'Don't remember some of the runs I scored vs NZ. Runs against India & Aus were more important' : KP

[hoshiarpurexpress]

'Don't remember some of the runs I scored vs NZ. Runs against India & Aus were more important' : KP

Was watching review of England T20I series vs India on Sky and at the end some interesting quotes from KP about rotation policy.

He basically said that playing against India in India, India in England, Ashes is more important.

He said he cannot remember some of the runs against NZ, So series needs to decided upon level of Importance.
NZ in England, in May, Less important than Playing India in England.
Playing against India and Australia is career defining.

Though, I do not agree with this and I consider NZ as a worthy opponent, as usual Interesting views from KP.

 

[jiduguravindra]

Definitely, to get more recognition you have to perform against ind, aus, eng. As a English player all they care about is ashes, test series in india and ipl contract. 100 in india or in ashes is always bigger than say against nz or sa. It does makes sense what he was talking about.

 

[Ab Fan]

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in India
3. Test series win in Australia
4. Test series win in England
5. Test series win in SA( not current one)
6. WT20 win

Rest can't be categorised as great win.

 

[Aman]

Same way for NZ, the matches against Aus, India and SA are more important.

England aren't seen as an elite cricket team with a rich history like those teams. Their rivalry stems more from the monarchy than their ability on the field.

 

[Aman]

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in India
3. Test series win in Australia
4. Test series win in England
5. Test series win in SA( not current one)
6. WT20 win

Rest can't be categorized as great win.

England are not as dominant as home as those other teams but SA/Eng can be interchangeable depending on teams records there.

Our record at home has only been recently good, historically we haven't been a great cricket side so it makes sense to not be categorized as a great series win. We need to have 20-30 year dominance over teams at home for that to change.

 

[street cricketer]

To be fair, NZ has turned things around from being a middling team in the past to being a top team now.

 

[volcyz]

Stokes couldnt rmforget the runs he got gifted by Incompetent Dharmasena for the EnG vs NZ world cup finals even if he wanted to.

 

[Ab Fan]

England are not as dominant as home as those other teams but SA/Eng can be interchangeable depending on teams records there.

Our record at home has only been recently good, historically we haven't been a great cricket side so it makes sense to not be categorized as a great series win. We need to have 20-30 year dominance over teams at home for that to change.

I agree. On current form, NZ are a better test team than England.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in India
3. Test series win in Australia
4. Test series win in England
5. Test series win in SA( not current one)
6. WT20 win

Rest can't be categorised as great win.

Personally, after World Cup win any Test Victory in alien conditions is better.
Our record in NZ is not so great so any series win like in 2009 is really good achievement.

 

[Mamoon]

It is important to understand the context.

From mid 90’s to early 2010s, New Zealand was viewed as a middling cricket team.

The top players like Pietersen who played their cricket in the mid 2000s and early 2010s are not going to rate performances against New Zealand cricket very highly.

However, over the last 6-7 years under McCullum and now Williamson, New Zealand has played some of the best level of cricket it has ever played and is now viewed as an elite team.

The top players of today certainly rank New Zealand highly. Someone like Tendulkar might not think of New Zealand cricket much but someone like Kohli certainly will.

These days, the top players don’t care much about performances against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh etc., because it is all about performing against the big 3 and New Zealand.

South Africa are rapidly descending into the second tier as well. At the moment, performances against them do not hold much significance either.

 

[Devadwal]

No current NZ team is one of best team at this time even better than England .Love the fighting spirit of Nz ,hope they win upcoming WT20 in india

 

[BaankeJi]

Same way for NZ, the matches against Aus, India and SA are more important.

England aren't seen as an elite cricket team with a rich history like those teams. Their rivalry stems more from the monarchy than their ability on the field.

That is just out of spite.

 

[Aman]

That is just out of spite.

Nah, those three teams have been the giants in cricket for the last 2 decades. Nor have they dominated at home and made winning in England unthinkable.

England have just been there out of name and financial strength than actual accomplishments although they might be changing that with SA's decline and England winning a WC and dominating in LOIs.

 

[Forward Defensive Push]

Winning against New Zealand in New Zealand is not an easy task. It is as tough as winning in Australia or India. Unfortunately it doesn't get as much coverage as India or Australia - the timing don't help.

