The Zennith of each test side

[jeevan]

India beating Australia after following on thanks to VVS Laxman was truly brilliant. Probably one of the best moments in Indian test cricket history I've witnessed.

Defeating Australia in Adelaide in 2003 after Rahul Dravid scored 233 and Ajit Agarkar took 6/41 was a terrific moment as well.

Perth win in 2007-8 >>> Adelaide of 2003-4 for mine. Same batting hero, although a much more vulnerable one who gave an exemplary out-of-form performance based on will alone, and the bowling hero was the whole unit bowling their heart out every single over. (and after the top two first choice bowlers were out injured).

The series backdrop was more dramatic too - abject first test performance in part to pathetic tour planning, a gut-wrenching second test loss and Perth being the 'safe' ground for the home team.

 

[Richard]

You know how many teams apart from West Indies had taken a Test off Australia at The WACA before India last summer?

Just one - New Zealand in 1985/86.

That win truly was pretty remarkable, much as that WACA wicket wasn't entirely classic-WACA stuff.

However, on the RP Singh \ Agarkar comparison - enjoyed Agarkar's performance more myself.

 

[Craig]

That Test in Perth in India's tour showed that Irfan Pathan and Virender Sehwag are two of the greatest bowlers ever.

 

[subshakerz]

For Pakistan, it's easy. Beating India and England in their home bases for the first time in 87 before coming within an umpire's decision of beating West Indies away in 88.

 

[Goughy]

In 1979/80, West Indies toured New Zealand. It's become accepted as pretty much historical fact - I've never heard any Kiwis offer much denial - that the home Umpiring favoured the home team to a very large extent. Some claim bias, some claim incompetance - personally I don't really care, bad decisions are bad decisions. Colin Croft might have been exaggerating just a bit when he said they had to get each NZ batsman 3 times before he was on his way back to the pavilion, but you get the gist.

And NZ won the only one of the three Tests with a result by 1 wicket. So I think we can fairly accurately say that WI were basically cheated out of the series.

Ive watched a fair bit of footage of that series (though obviously not close to comprehensive) and WI were not cheated. They were frustrated by the spoiling tactics of NZ and took their frustrations out in other areas.

They behaved like babies. Appeals for things that were not close. Im sure decisions may have gone wrong, I didnt see every ball, but WI behaviour wasnt in proportion.

When Croft threw his toys out of the pram it was due to being no-balled. His back foot cut the crease every ball. He should have been called for more. In fact the umpire had been doing him a favour by letting him off on a number of occasions. As they had also done by letting them get away with ultra aggressive and intimidating cricket.

Croft obviously didnt know the rules or had no respect for the game. Or both. He broke the rule and thought he was being cheated. WI as a team came down hard on the Umpires and then Croft charged into the Umpire.

WI were also getting angry at decisions not going their way that were not remotely close to being out.

Terrible cricket and WI need to be seen for what they were in that series, which were bullies and thugs rather than victims.

I love how WI behave like the biggest ****s ever on a cricket field and then try and deflect attention onto the umpires. Everytime I see that footage I feel sick

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying West Indies' behaviour wasn't appalling in all those ways you state. I'm not saying Croft was remotely in the right in his antics through the course of the series. There were, of course, several other occasions over the course of the '76 to '86 decade where West Indies' behaviour was appalling - never more than the Sabina Park and Old Trafford Tests of '76. Colin Croft in particular is actually a bowler I've generally had little but contempt for as he constantly pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in several ways. I'm glad I don't have to acknowledge him as anything other than someone who was good for a very short time. I'm glad I can put him comfortably behind the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall, Walsh and Ambrose as seamers. Despite the fact he seems to have mellowed a bit and is tolerable as a commentator, though someone who Brian Lara has always had little time for.

However, I am saying that if the Umpiring had been of good standard in that 1979/80 series, and "out" decisions which should have been given were, then West Indies would have won it. Regardless of how awful their behaviour was, had correct decisions been made they'd have won.

I'm also rather surprised you've seen filmed footage from said series as I never even knew any existed - else, obviously, we'd be able to say with more than guesswork whether there truly was the number of poor decisions in New Zealand's favour that rumour has always had it there were. About the only thing I've ever seen from it are a few stationary pictures, most notably the famous one of Holding kicking the stumps. Where did this footage come from, and is it of the normal format?

 

[Goughy]

I'm not saying West Indies' behaviour wasn't appalling in all those ways you state. I'm not saying Croft was remotely in the right in his antics through the course of the series. There were, of course, several other occasions over the course of the '76 to '86 decade where West Indies' behaviour was appalling - never more than the Sabina Park and Old Trafford Tests of '76. Colin Croft in particular is a bowler I've generally had little but contempt for as he constantly pushed the boundaries of what was acceptible in several ways. I'm glad I don't have to acknowledge him as anything other than someone who was good for a very short time. I'm glad I can put him comfortably behind the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall, Walsh and Ambrose.

However, I am saying that if the Umpiring had been of good standard in that 1979/80 series, and "out" decisions which should have been given were, then they would have won it. Regardless of how awful their behaviour was, had correct decisions been made they'd have won.

I'm also rather surprised you've seen footage from said series as I never even knew any existed - else, obviously, we'd be able to say with more than guesswork whether there truly was the number of poor decisions in New Zealand's favour that rumour has always had it there were. Where did this footage come from, and is it of the normal format?

A lot of the stuff WI were getting angry about is clearly not out in footage. How they behaved on this tour was THE WORST ever seen in a Test match. If you watch how they treated and abused the umpires then it will open your eyes.

