His failures in NZ in 2009 isn't because of the swinging ball. I'm always amused that people qualify Gambhir's success on that tour as due to the flat wickets and Sehwag's failure as due to the swinging and seaming conditions :D. So which is it ?
His other tour to NZ in 2002 was that rather infamous series in which the batsmen on both sides failed.
I think India's next round of tours in 2013/2014 (to RSA, England, NZ and AUstralia) are gonna be crucial in judging how he is ultimately viewed. .
He has the innate ability (contrary to what a lot of his detractors think) to score runs on picthes where their is some juice for the seamers - he showed it at Bloiemforntein in 2001 , Trent Bridge 2002 and Chennai 2004). Question is how badly does he want the success ?
NZ 2002 were classical NZ pitches made infamous by Ganguly's incessant whinging. Batsmen with quality defensive techniques like Dravid and Richardson scored runs.
NZ 2009 was flaaaaaat, and Sehwag failed because he's weird and I think Vettori may have been the one getting him as well, and Vettori loves batsmen who take him on.
Seriously, 2009 had some of the flattest pitches I've seen in this country. We basically rolled out the red carpet for the Indian batting for whatever reason when we should have produced some green tops to show Ganguly what one was and bring the Indian batting down to our level and make it a battle of the bowlers.
No doubt, but New Zealanders who weren't Taylor, Ryder or Vettori were going collapse regardless of the pitch conditions. At least on a green top you can dent the Indian batting averages somewhat.
And Phlegm is also wrong in his timeframe. Since 2007 our pitches both in Tests and domestic matches have been far flatter than they had been historically. Not 2009.
2009 was the worst.
You're only saying that because Gambhir batted for 50 days and there was great famine in CD.
India could have won that 2002 series if Srinath played the tests.