind.

 

[mrtwisties]

Even the Australians acknowledged how close the Indians ran them in that series and the way they talked about the matches and after the series ended, they sounded a little guilty of winning that series. Everyone knew that India were hard done by the Sydney test. Had we atleast drawn it, it would have been 1-1 and at that time, a 1-1 by a visiting team against Australia in Australia is considered equal to victory.

No, it's not - it's considered equal to a draw. Listen to your logic, "if we had drawn the series instead of losing it, and if a draw was the same as a win, we'd have won the series".

This is precisely my point: dominant teams don't need to try and wheedle people into believing that they're dominant. Dominant teams say, "oh well, sometimes the umpiring decisions go your way, sometimes they don't - we'll just bowl them out in the next over".

Unfortunately for India, George Washington was right about the results of this wheedling behaviour: "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have a habit of making excuses".

 

[King Cricket]

"oh well, sometimes the umpiring decisions go your way, sometimes they don't - we'll just bowl them out in the next over".

This works for two or three wrong decisions. But this is surely surely surely invalid when it comes to 12 wrong umpiring decisons. How can we win a test match if people claim dropped catches, accuse someone of a thing he has not done and umpires listen to them blindly. Not even a team of 11 Bradman's could have won the Sydney test under the circumstances India had to face.

King Cricket added 8 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Unfortunately for India, George Washington was right about the results of this wheedling behaviour: "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have a habit of making excuses".

We make excuses? Great! Why don't you make the Australian team or any team of the world play a test in Sydney under the circumstances India had to face? You'll see what will happen to them and you'll see who will win or who will lose. And you'll see how their fans will shout after the match is over. Nonsense.

King Cricket added 4 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...

dominant teams don't need to try and wheedle people into believing that they're dominant.

Nobody is wheedling people up. You mentioned that series versus Australia where according to you the Indian team got "thrashed" by the Aussies. Which, in reality wasn't the case. We are trying to say, had the umpires gave correct decisions in the Sydney test, India would have won it for sure- it's the truth- Bucknor was unfair to India in that test. That's the thing I'm trying to say. Then the series becomes 2-1. That's it.

 

[mrtwisties]

This works for two or three wrong decisions. But this is surely surely surely invalid when it comes to 12 wrong umpiring decisons. How can we win a test match if people claim dropped catches, accuse someone of a thing he has not done and umpires listen to them blindly. Not even a team of 11 Bradman's could have won the Sydney test in the circumstances India had to face.

There are other threads for talking about that episode and the disgraceful behavior of almost everyone involved.

Let's stick to the topic.

This test series against New Zealand has demonstrated just how far India still has to come before it can claim to be #1, let alone dominant. They're up against a team that has only two batsmen with an average above 40 and not a single bowler with an average less than 30, and yet they've won just one out of three test matches.

India look more like the struggling Australian team of late 2008 than a team that's coming into its prime.

 

[surendar]

India only beat Australia because Phillip Hughes wasn't playing, Peter Siddle or Jason Krezja didn't play the entire series and because Cameron White played the entire series.

This is just ridiculous! :laugh :laugh :laugh OMG, i can't ressist my laugh in this silent office.. :rtfl :rtfl :rtfl

:rtfl :rtfl :rtfl :rtfl

come and claim tomorrow that David boon and Bradman did not play! : SOUR GRAPES!

 

[manee]

Yeah, it's ridiculous because of how flat the pitches are these days.

Indeed, but I feel the main issue is being missed. A statistic like an average over 50 really has very little importance compared to the lack of excitment generated in Test cricket, the amount of high scoring draws and the consequential low attendences.

 

[aussie_ben91]

This is just ridiculous! :laugh :laugh :laugh OMG, i can't ressist my laugh in this silent office.. :rtfl :rtfl :rtfl

:rtfl :rtfl :rtfl :rtfl

come and claim tomorrow that David boon and Bradman did not play! : SOUR GRAPES!

I think most non-Indians will laugh at you for quoting my post in your signature, rather then laugh along with you. Especially South Africans and after the Ashes, poms aswell.

Have fun with that though.

 

[deerkick]

mrtwisties makes a lot of sense here. We are still not the best in the world and I'm fine with that. Australia, SA, and India will be constantly fighting each other for that number 1 spot and that makes test cricket more entertaining anyways.

And wtf at Sehwag? He's being a bit overhyped ATM. He's only been averaging 35 this year/season with his only good innings being that quickfire 83 or w/e.

 

[Chetan0304]

If NZ succeeds in a draw, they are the winner of this test at least for me

Congrats Dravid for the Record for passing S Waugh record .

 

[King Cricket]

This test series against New Zealand has demonstrated just how far India still has to come before it can claim to be #1, let alone dominant. They're up against a team that has only two batsmen with an average above 40 and not a single bowler with an average less than 30, and yet they've won just one out of three test matches.

India look more like the struggling Australian team of late 2008 than a team that's coming into its prime.

You must be joking! One out of three!! The third test is on mate, and unless something extremely unexpected happens we are the winners. I think you should just see the margins by which we defeated our different opponents last year. And we look like the struggling Aussie team! We have a long way to go before we become world's No 1! This is ridiculous. We have dominated throughout this tour, except for two T-20's.

 

[mrtwisties]

Labelling an argument "ridiculous" is rude, but it isn't a rebuttal. Try harder.

 

[irottev]

If NZ succeeds in a draw, they are the winner of this test at least for me

Congrats Dravid for the Record for passing S Waugh record .

Well we've been outplayed this time around. If we escape it will be because Dhoni declared too late and the weather is bad.

I don't think there's any doubt that at some point in time it will rain and the wind will gust and the play will stop, how long is the question. I don't think we could bat 2 sessions. I'd hope at least half the day is washed out.

Seems fitting for the last day of the summer to be rain affected really. Though the weather for the test series thus far has been excellent.

 

[m_vaughan]

If you ask me there is no dominant side in world cricket at the moment which is actually good. India are in good form but I wont get too carried away by beating NZ in a test series because I have never really rated the Kiwiz as a quality test team.

I'll stick to my claim that the Aussies will be top and kicking (as much as I hate it) by the end of 2009. The team that lost to SA and India was weak, demoralised and probably 10% of the true ability. The team than then went and beat SA in SA was still at about 50-60%. And I expect them to reach their 100% by the end of the year. Just too much quality there, and you know it.