***Official*** India in New Zealand 2020

[TheJediBrah]

my entire original point was to refute 'it's so hard to win a 4-5 test series these days, the big 3 have the wtc harder' that i think one of the indian posters made.

as indian tours to australia and england show (and other big 3 series), this isn't true. at about test 3 the wheels completely fall off.

But it is true. That's been pretty clearly demonstrated. It's a lot easier to get 120 points out of a 2 Test series than a 4 or 5 Test series.

I mean even ignoring the stats I put forward just look at it from a common sense point of view. To win a 4 Test series 4-0, you have to do the equivalent of sweeping a 2 test series in the first 2 games anyway, and then doing it again. Even if, as you attest, it is easier to win the last few games of a long series if you've already won the first few, it's still clearly not as easy as having to do literally nothing to earn the 120 points becuase you've already got them by winning the only 2 games.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

But it is true. That's been pretty clearly demonstrated. It's a lot easier to get 120 points out of a 2 Test series than a 4 or 5 Test series.

I mean even ignoring the stats I put forward just look at it from a common sense point of view. To win a 4 Test series 4-0, you have to do the equivalent of sweeping a 2 test series in the first 2 games anyway, and then doing it again. Even if, as you attest, it is easier to win the last few games of a long series if you've already won the first few, it's still clearly not as easy as having to do literally nothing to earn the 120 points becuase you've already got them by winning the only 2 games.

That's true but there is also more chance for something to go wrong for the dominant side in a 2 test series. There is less margin for error - have a random collapse or a superb individual performance by an opposition player (e.g. Karunaratne's 4th innings hundred vs NZ) and you only get a 1-1 result vs a weaker side, or a rained out day leaves you with a 1-0 instead of 2-0 result. In a 5 test series the dominant side can still win 4-1 or 4-0 (instead of 1-1/1-0) and get more points. I said it earlier in the thread but if SA-Eng had been only 2 tests it would've been 60 points each after the England players were sick for the 1st test . Instead with 4 tests it was 3-1 (90 points to 30) to England. They were favoured by having a longer series.

When Mendis and Mathews batted out day 4 and day 5 was rained out vs NZ 15 months ago, NZ missed out on a win (in pre WTC days). That would be far far more significant in a 2-test series than a 5-test series.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

But it is true. That's been pretty clearly demonstrated. It's a lot easier to get 120 points out of a 2 Test series than a 4 or 5 Test series.

I mean even ignoring the stats I put forward just look at it from a common sense point of view. To win a 4 Test series 4-0, you have to do the equivalent of sweeping a 2 test series in the first 2 games anyway, and then doing it again. Even if, as you attest, it is easier to win the last few games of a long series if you've already won the first few, it's still clearly not as easy as having to do literally nothing to earn the 120 points becuase you've already got them by winning the only 2 games.

It is also a lot easier for a dominant side to get stuck with just 60 points in a 2 test series than a 5 test one. Australia only won 2 tests in the Ashes admittedly but that is their fault. It should have been a 4-0 or 3-1.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's true but there is also more chance for something to go wrong for the dominant side in a 2 test series. There is less margin for error - have a random collapse or a superb individual performance by an opposition player (e.g. Karunaratne's 4th innings hundred vs NZ) and you only get a 1-1 result vs a weaker side, or a rained out day leaves you with a 1-0 instead of 2-0 result. In a 5 test series the dominant side can still win 4-1 or 4-0 (instead of 1-1/1-0) and get more points. I said it earlier in the thread but if SA-Eng had been only 2 tests it would've been 60 points each after the England players were sick for the 1st test . Instead with 4 tests it was 3-1 (90 points to 30) to England. They were favoured by having a longer series.

When Mendis and Mathews batted out day 4 and day 5 was rained out vs NZ 15 months ago, NZ missed out on a win (in pre WTC days). That would be far far more significant in a 2-test series than a 5-test series.

It is also a lot easier for a dominant side to get stuck with just 60 points in a 2 test series than a 5 test one. Australia only won 2 tests in the Ashes admittedly but that is their fault. It should have been a 4-0 or 3-1.

True, but not as influential. What little we've seen of the points system so far has shown that the big chance to earn points, for any team, is getting a clean sweep. Particularly in the shorter series'. Even if India did get a 4-0 sweep against England, for example, they still wouldn't get any more points than a piece of piss 2-0 win against Bangladesh or West Indies.

