***Official*** India in New Zealand 2020

[Burgey]

You play us in NZ. We're bloody dynamite here.

SA beat us here in 2016/17, Australia in 15/16, other than that we haven't been beaten at home since Hesson took over in 2012. 15 series, by my count.

Would you like to play Starc, Cummins and Haze on decks where it's seaming and swinging? I'd have thought it would be a nightmare.

 

[DriveClub]

With a quick glance, going back to 2018, the percentages of series resulting in clean sweeps:

2 match series: 53% of series were clean sweeps
4/5 match series: 0% of series were clean sweeps

edit: I went back a few more years and it stays about the same, if anything the % of 2 match series that had a 2-0 result increases even more.

It is pretty apparent that with the system under discussion it is much easier to get more points if you play shorter series. Now the cause is somewhat debatable, ie. is it just correlation and the result of the more competitive teams playing longer series against each other? (given the huge difference in the numbers it seems highly likely that there is causation there)

Regardless of the cause though it doesn't change the fact that teams that play longer Test series will have a harder time accumulating as many points as those playing a majority of shorter series

again I apologise if I've ignored the context here a bit but just thought it was an interesting exercise anyway

India and Australia are impossible to beat at home (at full strength). If they start playing 5 test home series its just easy points. Guarantee they will be in every final. Only England will give them competition because they play 100 tests a year

 

[sphynx]

You play us in NZ. We're bloody dynamite here.

SA beat us here in 2016/17, Australia in 15/16, other than that we haven't been beaten at home since Hesson took over in 2012. 15 series, by my count.

Yeah,

You've also not beaten Australia in a series in NZ in 30 years and never beaten South Africa in NZ in a series ever, the two best exponents of fast bowling historically in the last 25 years. He has a point, what you faced a few months ago would get dialed up a notch on your home decks. Your saving grace is you simply barely play Aus or SAF at home. I mean, Australia hasn't beaten SAF in a series in Australia in 12 years and that's just about Mt.Everest for most visiting nations.....

Cummins on a seaming deck like that one at Christchurch would be near unplayable given where he put's 95% of his ball groupings.


Pretty much all of Aus/NZ/SAF/Eng have great records at home against the asian countries. Likewise the Asian countries have great records against those countries on their own turning decks.


You've played 68% of your home matches in that period against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, WI and Zimbabwe.

It's a fairly skewed statistic.

 

[honestbharani]

lol ok. I'm sorry for not following everyone of his interviews, I obviously know nothing. Nah, lets be real here, I don't disagree with your assessment of Kohli taking immense pride in Test cricket and being competitive etc. but to think he's not prone to the odd bout of arrogance and petulance on the field is another thing. A lot of the time those reasons (not saying it's being used here like that) IE "ultra competitive" are used to justify being a dick. Kohli is brash and aggressive, sometimes it spills over. It's ok. No ones saying he's an evil dictator with no soul (that would be Shastri lol).

Lol @ you trying to make a point with no basis and defending it. He is obviously prone to bouts of arrogance on the field but except for his very first series in Australia, I have not seen any hint of the kind of petulance you will need to make a statement like that. Every champion cricketer has been arrogant and petulant at one time or the other, except KW, bless him. I mean, the guy never stooped to saying such things in his worst away tours where he was heckled both by the opposition cricketers and their fans and when he was much younger, I do not see him saying such stuff now. And the lack of proof and the kind of online sources reporting this, shows it is just clickbait false BS more than anything else, AFAIC.

 

[TheJediBrah]

India and Australia are impossible to beat at home (at full strength). If they start playing 5 test home series its just easy points. Guarantee they will be in every final. Only England will give them competition because they play 100 tests a year

Well, no. It would be easier points if they played 2 and 3 match series. Isn't that what we're discussing? They're much more likely to get full points from shorter series

 

[Athlai]

Well, no. It would be easier points if they played 2 and 3 match series. Isn't that what we're discussing? They're much more likely to get full points from shorter series

Yeah

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah,

You've also not beaten Australia in a series in NZ in 30 years and never beaten South Africa in NZ in a series ever, the two best exponents of fast bowling historically in the last 25 years. He has a point, what you faced a few months ago would get dialed up a notch on your home decks. Your saving grace is you simply barely play Aus or SAF at home. I mean, Australia hasn't beaten SAF in a series in Australia in 12 years and that's just about Mt.Everest for most visiting nations.....

Cummins on a seaming deck like that one at Christchurch would be near unplayable given where he put's 95% of his ball groupings.


