Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

150 might could make a classic.

NZ wrap up India quickly, 132 to win.

Could be a tense couple of hours.

69-0, and the NZ openers are calming the tension.

I think we can feel a bit less bad about England losing in NZ, when the number 1 team in the world are about to go down 2-0.

Well that was easy in the end for NZ.

Great effort for NZ to beat an India side who won in Australia not long ago. Bowlers on top in both games, so well done to Tom Latham for a couple of tough fifties.

Curiously the six top run scorers in the series were each side's top three. That on green pitches.

Kohli averaged under ten with a top score of 19, which must be his career low.

Wonderful work from NZ-Tim and Trent Boult with 25 wickets between them. Handy wickets from Jamieson too.

When a pitch spins on Day 1 a fair bit, people always take note and criticize a pitch. When a pitch has 1.3cms of live grass on the top at the toss, and the test is all but rendered over in the 2nd session of day 2, does anyone care? If I went to play in village cricket on a surface with so much grass on it, I would think it inadequate for such a standard, the fact we are getting these pitches in TEST cricket is an abomination. People will have their own view, but the legacy of this series to me is one that points to everything wrong with test cricket. This series was a mouthwatering prospect; a very good team with home conditions playing the worlds best. We should have got close test matches, not a one sided 10 wicket landslide and a test that was over before its halfway point.

But how do we expect close test matches when you prepare pitches designed especially to favour the home team dramatically? The first test venue had been a road for a decade, India come to town and all of a sudden the pitch turns into something that seams all over, swings and have variable bounce on day 1. 2nd test, the same. When England came to Hagley Oval, they got their only 350 plus score in an age on a flat deck. Australia came and made over 500 on a docile pitch. India come and get confronted with more green than the Amazon Jungle.

If we want competitive tests between top teams then we need to start questioning these home banker pitches everyone produces. No one seems to care now, but when the Kiwi's turn up in India and get a track turning at right angles on Day 1 in revenge, I expect lots of people will trot out the stereoptypes.

1.3 cms of live grass?!?! Seriously, the ICC should be stripping test status from grounds that produce such pitches. I say ground, is Hagley Oval even a ground? Isnt it just a pitch in the middle of a park?

India have the best batting side in the world and a world class pace attack. They had the potential to adapt to different pitches. Everyone expects help for the bowlers on day one and a green wicket, and an easier pitch as the game progresses. The games that sides scored well on started on green pitches. They all do. You're not out of it after a poor first day in NZ.

I agree that there is a problem with home sides exaggerating their advantage, which all sides are guilty of.

Shaw got out to a bouncer that was thundering into his throat; Rahane got out to a similar ;length and paced bouncer that hit his stumps after coming off the pitch a long way and completely dying; I would love to know how you would adapt your batting to compensate for 3 feet of variable bounce.

India had a first innings lead in this test. They had a great chance to win this test.

After the completion of the first innings this test match was even. India blew it in the third innings, or NZ won it. Depends on how one looks at it.

Haven't heard Kohli complaining...

India led - narrowly on first innings. Pitch wasn't easy late on day two but it wasn't unplayable : NZ bowled really well...India didn't bat to their usual level at all. Like a lot of teams these days they failed to grit it out when the bowlers were on a roll. Yes the game finished early which isn't ideal but frankly I'd rather have that than a five day bore draw.was the pitch a bit too bowler friendly ? Probably yes but I'd suggest there are far more that err the other way so about time the bowlers got a bit going their way.

If it hadn't been for Jamieson and Wagner with the bat on day two the result might well have been different.

alfie wrote: Like a lot of teams these days they failed to grit it out when the bowlers were on a roll

This is just a vague cliche that makes no sense.

Was Agarwal lacking in bravery and desire when Boult got him out, or was he just hit on the pad by a ball that, when halfway down the track, was missing a second set of stumps before pitching and seaming like a vicious off spinner? Was Shaw missing "grit" when he got a short ball that seamed into his body? Was Rahane then lacking grit when he played a pretty similar ball and it seamed the other way and bounced 3 feet less? I'd love to have known how a gritty batsman would have played the ball Pujara got out to. Obviously it wasnt the fact it swung in 2 yards then seamed about the same, just a simple lack of desire, right?

The great innings are played on bowlers' pitches. With the exception of the tail giving it a whack and getting away with it, the batters make their reputation in these conditions. Latham and Blundell put on 103 for the first wicket chasing, getting a fifty each. Latham got a fifty in the first innings. I bet when they look back they will value those above some hundreds.

I accept that uneven bounce isn't good, but this was a game where both sides scored over 230 in the first innings. Suggesting batting wasn't impossible. India lost the game in the third innings.

The fact is, test cricket should reward good play from both batsman and bowlers. Once the pitch makes the ball react to the point that good judgement no longer has an currency, then its a surface that is unfit for purpose. The best batsman out of either team came out in the second innings, got three pretty identical inswingers, one seamed and hit the edge on a 4th stump line, one he tucked off his pads on leg stump, the third got him out on a middle stump line. How do you expect a batsman to play that ball? How can you fault him for making a mistake? To do so would be like saying he should be able to change shot in 0.1 seconds, which isnt possible.

The fact is, batting on a surface like this rewarded luck and not skill.

Hey I didn't mean to imply a lack of courage! You don't get to play at that level without a bit of guts ; and India have plenty.

But they failed to do what was needed : that is a fact. Like a lot of teams.failure of application , failure of execution , call it what you want.

I'm not looking for a fight here but I am getting a little tired of the your dismissive reaction whenever anyone has the temerity to disagree with you, Sussex.

India are deservedly the best team around at the moment . But they've been well beaten by NZ in this series and I think it is a bit unfair to try and diminish that achievement by blaming it all on home team skulduggery and unfair pitches.

alfie wrote:Hey I didn't mean to imply a lack of courage!

What you meant to imply is irrelevant; you used a word that expressly relates to someones lack of courage in times of adversity.

alfie wrote:I'm not looking for a fight here but I am getting a little tired of the your dismissive reaction whenever anyone has the temerity to disagree with you, Sussex.

Far from disagreeing, the point in direct contention is something we actually subsequently agree on. You seem to be taking offence at me dismissing a point that one post later, you also dismissed out of hand. I am not telepathic, so I have to take the meaning of the words you choose to use at face value; if you say India "lacked grit", then how am I to know you are using the term not to relate to courage when the actual meaning is very specific to it? You have ended up providing a contradictory argument where you are both arguing for, and totally against, the same thing. And then a being offended by "dismissive reaction". I am not sure I get where you are coming from.