At which venues can New Zealand beat India in Tests over a series of 3-5 matches?

[Jay]

1. Ind
2. Nz.
3. Eng
4. Sa
5. Aus
6. Wi.
7. Sl.
8. UAE.
9. Ban
10. Zim

 

i would say nz. in england over 4 test series its 50 50 imo. everywhere else india wins. 

so much for fake world number 1. oh wait. thats gone now.

[sandeep]

Nothing's 'gone'.

 

They beat us, fair and square in the WTC test match.

 

Yes, the conditions were favorable and home-like for them.  But they didn't pick the venue.

 

Stop being bitter.

 

Are India a more wellrounded test team? Arguably.  But if we are being honest, India should have won at least a test match in NZ.  Which we failed to do.

 

 

[Lord]

nowhere

 

Thats why they play 2 match series even at home.

[Jay]

48 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Nothing's 'gone'.

 

They beat us, fair and square in the WTC test match.

 

Yes, the conditions were favorable and home-like for them.  But they didn't pick the venue.

 

Stop being bitter.

 

Are India a more wellrounded test team? Arguably.  But if we are being honest, India should have won at least a test match in NZ.  Which we failed to do.

 

 

we had no prep though. they did play 2 games prior to the final. Fair enough they beat us. Not disputing how they won but there is an Asterix to that win. 

I agree india should have won one game in n.z but then again we failed to play tour games and make right selection calls. 

 

[Jay]

24 minutes ago, Lord said:

nowhere

 

Thats why they play 2 match series even at home.

nha they beat us in n.z in a 4 test series for sure. In england its 50 50. india have the ability to do well there depending on selections. we are certainly better in australia and s.africa. even in 2003 WC, we beat them in s.africa iirc in odi semi final. 

[zen]

Anywhere in SENA where conditions are more or less pace/seamer friendly, while assisting quality spin as well ... Despite the resources both in terms of money and abundance of cricketers, India remains dependent on spin friendly surfaces, hindering its growth as a most conditions team. One can understand a SL with its majority of cricketers coming from around the Colombo area (limited resources) to "rely" on "such things". 

 

British made China addicted to opium but China got past it. India is still addicted to cricket, many claiming it a religion, without even having a deep understanding of either sports or religion. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by zen

[Lord]

23 minutes ago, Jay said:

nha they beat us in n.z in a 4 test series for sure. In england its 50 50. india have the ability to do well there depending on selections. we are certainly better in australia and s.africa. even in 2003 WC, we beat them in s.africa iirc in odi semi final. 

 

If we can come back in Aus,we can surely do that in NZ. Don't forget NZ qualified for WTC final only because Aus was penalised for overrate,it was not on performance.

 

Even in England we are leading 2-1 after 4 Tests

[Jay]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

Anywhere in SENA where conditions are more or less pace/seamer friendly, while assisting quality spin as well ... Despite the resources both in terms of money and abundance of cricketers, India remains dependent on spin friendly surfaces, hindering its growth as a most conditions team. One can understand a SL with its majority of cricketers coming from around the Colombo area (limited resources) to "rely" on "such things". 

 

British made China addicted to opium but China got past it. India is still addicted to cricket, many claiming it a religion, without even having a deep understanding of either sports or religion. 

n.z have won how many tests exactly in s.africa , australia and india in their history?

Even in england, i believe its like 4 or 5 at best. 

 

Apart from n.z, i think its fairly close even in england. one of WTC excluded.

india's current bowling is the better attack in aussie and s.african conditions. 

[sandeep]

32 minutes ago, Jay said:

we had no prep though. they did play 2 games prior to the final.

 

How is any of that NZ's 'fault'? 

 

32 minutes ago, Jay said:

Fair enough they beat us. Not disputing how they won but there is an Asterix to that win. 

 

By that logic, there should be an asterix next to every win.  What about India's 1983 WC win?  Or India's famous test victory in Kolkata after followon? 

 

32 minutes ago, Jay said:

I agree india should have won one game in n.z but then again we failed to play tour games and make right selection calls. 

 

Again, a lot more whingy excuse making for things that have nothing to do with NZ - if you are good enough find ways to win.  You can't claim credit for winning in Australia with a 2nd XI, and in the same breath make excuses for losing in NZ with self-inflicted 'selection' mistakes.

 

 

This sort of low expectation, excuse making is what allows the INdian team 'seniors' to get away without accountability. 

 

To the extent that Virat is finally being 'relieved' of captaincy duties after years and years of underperformance, and folks are out there complaining about it.

Edited December 9, 2021 by sandeep

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

n.z have won how many tests exactly in s.africa , australia and india in their history?

Even in england, i believe its like 4 or 5 at best. 

 

Apart from n.z, i think its fairly close even in england. one of WTC excluded.

india's current bowling is the better attack in aussie and s.african conditions. 

How many series has India won in SA?

 

 

Pehle jeeto, phir brag karo.  

 

Banjo, trying to flex and diminish NZ's WTC victory, is meaningless.

[Chakdephatte]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Nothing's 'gone'.

 

They beat us, fair and square in the WTC test match.

 

Yes, the conditions were favorable and home-like for them.  But they didn't pick the venue.

 

Stop being bitter.

 

Is India a more well-rounded test team? Arguably.  But if we are being honest, India should have won at least a test match in NZ.  Which we failed to do.