Pretty much all of Aus/NZ/SAF/Eng have great records at home against the asian countries. Likewise the Asian countries have great records against those countries on their own turning decks.


You've played 68% of your home matches in that period against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, WI and Zimbabwe.

It's a fairly skewed statistic.

Tbh, I'd back NZ to beat SA fairly comfortably at home at the moment. 3 years ago when they were fielding a considerably stronger side than the current one, they had to rely on rain to save them from losing to an NZ team missing Southee, Boult and Taylor.

Australia would be favourites, but the difference you have to appreciate is that I just don't see Australia running up 400+ scores every time like they did at home (or in 2015/16 for that matter). But yeah, Cummins and Hazlewood have the skills to wreak havoc in NZ, and unlike Broanderson actually know how to bowl with the Kookaburra.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia would be favourites, but the difference you have to appreciate is that I just don't see Australia running up 400+ scores every time like they did at home

Why? They've never had an issue in the past

 

[DriveClub]

Well, no. It would be easier points if they played 2 and 3 match series. Isn't that what we're discussing? They're much more likely to get full points from shorter series

I was posting if points were awarded per test win, I couldn't keep up with whats being argued

 

[TheJediBrah]

I was posting if points were awarded per test win, I couldn't keep up with whats being argued

I don't think anyone is advocating purely for that. That would be stupid unless everyone played the same amount of Tests.

 

[SteveNZ]

Would you like to play Starc, Cummins and Haze on decks where it's seaming and swinging? I'd have thought it would be a nightmare.

No, we’d be second favourites for sure. My post was in response to someone saying how did India ever lose to NZ or whatever it was.

But hey apparently 68% of games were against teams of those five someone randomly posted. Leaving out England who we’ve beaten in that time too.

My point was we are an effing good Test side.

 

[Howsie]

Yeah,

You've also not beaten Australia in a series in NZ in 30 years and never beaten South Africa in NZ in a series ever, the two best exponents of fast bowling historically in the last 25 years. He has a point, what you faced a few months ago would get dialed up a notch on your home decks. Your saving grace is you simply barely play Aus or SAF at home. I mean, Australia hasn't beaten SAF in a series in Australia in 12 years and that's just about Mt.Everest for most visiting nations.....

Cummins on a seaming deck like that one at Christchurch would be near unplayable given where he put's 95% of his ball groupings.


Pretty much all of Aus/NZ/SAF/Eng have great records at home against the asian countries. Likewise the Asian countries have great records against those countries on their own turning decks.


You've played 68% of your home matches in that period against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, WI and Zimbabwe.

It's a fairly skewed statistic.

Huh? When was the last time Zimbabwe toured New Zealand, 2012? England have been here for three test tours since that time.....

Talk about misleading information

 

[Moss]

Huh? When was the last time Zimbabwe toured New Zealand, 2012? England have been here for three test tours since that time.....

Talk about misleading information

Zimbabwe aside, that information was not wholly untrue, a good chunk of home domination did happen thanks to a disproportionate number of visits from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Windes. Not NZ's fault that Australia and South Africa visits hardly ever take place (well, not the players' fault at any rate).

But I think NZ winning their last 2 home series against each of England and India should be a fair enough indicator of how good NZ have been at home.

 

[Howsie]

Zimbabwe aside, that information was not wholly untrue, a good chunk of home domination did happen thanks to a disproportionate number of visits from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Windes. Not NZ's fault that Australia and South Africa visits hardly ever take place (well, not the players' fault at any rate).

But I think NZ winning their last 2 home series against each of England and India should be a fair enough indicator of how good NZ have been at home.

Yeah I realise that, but including Zimbabwe in that little stat and leaving out England really makes it seem like he has an agenda.

 

[Flem274*]

sphynx is the rare idiot of the aussie posters. best to just ignore.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Huh? When was the last time Zimbabwe toured New Zealand, 2012? England have been here for three test tours since that time.....

Talk about misleading information

How is it misleading information? He's talking about percentages of matches played at home. Whether or not he puts Zimbabwe in there would hardly make any difference because, as you mentioned, they've hardly toured. If anything it would be more misleading if he hadn't included Zimbabwe. I'm not sure you understand what his point was.

Yeah I realise that, but including Zimbabwe in that little stat and leaving out England really makes it seem like he has an agenda.

how would doing that suit any agenda?

 

[Flem274*]

While I think the gist of this post is somewhat accurate, in the context of getting clean sweeps and hence more points from the system under discussion I don't think it's true at all.