It's much less likely for India to get an unlucky 1-1 result against Bangladesh or WI (an example of what you're mentioning) than it would be for England or Australia to steal a Test or 2 off them. Hence the 2 Test series is a much better chance to get the full 120 points.

How many 1-1 series results that happen do you think would have a signicantly different result if it was over a 5-Test series? Unless you're answer is "a lot of them" then your argument doesn't hold up.

 

[Neptune]

2 test series’ are stupid, IT GIVES TEAMS LIke New Zealand an unfair advantage because they mostly only play 2 test series’ while England, India, Australia etc have to play 5 test series’ against each other. The points system is dumb dumb IMO.

 

[Chewie]

We agree 2 test series are stupid, we wouldn't have them if we could, but we can't really help it

 

[Chewie]

You say they have to play 5 test series against each other. They don't.

 

[Neptune]

You say they have to play 5 test series against each other. They don't.

We play the ashes obviously and a 5 test series IN INDIA. While New Zealand get to play Bangladesh for a 2 test series. Ridiculous.

 

[Flem274*]

2 test series’ are stupid, IT GIVES TEAMS LIke New Zealand an unfair advantage because they mostly only play 2 test series’ while England, India, Australia etc have to play 5 test series’ against each other. The points system is dumb dumb IMO.

bring your lot back for 5 more tests. we need the points.

 

[Neptune]

bring your lot back for 5 more tests. we need the points.

Only if you promise not to produce shite flat pitches. The pitches you prepared for the India series were great.

 

[Flem274*]

Only if you promise not to produce shite flat pitches. The pitches you prepared for the India series were great.

not much that can be done in a drought, and one team managed to take 20 wickets easily enough.

gonna cry about the ball next?

 

[Neptune]

not much that can be done in a drought, and one team managed to take 20 wickets easily enough.

gonna cry about the ball next?

Sure, the ball was crap. Dukes > Kookaburra

 

[The Hutt Rec]

Just watched the final day of this test which I had recorded. Weird to hear Ian Smith say he was disappointed with the pitch because he was looking forward to seeing some good batting.

 

[TheJediBrah]

ffs Uranus we were actually having a meaningful discussion here

 

[Neptune]

ffs Uranus we were actually having a meaningful discussion here

OK mate sorry I’ll **** off.

 

[CricAddict]

Only if you promise not to produce shite flat pitches. The pitches you prepared for the India series were great.

Sure, the ball was crap. Dukes > Kookaburra

For someone who says that the username just means a planet, you use quite a lot of bollocks, buttocks and things like that in your posts.

 

[Neptune]

For someone who says that the username just means a planet, you use quite a lot of bollocks, buttocks and things like that in your posts.

Yes mate I love astronomy. Thinking of making a universe thread in the off topic section but I’m hesitant because I keep getting accused of being different people. Really odd.

 

[Bahnz]

True, but not as influential. What little we've seen of the points system so far has shown that the big chance to earn points, for any team, is getting a clean sweep. Particularly in the shorter series'. Even if India did get a 4-0 sweep against England, for example, they still wouldn't get any more points than a piece of piss 2-0 win against Bangladesh or West Indies.

It's much less likely for India to get an unlucky 1-1 result against Bangladesh or WI (an example of what you're mentioning) than it would be for England or Australia to steal a Test or 2 off them. Hence the 2 Test series is a much better chance to get the full 120 points.

How many 1-1 series results that happen do you think would have a signicantly different result if it was over a 5-Test series? Unless you're answer is "a lot of them" then your argument doesn't hold up.

Amongst 4 and 5 test series in recent years, it does seem that if they’d only been 2 tests that would’ve significantly favoured the weaker side.

60-60 to 90-30 sa v eng
80-20 to 56-56 eng v aus
60-60 to 42-72 aus v ind
60-60 to 96-24 eng v ind
60-60 to 90-30 sa v aus
60-60 to 72-42 ind v aus

Only the 2019 ashes series bucks the trend.

 

[Daemon]

Yes mate I love astronomy. Thinking of making a universe thread in the off topic section but I’m hesitant because I keep getting accused of being different people. Really odd.

Love a bit of asstronomy myself

 

[Neptune]

Love a bit of asstronomy myself

Mate that was about as funny as a kick in the bollocks. Please, for everyone’s sake, stop with the **** arse jokes.