*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[Jono]

Yeah you would back it. But if it doesn't happen you credit the opposition, and acknowledge that the team is far from perfect. Don't put this "playing down to opposition" excuse.

Especially if a not-so-good team plays well. Did Martin not earn his wickets last test? Did Ryder not earn his runs? McIntosh did little wrong this test didn't he?

Hell Kiwi fans have the right to be upset about the Kiwi performance at times. Better fielding on day 1 of the first test and better captaincy on day 5 of the first, and the end of day 3 in the second, and who knows where they'd be.

 

[Howe_zat]

Not really. If you do have a very good team (number 1 team to be precise) you would back it to win comfortably against a not-so good team, especially in your own backyard.

It's perfectly fair to criticise either team. But you started off expecting to dominate the whole way through, and then when that didn't happen you lambasted both teams without really mentioning what happened. It's really unfair to the players that have done well if you write off the series just because it's not going the way you want.

 

[vcs]

It's perfectly fair to criticise either team. But you started off expecting to dominate the whole way through, and then when that didn't happen you lambasted both teams without really mentioning what happened. It's really unfair to the players that have done well if you write off the series just because it's not going the way you want.

Indeed. The ball Southee got Dravid with was a beauty, for instance. And some of the "stupid" shots by the Indians came because they had been strangled by the bowling and fielding.

 

[Flem274*]

I actually miss Bond the most when I want one of the opposition to become a bleeding corpse.

This is one of those times.

 

[silentstriker]

God I hate this attitude. It's such a "self-entitled" attitude that some (not all) Australian cricket fans used to have in their days of utter dominance. If this becomes the main attitude of Indian cricket fans on CW I'd be disappointed.

If a team plays pretty well (which NZ have done at times) and some of our players are out of form or not that good (Gambhir, Dravid, Harbhajan (with ball), Sree) of course we aren't going to dominate. And if we end up winning the series whilst not playing at our best, and NZ playing better than many expected, it's a good result.

It's such a patronising and arrogant way of looking at test cricket.

It's not about patronizing. It's a very clear pattern that India often does 'play down' to the opposition. Remember losing to Zimbabwe after beating Australia? No one is saying NZ or Zimbabwe or whoever didn't play well, but there is clearly superior talent on the Indian team. And when superior talent doesn't result in victory, it's not patronizing to call that into question. Yes, sometimes that will happen but when it becomes a pattern....

 

[Woodster]

I'd like to give a lot of credit to NZ for how they've competed so far in this series, and for it still being so close going into the fourth day of the second Test. That's not meant to patgronise NZ for simply staying with India, it is indeed an achievement for a side with so little experience in these conditions, no warm-up games, and quite a contrast in proven Test cricketers between the sides.

The last wicket partnership would knock the stuffing out of most sides, but I hope this NZ side come back firing again tomorrow, wrap this last wicket up, and start reducing the deficit with minimial damage to the wickets column, and with the fight they've shown so far, it wouldn't surprise me if they did just that.

Predicting a big day for Taylor tomorrow, he's got out to a couple of cheap dismissals on this tour so far when he's got himself in and set and looked in reasonable nick. He'll be doubly determined tomorrow and it may well be a pivotal point when he comes in,

 

[Shifter]

As for Raina being baggage, how is it that he's playing ahead of someone like Pujara in the first place? I'd have to guess his ODI experience gave him the edge.

 

[Flem274*]

It's not about patronizing. It's a very clear pattern that India often does 'play down' to the opposition. Remember losing to Zimbabwe after beating Australia? No one is saying NZ or Zimbabwe or whoever didn't play well, but there is clearly superior talent on the Indian team. And when superior talent doesn't result in victory, it's not patronizing to call that into question. Yes, sometimes that will happen but when it becomes a pattern....

Talent wise there isn't much between the two sides tbh. The huge gulf is experience and runs/wickets on the board.

Just like our recent tour to Bangladesh, sometimes the little guy steps up and outplays (or in this case matches) the more favoured team.

I'm still going to win our bet though, because we're well and truly due for the first spectacular batting collapse of the season.

 

[Hurricane]

Talent wise there isn't much between the two sides tbh. The huge gulf is experience and runs/wickets on the board.

Just like our recent tour to Bangladesh, sometimes the little guy steps up and outplays (or in this case matches) the more favoured team.

I'm still going to win our bet though, because we're well and truly due for the first spectacular batting collapse of the season.

They are more talented. No one is starting up threads to discuss our players vs Ponting.

 

[Flem274*]

They are more talented. No one is starting up threads to discuss our players vs Ponting.

Show me how to measure talent.

Test cricket is the top one percent of the bell curve. There isn't much between anybody at the elite level. India have more players than we do in the top 1% though, no questions there.

I remember a quote from someone that test cricket is 10% talent and 90% everything else. The 10% is absolutely crucial, but on talent alone you don't get far, someone will always jump ahead of you.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Two decent (well, one superb, the other decent) batting line-ups versus two ordinary bowling attacks. NZ superior in the field (Dhoni the better keeper) evens out some of it a bit. Having not seen the India/Australia series, I'm struggling to see how this Indian bowling line up take 20 wickets consistantly. Khan is a good, solid bowler but the rest of 'em are no better than the Kiwis options, really. And I think this Kiwi bowling line up is pretty woeful.

 

[Bahnz]

Talent wise there isn't much between the two sides tbh. The huge gulf is experience and runs/wickets on the board.

Hee hee, oh that's a good one Flem. Heh, oh boy.

