New Zealand v India, 2nd test, Napier, March 26-30

horace wrote:not sure it was an article that sooked...it was more critical of NZ than Banindia...it is one thing for banindia to doctor their own pitches but another for it to order doctoring of foreign pitches...surely not even Modi would stoop to that

The other day you suggested that India be banned for making flat tracks for boring draws. I asked you to come up with stats to prove that Indian pitches had most boring draws compared to other teams in this time and even gave you a break up of win/loss/draw stats with an analysis of all series at home for India this decade. I even pointed out how WI, Eng and Pak have more lifeless draws in comparision to India last 4 years. You have yet to answer those queries. Now you have again in a veiled way accused India of pitch doctering. Can you name one team that doesn't? How many tests of last decade can you name where Kumble and Bhajji completely ran through the opposite teams on 'doctored pitches' in India? Didn't we give a greentop to the Aussies in Nagpur in 2004 and lost? No one said pitch doctoring then? Didn't we give England a sporting track at Mumbai in 2006 to lose it again? If we had NOT done pitch doctoring [creating 'sporting' tracks] we would have won both those series. Even the SA one where we gave them a sporting track with grass in Ahmedabad.

Again which is true? That India wins more tests by doctoring pitches at home or that we draw more tests at home because of flat tracks all round? Despite this SA won a test, Aus won 3, Pak won 1 and even England won 1 while Kiwis lost none here?

HH_pink wrote:Kudos to you for sticking by him all through, Trev.

Now it's Yuvraj's turn to prove me right all along.

Kiwis on sporting pitch - Utterly humiliated by India.

Kiwis on road - One of the few decent scores they've got in this whole decade, and a draw.

Looks to me like they're the ones who benefit from flat pitches.

Nice day, vintage VVS. Good times.

VVS should bat like that all the time against all teams. Only Australia consistently sees him at his aggressive best.

And yes, New Zdealand really are the biggest whingers in cricket. I remember them having a whinge about the pitches in England a few ears back because they were doing too much, and now they're whingeing about the pitches being too flat.

Hey New Zealand- Your batsmen are crap, and your bowlers are crap. India are a BETTER TEAM than you. Deal with it.

Henry wrote:And yes, New Zdealand really are the biggest whingers in cricket. I remember them having a whinge about the pitches in England a few ears back because they were doing too much, and now they're whingeing about the pitches being too flat.

Hey New Zealand- Your batsmen are crap, and your bowlers are crap. India are a BETTER TEAM than you. Deal with it.

Trev in being brave on a froum where he knows there no NZ forummers shock.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:And yes, New Zdealand really are the biggest whingers in cricket. I remember them having a whinge about the pitches in England a few ears back because they were doing too much, and now they're whingeing about the pitches being too flat.

Hey New Zealand- Your batsmen are crap, and your bowlers are crap. India are a BETTER TEAM than you. Deal with it.

Trev in being brave on a froumforum where he knows there no NZ forummers shock.

Isn't Smerky a Kiwi?
:?:

And aren't you missing typos?

Napier - good when the home team is leading 1-0 in a two match series. Otherwise rubbish.
Gambhir - great show. Like Jesse Ryder for NZ, good in all forms of the game.
NZ bowling - pedestrian on any wicket. I doubt whether their injured bowlers would have made much of a difference on the Napier road.

Wellington - I don't see any type of wicket will effect the end result of the series. On the contrary, a wicket which accomodates lateral movement will most likely help the Indians to a 2-0 series win. If it's another Napier, Dhoni should consider Mishra instead of Munaf Patel.

IMO, articles about BCCI influence on the pitches prepared in NZ are crap authored by adolescent dream-chasing word crunchers.

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:And yes, New Zdealand really are the biggest whingers in cricket. I remember them having a whinge about the pitches in England a few ears back because they were doing too much, and now they're whingeing about the pitches being too flat.

Hey New Zealand- Your batsmen are crap, and your bowlers are crap. India are a BETTER TEAM than you. Deal with it.

Trev in being brave on a froum where he knows there no NZ forummers shock.

Huh? New Zealand are shit. FACT.

Nah, I think they got the moral victory in this test.

Only Nasser distributes moral victories. That your middle name by any chance?

It will be the first Test India have played wherein they didn't hold the moral victory trophy aloft.