 

[Gilly]

NZ had a better record against AUS, IND and ENG in the 80's, a breakdown of their matches over the last 4 decades.

1980's
9 wins from 35 tests

1990's
6 wins from 38 tests

2000's
4 wins from 32 tests

2010's
5 wins from 32 tests

 

[Ab Fan]

NZ had a better record against AUS, IND and ENG in the 80's, a breakdown of their matches over the last 4 decades.

1980's
9 wins from 35 tests

1990's
6 wins from 38 tests

2000's
4 wins from 32 tests

2010's
5 wins from 32 tests

In 1980s, WI, Pak and NZ were better than Aus, Eng and India.

But over last two decades, Ind, Aus and Eng have been better than WI, Pak and NZ.

 

[James]

Same way for NZ, the matches against Aus, India and SA are more important.

England aren't seen as an elite cricket team with a rich history like those teams. Their rivalry stems more from the monarchy than their ability on the field.

Someone’s feeling sore.

 

[Usman]

It is important to understand the context.

From mid 90’s to early 2010s, New Zealand was viewed as a middling cricket team.

The top players like Pietersen who played their cricket in the mid 2000s and early 2010s are not going to rate performances against New Zealand cricket very highly.

However, over the last 6-7 years under McCullum and now Williamson, New Zealand has played some of the best level of cricket it has ever played and is now viewed as an elite team.

The top players of today certainly rank New Zealand highly. Someone like Tendulkar might not think of New Zealand cricket much but someone like Kohli certainly will.

These days, the top players don’t care much about performances against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies, Bangladesh etc., because it is all about performing against the big 3 and New Zealand.

South Africa are rapidly descending into the second tier as well. At the moment, performances against them do not hold much significance either.

I watched the video and KP wasn't talking at all about the quality of the opposition. He was just making the point that your legacy in the game will be judged on how you played against the teams with the biggest following/the most powerful teams in World Cricket.

You say players today would rate performances against NZ just as highly, but that is the exact opposite of what KP was saying if you watch the video. KP was talking about England's current player rotation policy. He said that Player Power is a thing today and didn't exist when he was playing. So he said today's players should be saying that they want to play Ind, Aus and WC and want to be rested against NZ because, in KP's words, your legacy won't be defined by a knock played against NZ.

It's an interesting point to be fair and as unjust as it may seem, there is some truth in what he's saying.

 

[Rana]

KP was the Cristiano Ronaldo of cricket in his pomp. What a player!

 

[Gilly]

In 1980s, WI, Pak and NZ were better than Aus, Eng and India.

.

you obviously didn't watch any cricket in the 80's.

 

[Space Cat]

To be fair i dont remember any runs he scored against us ether.

 

[OMB]

To be fair i dont remember any runs he scored against us ether.

That evens up everything between KP and NZ then

 

[Mamoon]

I watched the video and KP wasn't talking at all about the quality of the opposition. He was just making the point that your legacy in the game will be judged on how you played against the teams with the biggest following/the most powerful teams in World Cricket.

You say players today would rate performances against NZ just as highly, but that is the exact opposite of what KP was saying if you watch the video. KP was talking about England's current player rotation policy. He said that Player Power is a thing today and didn't exist when he was playing. So he said today's players should be saying that they want to play Ind, Aus and WC and want to be rested against NZ because, in KP's words, your legacy won't be defined by a knock played against NZ.

It's an interesting point to be fair and as unjust as it may seem, there is some truth in what he's saying.

Over the last 5-6 years, New Zealand has been one of the most powerful teams in the world.

How legacy is defined is relative to the strength of the team. Performances against West Indies 30-40 years ago meant everything but today they don’t mean anything.

Pietersen is underrating New Zealand if he thinks that performances against them do not count today. That is quite harsh when you consider the standing of New Zealand cricket over the last 5-6 years.

A lot of what he said seems to be greatly influenced by the status and reputation of New Zealand during his playing days.

 

[Markhor]

NZ were fairly average back then when KP played. However with their seam attack now, runs made are hard earned.

