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

[Fuller Pilch]

True, but not as influential. What little we've seen of the points system so far has shown that the big chance to earn points, for any team, is getting a clean sweep. Particularly in the shorter series'. Even if India did get a 4-0 sweep against England, for example, they still wouldn't get any more points than a piece of piss 2-0 win against Bangladesh or West Indies.

It's much less likely for India to get an unlucky 1-1 result against Bangladesh or WI (an example of what you're mentioning) than it would be for England or Australia to steal a Test or 2 off them. Hence the 2 Test series is a much better chance to get the full 120 points.

How many 1-1 series results that happen do you think would have a signicantly different result if it was over a 5-Test series? Unless you're answer is "a lot of them" then your argument doesn't hold up.

Well the last time Bangladesh played both England and Australia those two-match series both ended 1-1. Had Bangladesh had more tests they probably would have won both series.

In 2015 NZ toured England and despite being a clearly superior side were held to one all.

 

[SteveNZ]

2 test series’ are stupid, IT GIVES TEAMS LIke New Zealand an unfair advantage because they mostly only play 2 test series’ while England, India, Australia etc have to play 5 test series’ against each other. The points system is dumb dumb IMO.

That’s cute. More wealthy nations play 5 Test series in their little wealthy circle then complain the points system doesn’t suit them.

I won’t disagree that the points system doesn’t work, although I don’t really care either as the WTC is a contrived nonsense anyway, and I’m pretty sure two deserving enough teams will make the final then one will win.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Only if you promise not to produce ****e flat pitches. The pitches you prepared for the India series were great.

I think after bowling your blokes out for 58 the year before and seeing all of England's sub-100 scores in recent years, the bean counters at NZC didn't want us to thrash you too quickly and miss out on the big spending Barmy Army.

 

[Neptune]

That’s cute. More wealthy nations play 5 Test series in their little wealthy circle then complain the points system doesn’t suit them.

I won’t disagree that the points system doesn’t work, although I don’t really care either as the WTC is a contrived nonsense anyway, and I’m pretty sure two deserving enough teams will make the final then one will win.

Ok Steve, at least you admit that the points system doesn’t work.

 

[Neptune]

I think after bowling your blokes out for 58 the year before and seeing all of England's sub-100 scores in recent years, the bean counters at NZC didn't want us to thrash you too quickly and miss out on the big spending Barmy Army.

Good one fuller pitch. Our batting has improved a lot recently and we’d give you a good match on bowler friendly pitches. Can’t wait till you tour England, although you did well here in 2015.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well the last time Bangladesh played both England and Australia those two-match series both ended 1-1. Had Bangladesh had more tests they probably would have won both series.

In 2015 NZ toured England and despite being a clearly superior side were held to one all.

We had 4 tests when we beat England 2-1 over there in 1999 (a score which flattered England) but after 2 tests it was 1-1.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Good one fuller pitch. Our batting has improved a lot recently and we’d give you a good match on bowler friendly pitches. Can’t wait till you tour England, although you did well here in 2015.

Just having you on. Welcome to the forum.

 

[veganbob]

But it is true. That's been pretty clearly demonstrated. It's a lot easier to get 120 points out of a 2 Test series than a 4 or 5 Test series.

I mean even ignoring the stats I put forward just look at it from a common sense point of view. To win a 4 Test series 4-0, you have to do the equivalent of sweeping a 2 test series in the first 2 games anyway, and then doing it again. Even if, as you attest, it is easier to win the last few games of a long series if you've already won the first few, it's still clearly not as easy as having to do literally nothing to earn the 120 points becuase you've already got them by winning the only 2 games.

But it is also easier to lose points in a 2 test series. You can be clearly the better team but drop one very close match and you only get 60.
In a 5 match series if you are clearly better you should get 80-100 points atleast.
I think more pressure for teams that have 2 test serieses.

 

[veganbob]

Amongst 4 and 5 test series in recent years, it does seem that if they’d only been 2 tests that would’ve significantly favoured the weaker side.

60-60 to 90-30 sa v eng
80-20 to 56-56 eng v aus
60-60 to 42-72 aus v ind
60-60 to 96-24 eng v ind
60-60 to 90-30 sa v aus
60-60 to 72-42 ind v aus

Only the 2019 ashes series bucks the trend.

Haha nice one. Completely debunks the nonsense brah's theories.

 

[Chewie]

We play the ashes obviously and a 5 test series IN INDIA. While New Zealand get to play Bangladesh for a 2 test series. Ridiculous.

You could schedule shorter ones

 

[Neptune]

You could schedule shorter ones

Unfortunately I don’t have the power to do that.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

But it is also easier to lose points in a 2 test series. You can be clearly the better team but drop one very close match and you only get 60.
In a 5 match series if you are clearly better you should get 80-100 points atleast.
I think more pressure for teams that have 2 test serieses.

100% right

 

[sphynx]

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

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

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

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.

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.

Lol, did any of you read my original post?

I was responding to this, which obviously extends to the Zimbabwe series in 2012;

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."

As for "where is England?", Is mathematics that bad in NZ?

They are clearly a major portion of the remaining 32% of games which is irrelevant to my point......

My entire point, was that the majority (68%) of your home matches have been played against relatively weaker opposition, which most major test nations would of barely lost against at home, basically your record isn't as impressive as you've made out...

 

[TheJediBrah]

Is mathematics that bad in NZ?

I figure they all just fell sleep during class counting the sheep

 

[Athlai]

I figure they all just fell sleep during class counting the sheep

How come you quoted veganbob instead of sphynx?

 

[TheJediBrah]

How come you quoted veganbob instead of sphynx?

I dunno how that happened

 

[Athlai]

I dunno how that happened

I do. You must have accidentally multi quoted veganbob because the quote leads to his post, and then when you saw the random extra quote you deleted it, but also inadvertently deleted sphynx's name and the link to his post. Which is why your post links to veganbobs despite quoting the text of sphynx.

I figured this out while deciding this is excellent and something I was going to do a lot of.

 

[SteveNZ]

Lol, did any of you read my original post?

I was responding to this, which obviously extends to the Zimbabwe series in 2012;



As for "where is England?", Is mathematics that bad in NZ?

They are clearly a major portion of the remaining 32% of games which is irrelevant to my point......

My entire point, was that the majority (68%) of your home matches have been played against relatively weaker opposition, which most major test nations would of barely lost against at home, basically your record isn't as impressive as you've made out...

Well that's cool.

We've played 11 Tests v India and England at home during the Hesson and beyond era, and lost none. Zero.

We have a 6.66 wins to loss ratio at home, India has 26 to 1 and Australia 6.90. England is just over 2 and SA just below 2. Yeah, those teams play longer series' against 'major' opposition. But ****, we do OK.

 

[honestbharani]

If teams really think NZ cannot win longer series against them, then their boards should get their **** together and schedule longer series against NZ. It's that simple.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If teams really think NZ cannot win longer series against them, then their boards should get their **** together and schedule longer series against NZ. It's that simple.

No one has ever thought that or considered it a factor in scheduling