Sehwag called Gambhir "the second wall of the Indian cricket team, this one from the north". So just as the Southern Wall seems to be crumbling, have we found a reliable Northern Wall apart from the Himalayas?

HH_pink wrote:Sehwag called Gambhir "the second wall of the Indian cricket team, this one from the north". So just as the Southern Wall seems to be crumbling, have we found a reliable Northern Wall apart from the Himalayas?

You posted that on Gambhir thread as well......

Yes I did.

Batman wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:And yes, New Zdealand really are the biggest whingers in cricket. I remember them having a whinge about the pitches in England a few ears back because they were doing too much, and now they're whingeing about the pitches being too flat.

Hey New Zealand- Your batsmen are crap, and your bowlers are crap. India are a BETTER TEAM than you. Deal with it.

Trev in being brave on a froumforum where he knows there no NZ forummers shock.

Isn't Smerky a Kiwi?
:?:

And aren't you missing typos?

Watch your manners there matey and I don't have to explain where I'm from, just not Kiwi Country.

Sheep are sheep no matter where they get f*cked.

Pink Sheep!

Makes one wonder what the result could have been for India had that lazy Yuvraj not dropped sitters and leaked 350 runs in the process. I have no doubt the odds of a test win and a series win for us would have increased by at least 75%.

Before seeing this test, I never gave much thought of a couple of half chances taken or a couple dropped. But this test really vindicates the phrase 'catches win matches' and takes it to an entirely new level. One dropped catch from Azhar in the slips in 1999 Kolkotta test of Saeed Anwar resulted in a 25/5 start in favour of India turning into a bitter test defeat in the end. Similiarly after a 30/5 start in favour of India, dropping one of Akmal in 2006 ultimately cost us the series in Pakistan in the third test. I hope we don't drop any the next test. Can't afford another huge leak like in case of Ryder-Taylor.

Philcric - Just to take my point about India doing better when not playing the last day to save a test, here are some stats to prove we are more comfortable saving a test when not batting last:

* India batted 180 overs in their second innings, which is the eighth-highest number of deliveries they've batted in the second try. The first six of those instances had all been before 1980, which indicates how the nature of the game has changed. The last time they batted more overs was also against New Zealand, in 1999 in Mohali, when they scored 505 for 3 in their second innings after being bundled out for 83 in their first. Surprisingly, seven of the top nine such efforts have happened overseas.

* India managed to draw a Test after conceding a lead of over 200 in the first innings for the tenth time. Overall, such a feat has been achieved on 78 occasions.

* It's also the second-highest number of overs they've played when following on - the only occasion they batted longer was at Leeds in 1967 against England, when they faced 209.2 overs to score 510 in a match they ultimately lost by six wickets. Of the 30 games when India have been asked to follow on, they've saved eight, lost 21 and won one.

Out of 30, technically we have 8 successful tests where we prevented a defeat [including turning 1 into a win]. Contrast this to the number of times we let pressure get the better of us on last day pitches unless it was played in high scoring roads or the target was not in excess of 250.

If it hadn't been for the umpiring India would have walked this test.

Poor fielding alone let us down this test Nigel. Plain crap shoddy ground fielding. I give full credit to the Snoozers for taking the maximum benefit possible for our fielding lapses.

It (180 overs) was the 4th highest no. of overs batted for staving off a defeat in a test. Highest being Eng Vs SA test in '99 at Durban when Eng batted for 209 overs. Famous for Atherton's 185* against Donald and co.

Surprisingly all 4 instances have been recorded in last 10 years.

SG wrote:It (180 overs) was the 4th highest no. of overs batted for staving off a defeat in a test. Highest being Eng Vs SA test in '99 at Durban when Eng batted for 209 overs. Famous for Atherton's 185* against Donald and co.

Surprisingly all 4 instances have been recorded in last 10 years.

It was even more famous because it was in Johannesburg.

SG wrote:It (180 overs) was the 4th highest no. of overs batted for staving off a defeat in a test. Highest being Eng Vs SA test in '99 at Durban when Eng batted for 209 overs. Famous for Atherton's 185* against Donald and co.

Surprisingly all 4 instances have been recorded in last 10 years.

England batted for 218 overs in the 4th innings of the "timeless test"