 

[Titan24]

Well its difficult to remember something which rarely happened. KP averaged 40 in tests vs NZ in 8 matches scoring 2 100s while 58 vs Ind and 45 vs Aus with 6 and 4 100s respectively, the highest and second highest he has scored against any country. At the same time he averaged 35 in ODIs vs NZ at a SR of 73 in 11 matches.

KP was a top player and one of my favorites, this is just a light comment with facts wrapped around.

 

[shariqnoor]

KP is right. Even if NZ becomes the number 1 test side for 3 years ,runs against them will still not build you a legacy.This is because you have to understand who writes the history. The history is always written by powerful people. And the powerful people are Australia, India and England.

Cricinfo will relive all the great innings played between the Big 3. Wisden is English. Australia has a lot of clout as well. But what does NZ possess?

NZ have no standing in cricket with respect to publications. They can't project themselves and they seem to be fine with it. Mohammad Yousuf scored a double century against them in NZ and that innings is hardly mentioned. However everybody remembers Yousuf's exploits in England in 2006 and Younis' 267 in Bangalore.

NZ may be a top team today but runs or wickets against them will hardly leave a legacy for a cricketer.

 

[Ab Fan]

you obviously didn't watch any cricket in the 80's.

I don't think you watched any either.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...1980;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

 

[silentkiller187]

KP is tryna stay relevant with India its IPL season so he has to start his sweetening prior to his gig. His record wasn't even that great against NZ anyway.

 

[Slog]

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in India
3. Test series win in Australia
4. Test series win in England
5. Test series win in SA( not current one)
6. WT20 win

Rest can't be categorised as great win.

Lol what. I’d put test series win in India as #4 here

 

[street cricketer]

Lol what. I’d put test series win in India as #4 here

That's a pretty left field opinion.

 

[Slog]

That's a pretty left field opinion.

How? Are you saying winning a test series in Australia and England carries less prestige than winning a test series in India?

 

[Aman]

Someone’s feeling sore.

It's true though.

I never understood the hype for it, seems to mostly stem from expats and Kiwis who don't like England. I'm indifferent to England and don't buy into all that nonsense so it doesn't appeal to me.

The biggest series to me are against Aus (well ahead - have dominated cricket for decades and are our biggest sporting rival), a level or two down there's SA (dominant for the last decade and always good against us) and then India (dominated world cricket for the last 10-15 years and have the biggest stars in cricket), then you have England and Pakistan a few levels down from that.

 

[Aman]

Lol what. I’d put test series win in India as #4 here

India would be definitely third for most teams.

Beating Aus in Aus is almost the pinnacle for most teams.

 

[Slog]

India would be definitely third for most teams.

Beating Aus in Aus is almost the pinnacle for most teams.

Beating England in England is up there due to the romanticsm associated with it being the home of cricket. And even more than that due to the fact that most cricketing nations are former British colonies and beating them at home is getting one over your former ‘masters.’

The great West Indian teams of the 70s and 80s were primarily inspired due to that.

 

[street cricketer]

How? Are you saying winning a test series in Australia and England carries less prestige than winning a test series in India?

Talking purely from a cricketing perspective, India is the toughest place to win a test series in the world. It's why the great Australians considered winning in India as the "final frontier" and Langer in his very first press conference after taking over the job, said the following:

“We’ve got a World Cup, a T20 World Cup, a couple of Ashes (in 2019 and 2021-22) I get nervous when I start thinking about it,” Langer was quoted as saying by cricket.com.au.

“There are some big tournaments coming up. But ultimately, if I fast forward it, the Indian Test tour in about three or four years time, to me that’s the ultimate. We will judge ourselves on whether we’re a great cricket team if we beat India in India,” he added.

“I look back on my career, the Mount Everest moment was 2004 when we finally beat India in India.”

“We’ve got to get better at playing overseas, we become a great team if we win overseas and at home so that will be something for us to aspire to,” he said.

And from both a cricketing perspective and from cricketing legacy pov, winning in Australia is always up there with the best as Australia have the greatest legacy out of all teams in world cricket and Australia has always been a tough place to visit for any team.