They were not cheated. They got a seige mentality and saw ghosts where there were not any and allowed situations to get out of control. Then used that as a false excuse for their behavior.

 

[Zinzan]

In 1979/80, West Indies toured New Zealand. It's become accepted as pretty much historical fact - I've never heard any Kiwis offer much denial - that the home Umpiring favoured the home team to a very large extent. Some claim bias, some claim incompetance - personally I don't really care, bad decisions are bad decisions. Colin Croft might have been exaggerating just a bit when he said they had to get each NZ batsman 3 times before he was on his way back to the pavilion, but you get the gist.

And NZ won the only one of the three Tests with a result by 1 wicket. So I think we can fairly accurately say that WI were basically cheated out of the series.

Dangerous territory suggesting that my friend. Don't try and make out that this NZ v WI series was an exception in terms of poor (or biased) umpiring, when any cricket fan worth his or her salt knows that the home side almost always had the better of umpiring decisions before Neutral umpires came along, with English umpires being the notable exception.

The West Indies lost that series which they should never have lost due to combination of many things, not just bad umpiring decision. Its the way they reacted to a few bad decisions, the performances of Hadlee and the way they reacted to be put under pressure to name a few.

If you want to argue the series may have been influenced by a few bad decisions thats fine, but to suggest they were basically cheated out of the series is going over the top, especially given you didn't see much of that series and also considering it was the same for almost every touring side pre neutral umpires and just came with the tertitory.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyways NZ between 1984-1988 was their "Zennith" period

 

[Richard]

Dangerous territory suggesting that my friend. Don't try and make out that this NZ v WI series was an exception in terms of poor (or biased) umpiring, when any cricket fan worth his or her salt knows that the home side almost always had the better of umpiring decisions before Neutral umpires came along, with English umpires being the notable exception.

The West Indies lost that series which they should never have lost due to combination of many things, not just bad umpiring decision. Its the way they reacted to a few bad decisions, the performances of Hadlee and the way they reacted to be put under pressure to name a few.

If you want to argue the series may have been influenced by a few bad decisions thats fine, but to suggest they were basically cheated out of the series is going over the top, especially given you didn't see much of that series and also considering it was the same for almost every touring side pre neutral umpires and just came with the tertitory.

Of course home-helpful home Umpires were a common effect, I certainly wasn't saying that '79/80 series was an oasis in a desert. But the stuff I've read about it suggests it was worse than normal in that case. Not that New Zealand did nothing right and had the series gifted to them by their Umpires, certainly not - they had several fine performances. But simply that had Umpiring been done properly, West Indies would have won the series.

As I say - the fact that the single Test which had a result was a one-wicket victory in which there were numerous complaints about Umpiring decisons (some of which may have been fair enough complaints, some not fair enough) means it'd take next to nothing to flip the result on its head.

 

[howardj]

Zenith, as far as I'm aware, has only one 'n'

 

[Craig]

Ive watched a fair bit of footage of that series (though obviously not close to comprehensive) and WI were not cheated. They were frustrated by the spoiling tactics of NZ and took their frustrations out in other areas.

They behaved like babies. Appeals for things that were not close. Im sure decisions may have gone wrong, I didnt see every ball, but WI behaviour wasnt in proportion.

When Croft threw his toys out of the pram it was due to being no-balled. His back foot cut the crease every ball. He should have been called for more. In fact the umpire had been doing him a favour by letting him off on a number of occasions. As they had also done by letting them get away with ultra aggressive and intimidating cricket.

Croft obviously didnt know the rules or had no respect for the game. Or both. He broke the rule and thought he was being cheated. WI as a team came down hard on the Umpires and then Croft charged into the Umpire.

WI were also getting angry at decisions not going their way that were not remotely close to being out.

Terrible cricket and WI need to be seen for what they were in that series, which were bullies and thugs rather than victims.

I love how WI behave like the biggest ****s ever on a cricket field and then try and deflect attention onto the umpires. Everytime I see that footage I feel sick

Not to forget Michael Holding kicking the stump down. Any rugby fly half would of been proud of that follow-through.

 

[Richard]

Zenith, as far as I'm aware, has only one 'n'

Ahem...

'Twas in 1984 (in England) and 1986 (in West Indies) TBH. In 1976 they hammered us but were unable to win the opening 2 Tests. And I'm fairly sure zenith only has one "n".

 

[howardj]

Ahem...

Good pick up mate. I would expect nothing less.

 

[Craig]

Not to forget Michael Holding kicking the stump down. Any rugby fly half would of been proud of that follow-through.

Bah you idiot I didn't see Richard's post. Ignore it.

 

[social]

Interesting interviews on 79/80 series

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/241985.html

Amongst other things, it makes you wonder why Symonds copped all the grief for not walking in Sydney

 

[Goughy]

Croft should have been banned for a long time and he is still acting like an idiot about it.

 

[Craig]

Lawrence Rowe is quoted as saying that the West Indies could of fielded a 3rd XI and was still better.

 

[Flem274*]

Ya reckon the Indians will still be pissed about Bucknor (Isn't he West Indian? Love the irony) in 20 years time?

Symonds should be still sending him Christmas cards then.

 

[wpdavid]

Not a glorious episode. I can't argue with anything that's been written about Lloyd & Croft, not least because I've made the same points about Lloyd in previous discussions. But Goodall doesn't come out of it at all well, especially the post match stuff that's mentioned in the interviews. Nice euphamism by one of the NZ press guys describing the umpiring as 'ordinary'.