Not sure about him but I wouldn't have complained if we had lost to England in the final. It's a fact that New Zealand was not even the third-best team of the WTC cycle. India>England>Australia>NZ. If not for Australia forfeiting SA tour, NZ might not have qualified, they always had an outside chance. That being said, India wouldn't have won against any opponent that day, Kohli's luck in finals is too bad.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Chakdephatte

[Jay]

10 minutes ago, sandeep said:

How many series has India won in SA?

 

 

Pehle jeeto, phir brag karo.  

 

Banjo, trying to flex and diminish NZ's WTC victory, is meaningless.

They wouldn't be in the final in the first place had Aussies toured saffers. Do I need to remind you what happened when phony number 1 travelled to Australia? 

How many games has Kiwis won in s Africa let alone series wins. How many games? 

India have competed well vs s Africa post 2000. 

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

Not sure about him but I wouldn't have complained if we had lost to England in the final. It's a fact that New Zealand was not even the third-best team of the WTC cycle. India>England>Australia>NZ. If not for Australia forfeiting SA tour, NZ might not have qualified, they always had an outside chance. That being said, India wouldn't have won against any opponent that day, Kohli's luck in finals is too bad.

 

I don't want to pin this on you -  but this smacks of a specific desi mentality of hierarchy - NZ somehow is seen as a 'lower calibre' team that won the WTC due to xyz reasons and they are not "better" than India.

 

BullShit.  Absolute and utter stinking bullshit. 

 

Did conditions favor the NZ style of test cricket more than India? Sure.  Do India possess the capability to be competitive in those conditions.  Yes.  But they. failed. to. deliver.

 

And lost to a team that played better than them.  Comfortably spanked them even with rain delays robbing time.  

 

If you want to make arguments that 'scheduling' favored NZ, similar arguments can be made that India didn't drop WTC points by playing Pakistan  in their home or in the UAE and benefited from that.  

 

Bottomline - NZ got to the WTC final as fairly as India did.  They didn't pick the venue - they have far less clout in the ICC than India does - which used its ICC clout to ensure that avoiding Pakistan in test cricket does not cost them any penalties.  

 

NZ spanked Indian team in the WTC final test.  And are the defending WTC champions.  Deservedly so.  

 

This thread is overflowing with sour grapes and pathetic crybaby energy.

[Jay]

10 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

Not sure about him but I wouldn't have complained if we had lost to England in the final. It's a fact that New Zealand was not even the third-best team of the WTC cycle. India>England>Australia>NZ. If not for Australia forfeiting SA tour, NZ might not have qualified, they always had an outside chance. That being said, India wouldn't have won against any opponent that day, Kohli's luck in finals is too bad.

Last part Is true. We will lose in finals under kohli vs any decent side unless we win the toss. Even then it'd questionable since we lost to Pakistan of all teams in 2017 champions trophy albeit in a different format. 

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

They wouldn't be in the final in the first place had Aussies toured saffers. Do I need to remind you what happened when phony number 1 travelled to Australia? 

How many games has Kiwis won in s Africa let alone series wins. How many games? 

India have competed well vs s Africa post 2000. 

India wouldn't be in the WTC final in the first place if they had been penalized for avoiding Pakistan in test cricket.

 

Or if they had to play Pakistan and dropped some points in that series.

 

That "if but" game can be played both ways.

[sensible-indian]

A lot of times LUCK is needed to win important games.

 

So lets leave it at that.

 

Had Paine taken even a single catch of Pant, Aus would have easily won the BGT 2020.

 

He grassed soooo many.

[Jay]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

India wouldn't be in the WTC final in the first place if they had been penalized for avoiding Pakistan in test cricket.

 

Or if they had to play Pakistan and dropped some points in that series.

 

That "if but" game can be played both ways.

What top side did they beat away in that WTc cycle? They beat Aussies? Saffers? India? Or England? They dint deserve **** tbh. I am all for a game vs pakistan. However that situation is out of our hands due to political issues. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Jay

[Jay]

10 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

A lot of times LUCK is needed to win important games.

 

So lets leave it at that.

 

Had Paine taken even a single catch of Pant, Aus would have easily won the BGT 2020.

 

He grassed soooo many.

I can also say that we dropped so many of bumrah. Marnus was out on 20 and Smith was dropped at 30 etc. We won fair and square. 

Besides their team was fatigued. Lot of the dropped catches happened when they were clearly fatigued. Dint happen early except for that one chance off Pant which was extremely difficult. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Jay

[Lone Wolf]

I'd love to see WTC final being played in Joburg.  That's a true neutral venue imo. 

NZ will start favorites in England & NZ.  It can go either way in South Africa. 

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, Jay said:

What top side did they beat away in that WTc cycle? They beat Aussies? Saffers? India? Or England? They dint deserve **** tbh. I am all for a game vs pakistan. However that situation is out of our hands due to political issues. 

 

 

You want to examine NZ's path to the WTC final, while simultaneously make excuses for the breaks and penalty avoidances that India got.   This is a petty and one-eyed mindset.

 

Mind you, I am well aware of NZ's limitations as a test unit, and its not wrong to assert that India's a stronger test team overall with a longer series, or more 'neutral' conditions.  But its childish, and to be blunt foolish to overdo it and claim NZ aren't 'deserving' WTC champions.