There's no doubt in my mind that winning a test series in India and Australia is considered the top prizes in world cricket above everything else in test cricket. For traditional countries like England, winning the Ashes in Australia is even bigger than winning a world cup.

 

[Aman]

Beating England in England is up there due to the romanticsm associated with it being the home of cricket. And even more than that due to the fact that most cricketing nations are former British colonies and beating them at home is getting one over your former ‘masters.’

The great West Indian teams of the 70s and 80s were primarily inspired due to that.

Nowhere near the feat of beating Aus or India at home.

 

[Ab Fan]

Lol what. I’d put test series win in India as #4 here

Updated ranking:-

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in Australia
3. Test series win in India
4. Test series win in South Africa
5. Test series win in England
6. WT20 win

Purely based on quality of the sides in last 25 years.

Winning in England is not a great achievement. Even Bangladesh with a peak Shakib and the two M's of Nidahas trophy version can win a test series in England.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I can understand where he's coming from but he needs to realize that things have changed.

New Zealand are a side England have failed to win a series against since 2013. And they are perfectly capable of beating England in their own backyard. Some would even say they have a better chance of beating England in England than any other team in the world.

Guys like Jamieson and Southee will find English conditions most favorable to their style of bowling. Add Boult and Wagner to that attack and you have a fearsome pace-bowling attack that has a little bit of everything. And the batting led by Williamson certainly looks more settled than England's batting.

England will have the advantage because they haven't lost at home in 7 years but I expect this to be a much more competitive series than the England-India series.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Updated ranking:-

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in Australia
3. Test series win in India
4. Test series win in South Africa
5. Test series win in England
6. WT20 win

Purely based on quality of the sides in last 25 years.

Winning in England is not a great achievement. Even Bangladesh with a peak Shakib and the two M's of Nidahas trophy version can win a test series in England.

If winning in England was so easy than England wouldn't have been unbeaten at home in 7 years.

India, team that is ranked No.1 in the world and has spent the last decade or so in that top 4 area has won 2 tests in England out of 14 in the same period.

South Africa haven't won here since the days of Greame Smith.

Australia haven't won there since 2002.

But somehow you think that Bangladesh, that has only once won an away test series against a test playing nation (and that too against a completely depleted West Indies team) can win in England?

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Updated ranking:-

1. 50- overs World Cup win
2. Test series win in Australia
3. Test series win in India
4. Test series win in South Africa
5. Test series win in England
6. WT20 win

Purely based on quality of the sides in last 25 years.

Winning in England is not a great achievement. Even Bangladesh with a peak Shakib and the two M's of Nidahas trophy version can win a test series in England.

Bangladesh would be oh so lucky to even get invited to England for a solitary test match, let alone think about winning a series there

 

[Usman]

Over the last 5-6 years, New Zealand has been one of the most powerful teams in the world.

How legacy is defined is relative to the strength of the team. Performances against West Indies 30-40 years ago meant everything but today they don’t mean anything.

Pietersen is underrating New Zealand if he thinks that performances against them do not count today. That is quite harsh when you consider the standing of New Zealand cricket over the last 5-6 years.

A lot of what he said seems to be greatly influenced by the status and reputation of New Zealand during his playing days.

I agree with you entirely that the NZ of today is an excellent team full of world class talent, and its a very different team to the KP days. I also agree that performances against them should very much count towards a player's legacy. But you are assuming that the public at large thinks in this rational way.

The reality is that for an English player, the English public at large will always remember that match-winning century in an Ashes series well above the same match-winning century against NZ. That will be the case even if, at the time those centuries are scored, NZ is a far superior team to Aus. That is because in the eye's of the public, the value of a performance isn't ranked necessarily by the difficulty of the opposition, but by the prestige of the opposing team. That's why an Ashes score, or to a lesser extent, a score against India will hold more value to the public than scores against smaller but better teams like NZ.

It's the same with Pak v Ind. The citizens of both countries will make legends of the players who perform against the other team, regardless of the strength of that other team and regardless of whether scores against a stronger opposition are logically more valuable.

KP made the point that when you have retired, people don't ask you about your average or your stats, they ask you about that memorable performance in an Ashes series, against India and in a World Cup. It shows that your legacy is often not defined by logical parameters, but by emotional ones.