-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official India in New Zealand***
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Precambrian
Banned
Scoring 50s are not exactly hall mark of geniuses. And 6 fifties in 27 innings does not make him look good.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Forget the NZ tests. I wont count them. How many 50s in tests in Eng, RSA and Australia? If you reach a 50 you are at least showing you can bat and face the bowling. Beyond that it is a mental thing whether you can go on to make the 50 count into a big score.
Precambrian
Banned
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Average comes to a very respectable 45.95 (aggregate of 873 runs).
Last edited:
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
O'Brilliant suitably contrite.
The dumbest thing I've ever done on a cricket field - Iain O'Brien at Cricinfo
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The 2002-03 series had minefield pitches, the worst I have seen in my 17-18 years of cricket viewing. If we include those 4 innings, the completed innings increases to 23 from 19. This is a % increase of 21 approximately and hugely skews the stats. If we want to analyse whether a player can indeed play swing bowling, we have to exclude an abberation of a series which was 2002-03.
Last edited:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Did you see the 2002-03 series? I am not interested in any tweaking of stats to suit my arguments because I am more interested in discussion rather than winning glory points.
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
I was a student in Dunedin, New Zealand who had the summer off and had Sky TV on tap. Of course I saw the ****ing series. Wanna try being more condescending?
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Wisden on the pitches of the series -
The batsmen had to take much of the blame, although the pitches were hardly beyond reproach. New Zealand Cricket had directed the groundsmen to produce fast, bouncy tracks, but a wet summer left them thankful to produce anything at all. The inevitable result was a sequence of greentops which led to criticism from NZC's chief executive, Martin Snedden
Even so, New Zealand's 2-0 victory - the first time they had won more than one Test in a series against India - maintained their unlikely position, under the ICC ranking system, as the third-best side in the world. Dodgy pitches or not, that was worth celebrating.
The batsmen had to take much of the blame, although the pitches were hardly beyond reproach. New Zealand Cricket had directed the groundsmen to produce fast, bouncy tracks, but a wet summer left them thankful to produce anything at all. The inevitable result was a sequence of greentops which led to criticism from NZC's chief executive, Martin Snedden
Even so, New Zealand's 2-0 victory - the first time they had won more than one Test in a series against India - maintained their unlikely position, under the ICC ranking system, as the third-best side in the world. Dodgy pitches or not, that was worth celebrating.
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Point being? Nothing in there about inconsistent bounce which was the thrust of my post. Craploads of sideways movement, yes - no disputing that. The ball tended to rear a bit on the Wellington pitch in particular, but it was fairly consistent in that regard.
Did YOU see the series, or are you just quoting Wisden because that's all you've got?
Did YOU see the series, or are you just quoting Wisden because that's all you've got?
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Again, you're completly failing to counter my argument that the pitches were inconsistent in bounce. Even in the Wisden piece you quoted, part of the blame has been apportioned to the batsmen. Just so you can hopefully read it properly this time, there is NO disputing there was an awful lot of sideways movement - and definitely too much over 5 days (or three in the tests' cases) for an international test match. But "minefields" are a massive reach. The match referee didn't call the tests off - something which HAS happened in the West Indies. Those were minefields (although we know the problem with the Antigua pitch this year was more to do with the outfield and run-ups).
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Wisden report of the second test -
If the game at Wellington ended with indecent haste, this one had even less time for niceties. Never before in 1,632 Tests had both sides been dismissed for under 100 in their first innings; by the time New Zealand scraped home on the fourth afternoon of another rain-soaked match and sealed a 2-0 series win, there had been just 176 overs - nearly 21 fewer than in the First Test. Like the blade of the helicopter that hovered over the ground on the second morning in an attempt to blow away the damp, the cricket was fast, furious and strangely compelling.
Torrential downpours had wreaked havoc with the groundsman's preparations and, when the game finally got under way at 4.30 on day two, the excessive sideways movement sowed doubt in the batsmen's minds and turned run-making into Russian roulette. It was Ganguly's misfortune to lose another crucial toss against an unchanged New Zealand side still buzzing after their walkover at Wellington. For India, Yohannan replaced Agarkar.
If the game at Wellington ended with indecent haste, this one had even less time for niceties. Never before in 1,632 Tests had both sides been dismissed for under 100 in their first innings; by the time New Zealand scraped home on the fourth afternoon of another rain-soaked match and sealed a 2-0 series win, there had been just 176 overs - nearly 21 fewer than in the First Test. Like the blade of the helicopter that hovered over the ground on the second morning in an attempt to blow away the damp, the cricket was fast, furious and strangely compelling.
Torrential downpours had wreaked havoc with the groundsman's preparations and, when the game finally got under way at 4.30 on day two, the excessive sideways movement sowed doubt in the batsmen's minds and turned run-making into Russian roulette. It was Ganguly's misfortune to lose another crucial toss against an unchanged New Zealand side still buzzing after their walkover at Wellington. For India, Yohannan replaced Agarkar.
