Biggest test series upset of all time

[the big bambino]

Yeah, that bit in bold is unquestionably true. I suppose my take on the matter is that once Bradman came along, it took a one-off tactic for England to win in 1932-33, which wasn't going to happen again.

It could've happened again; or at least an iteration of bodyline. There wasn't an outright sanction against the tactic just a law against intimidatory bowling. If anything the tactic of targeting the man was ended by agreement as the English got a taste of their own medicine and both sides realised the danger to the conduct of future series presuming they were played at all. The unreasonable vilification of Larwood and Voce played a significant part in burying the tactic as well and that was the most likely reason Larwood never played tests again, his injury issues notwithstanding.

The rain had a meaningful impact on almost all the 36/37 tests and the luck was evenly spread. But it was not the reason Australia lost either the first two tests. We were chasing a large target in the first test and really just needed to bat out one difficult period in Sydney but failed. I think Australia were favourites for the series but that was due solely to Bradman's presence.

 

[Ali TT]

Whatever the odds I'm not convinced the 2005 Ashes was the biggest upset by an English side in my lifetime. That was at least a strong England side, in form, with self belief playing at home in front of fans who actually thought they had a chance. I'd put the 1998 win v SA, the Pakistan and Sri Lanka tours in 2000/1, India in 2012 and even Bazball in Pakistan two years ago as more unlikely results. Heck, even the manner of the victory in the 2010/11 Ashes was more remarkable than 2005.

From the outset of a series, this victory by NZ would have to be up there, certainly winning 3-0 (although I'd say an upset is primarily about the outcome rather than the magnitude of victory, especially when a dead rubber is involved). However, from a moment during a series, India turning it around from a match and an innings down in 2001 against the Aussie side at their pinnacle has to be the greatest.

 

[centurymaker]

Winning the toss on pitches like we have seen gives you enough of an advantage imo. In terms of runs, you arguably start 70-80 runs ahead of team batting 2nd & 4th in a low scoring match.

Normally Indian spinners are so dominant that they totally nullify that advantage. Plus away batsmen are normally half clueless and end up losing badly despite winning the tosses. NZ batting however has been very proactive and sensible allowing to post competitive totals and putting fragile indian batting under the pressure.

Imo if India had batted first in both the 2nd Test and the 3rd Test, this series could have gone either way in these two tests. NZ would have had to chase tricky or competitive totals on deteriorating pitches and anything could have happened. Indian batting however has been struggling under the pump. Whenever there's been a decent total on board, they are imploding trying to match that, not to mention that the 3rd test pitch was such a lottery that you could potentially defend anything on it like 2004 vs Aus when 105 was defended.

I think this is a greater pre-series upset because no one expected 3-0, but the series win in Australia was greater due to the quality of play and India being at half-strength at times as well as losing the toss in all of the tests, except the 1st. Chasing 328 on the last day of the last test at the Gabba was unthinkable. It was a great climactic ending.

 

[Immenso]

Sorry but I have to ask this. Has this really happened before? That is, a clear number one team getting demolished in home conditions by a (on paper) clearly inferior side? A side who themselves got destroyed in supposedly similar conditions recently (NZ in SL). Where as India yet again completely stuffed a England and Bangladesh at home. Afaic, this really is unprecedented.

After first test, maybe part way through second test, I was getting memories of 'I can't believe what my eyes are seeing' that I had from the England tour of Windies in 1990. Now, that 1990 series ended up reverting to type with a 2-1 Windies win.

But you had some similarities of a decade long home dominance being rattled by a completely unlikely tourist.

That 1990 series was broadcast in NZ with daily highlights each night. On FTA tv. Was so 'exotic'.

But what a shame (in this now YouTube age) that carribean series didn't get televised until the start of their decline.

 

[Molehill]

From the outset of a series, this victory by NZ would have to be up there, certainly winning 3-0 (although I'd say an upset is primarily about the outcome rather than the magnitude of victory, especially when a dead rubber is involved). However, from a moment during a series, India turning it around from a match and an innings down in 2001 against the Aussie side at their pinnacle has to be the greatest.

I actually think winning the dead rubber makes this series even more remarkable. How often do dead rubbers go to the beaten side who are the only ones left with anything to play for? NZ had every right to be nursing the sorest of heads all week after the 2nd Test, yet they somehow came out and won the 3rd too.

Only the 11th whitewash ever by an away side of a series of 3 or more Tests. No one gave them a prayer leading up to it. Biggest upset of all time is now this in my eyes.