If you ran the numbers comparing the percentage of clean sweeps of 2 match series to those in 4 or 5 match series I would bet my house that the 2 match series have a much higher frequency of clean sweeps

edit: if I have misinterpreted the context then I apologise

With a quick glance, going back to 2018, the percentages of series resulting in clean sweeps:

2 match series: 53% of series were clean sweeps
4/5 match series: 0% of series were clean sweeps

edit: I went back a few more years and it stays about the same, if anything the % of 2 match series that had a 2-0 result increases even more.

It is pretty apparent that with the system under discussion it is much easier to get more points if you play shorter series. Now the cause is somewhat debatable, ie. is it just correlation and the result of the more competitive teams playing longer series against each other? (given the huge difference in the numbers it seems highly likely that there is causation there)

Regardless of the cause though it doesn't change the fact that teams that play longer Test series will have a harder time accumulating as many points as those playing a majority of shorter series

again I apologise if I've ignored the context here a bit but just thought it was an interesting exercise anyway

these stats don't surprise me tbh given the clean sweeps (the ashes, a few indian series) were earlier in the decade.

quite often the dominated side escaped with a draw or even in one case a random win (india in england) in those 4-5 test domination series too, and 3-0 in a 4 test series (or 4-0 in a 5 test series) still supports my overall point that once the ball got rolling it was hard to stop. will not be buying any narrative change about the 'competitiveness' of big 3 series last decade.

even if it is proven shorter series are easier to win convincingly, there are only 3 boards to blame. they're in no moral position to claim all the games, money and points too. would make the wtc as credible as the t20 champions league.

sucks for the fans though, who are ultimately expected to pay money to watch this lumbering event. if the boards are prepared to swallow their pride and do a proper league (that includes the likes of nz hosting bangers or ireland for 3 tests) then this can work and be really good imo.

 

[TheJediBrah]

these stats don't surprise me tbh given the clean sweeps (the ashes, a few indian series) were earlier in the decade.

I could run the numbers for any decade and I still doubt that longer series would yield as high a percentage of clean sweeps as shorter series.

quite often the dominated side escaped with a draw or even in one case a random win (india in england) in those 4-5 test domination series too, and 3-0 in a 4 test series (or 4-0 in a 5 test series) still supports my overall point that once the ball got rolling it was hard to stop. will not be buying any narrative change about the 'competitiveness' of big 3 series last decade.

What's the point of saying that though? It's not really relevant when we're talking about the points system is it?

even if it is proven shorter series are easier to win convincingly, there are only 3 boards to blame. they're in no moral position to claim all the games, money and points too. would make the wtc as credible as the t20 champions league.

Ok not sure why who to blame is relevant either but I guess I agree

sucks for the fans though, who are ultimately expected to pay money to watch this lumbering event. if the boards are prepared to swallow their pride and do a proper league (that includes the likes of nz hosting bangers or ireland for 3 tests) then this can work and be really good imo.

Couldn't agree more with this. I've been saying from the start that a proper round-robin system could be really good. I think they just set aside a 6 week perioid and just do a standard Test World Cup. 3-4 group games each and then finals. As we are all aware though, if there's even a slight fear that it will eat into anyone's profits it's not going to happen.

 

[Flem274*]

my entire original point was to refute 'it's so hard to win a 4-5 test series these days, the big 3 have the wtc harder' that i think one of the indian posters made.

as indian tours to australia and england show (and other big 3 series), this isn't true. at about test 3 the wheels completely fall off.

that's why it was relevant.

as for your format suggestion, knock outs would be fun but a 4 year cycle would be cool imo. it would mean a lot more players get used due to the packed calendar but that's fine. rugby does it already and cricket is already using expanded national squads with several format specialists per nation.

 

[honestbharani]

How about both which is what I proposed?

Year 1: ICC World T20 (T20Is, 16 Teams, 4 groups, Super 8s - same format as the 2007 WC - 6 weeks)
Year 2: ICC World Test Championships (5 Day Tests, 8 Teams, 2 groups, Super 4s - 6 weeks)
Year 3: ICC World Cup (50 overs, 12 Teams, 2 groups, Super 6s - same format as the 1999 WC - 6 weeks)
Year 4: ICC Championships (3 match series in each format between the #1 and #2 sides - again max 6 weeks)

Everyone wins. Should also ensure that for the purposes of ICC Championships, which will be the league format for International cricket, every side should play the other 11 in every format in a 3 match series once over the 4 year period. Teams can schedule additional games/series outside of this but this guarantees everyone of the 12 33 T20I, 33 ODI and 33 Tests over a 4 year period. Which seems reasonable to me, and can be done inspite of the 12 weeks window we will need every year for the IPL + ICC events.