Sehwag way more talented than McCullum
Gambhir, despite going through a lean trot, is way more talented than T-Mac.
Dravid despite being in the twilight of his career, is still vastly more talented than Guppy.
Taylor, despite being an excellent player, isn't even in the same solar system as Tendulkar.
VVS and Ryder is probably the one even contest talent wise, but as you say, VVS has all the experience and savvy.
Please don't even talk to me about ****kins and Dhoni.
Harby and Danny are probably relatively evenly matched.
Difficult to get a read on Raina and Williamson as they're both so new to test cricket, though Williamson at least appears to have more brains.
As wonderful a human being as Tom is, Khan is the better bowler.
Sree and Southee is again tough to pick.

So on the whole, India are a much more talented side.

 

[smash84]

It's not about patronizing. It's a very clear pattern that India often does 'play down' to the opposition. Remember losing to Zimbabwe after beating Australia? No one is saying NZ or Zimbabwe or whoever didn't play well, but there is clearly superior talent on the Indian team. And when superior talent doesn't result in victory, it's not patronizing to call that into question. Yes, sometimes that will happen but when it becomes a pattern....

True. This statement reminds me another one from cricinfo regarding Mohammad Sami....something to the effect "Pakistan have called up Mohammad Sami who seems to know how to do everything except take wickets"......lol......Sami has to be the world's worst 150K+ bowler EVER. The guy does have talent, it shows, but it never translates into performance. Therefore questions are always asked of his performance.

Sorry to be comparing the Indian team with Sami but I couldn't help it ...........

Talent wise there isn't much between the two sides tbh. The huge gulf is experience and runs/wickets on the board.

That might be stretching it Flem. Even when Tendulkar, Laxman, and Dravid were new on the stage everyone could see that they were quite talented. It reminds me of some of your other sweeping statements of the recent past

 

[Flem274*]

Hee hee, oh that's a good one Flem. Heh, oh boy.

Sehwag way more talented than McCullum
Gambhir, despite going through a lean trot, is way more talented than T-Mac.
Dravid despite being in the twilight of his career, is still vastly more talented than Guppy.
Taylor, despite being an excellent player, isn't even in the same solar system as Tendulkar.
VVS and Ryder is probably the one even contest talent wise, but as you say, VVS has all the experience and savvy.
Please don't even talk to me about ****kins and Dhoni.
Harby and Danny are probably relatively evenly matched.
Difficult to get a read on Raina and Williamson as they're both so new to test cricket, though Williamson at least appears to have more brains.
As wonderful a human being as Tom is, Khan is the better bowler.
Sree and Southee is again tough to pick.

So on the whole, India are a much more talented side.

You're saying results=talent.

I agree, every single Indian batsman is a better batsman than any of ours.

In terms of talent, well firstly how is hand-eye coordination measured? Test cricket is the top 1% of the world, I doubt there's much in it in terms of hand-eye. The main difference there is India has way more players with high levels of hand eye than we do.

But in technique, mental strength, experience, confidence, results and all those other factors India are ahead.

 

[silentstriker]

Talent wise there isn't much between the two sides tbh.

.................

 

[Flem274*]

True. This statement reminds me another one from cricinfo regarding Mohammad Sami....something to the effect "Pakistan have called up Mohammad Sami who seems to know how to do everything except take wickets"......lol......Sami has to be the world's worst 150K+ bowler EVER. The guy does have talent, it shows, but it never translates into performance. Therefore questions are always asked of his performance.

Sorry to be comparing the Indian team with Sami but I couldn't help it ...........

Nailed it. Had all the ability in the world but lacked the other factors required to be a fantastic bowler.

That might be stretching it Flem. Even when Tendulkar, Laxman, and Dravid were new on the stage everyone could see that they were quite talented. It reminds me of some of your other sweeping statements of the recent past

See my previous post.

 

[smash84]

.

I remember a quote from someone that test cricket is 10% talent and 90% everything else. The 10% is absolutely crucial, but on talent alone you don't get far, someone will always jump ahead of you.

Yes but I think you should at least concede that in that 10% India are much better.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Mark Houghton has more talent than Harbhajan Singh.

EDIT: With the ball, anyway.

 

[smash84]

I agree, every single Indian batsman is a better batsman than any of ours.

In terms of talent, well firstly how is hand-eye coordination measured? Test cricket is the top 1% of the world, I doubt there's much in it in terms of hand-eye. The main difference there is India has way more players with high levels of hand eye than we do.

Thankfully you agree to the first part.

Of course talent is not measured in the way that SR and averages are but you may use subjective criteria. For e.g. how good or solid a player looks without having gone through too much training. That could be just one way to look at talent. Or how quickly you pick up the art from other players. Pakistani fast bowlers appear on the scene without too much coaching and seem pretty decent with the ball just by learning from their seniors.

 

[Flem274*]

Yes but I think you should at least concede that in that 10% India are much better.

They have more players in the top 1% most definitely, but show me how their players are more talented than others.

I hear Air Force pilots have a hand-eye test where reaction speeds are measured by pressing a button when a dot pops up on screen. I think batsmen take those tests because I heard a Chris Martin interview on the radio a few years back where the difference between him and Brendon McCullum was massive (as you would think it would be).

McCullum had the best score in the team too IIRC, but not by much.

Perhaps if we put everyone on that we could work out who is more talented than who, but to my knowledge it hasn't been done extensively. In any case, the talent difference between test batsmen is likely so small that McCullum's good score means diddly squat, because despite being talented he is no where near being the best batsman in the side because of all the other factors that come into play.

I am not trying to do a one eyed WW type post here. The Indian batsmen are streets ahead of our own. But if you have the talent to play test cricket, you are in the highest echelon of cricketers, the top few percent. Differences in talent will be minimal and the other factors needed to be a successful player skyrocket in importance.

To say the Indian cricketers are the best because of their talent is an insult to the hard work they've put into all the other areas of their game.