How seriously should we take India’s current Test achievements compared to ATG teams in the past?

[Buffet]

Just to add here is over all for NZ and India since 2016,

W/L for India 2.8 -- W/L for NZ 1.8

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...span;team=5;team=6;template=results;type=team

Taking out home,

W/L for India 1.3 -- W/L for NZ 0.7

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...span;team=5;team=6;template=results;type=team

---------------------------------

It may be NZ best ever team, but that hardly makes any difference if they can't win a single test in so many countries.

I think many posters are getting carried away by WC format. WC is not really relevant because you can choose to play selective 6 countries. Away points for playing BD and WI are the same as away points for playing in Ind and Aus. That is just lame. Imagine NZ's situation if they had to play India and Aus in away series for qualifying.

Good NZ team is great for fans and I enjoy watching them, but they lack too much to do well in different conditions against top teams.

 

[Chrish]

Nah, it is clear.

NZ in the last 10 years - ZERO test wins in Aus, Ind, and SA. Not even series, just a single test win has been out of reach for NZ.

SA is not doing that great right now, but in the last 10 years Ind, SA, and Aus have been the top teams. You got to win some tests if not a series against the top 3-4 teams.

Even the home record is inferior for NZ - getting whitewashed by Aus at home.

How it is not clear? Just because NZ won against India? That's hardly a yardstick to be better. Yardstick is always overall performance.

NZ has acquired new quality opener Conway and pace bowler Kyle Jamison who is a notch above their already other good bowlers. Their batting is good and so is their pace bowling with Jamison, Wagner, Boult and Southee, although they lack quality spinner. They also beat India in England albeit it was just a one game.

Current SA team is in rebuilding phase; they even lost to SL. So, saying it has been a good team in past 10 years has no relevance here. Yes, NZ do need to win against Australia to be qualified as no. 1 team.

Current India is a good team and I have no issue with naming them as no. 1. But they are condition dependent. They are unbeatable in SC and have done really well in Australia and England against England (although I consider last series as incomplete). They are well out of their depth every time they tour NZ; and this gap will only widen after addition of Kyle Jamison. If they can beat NZ in NZ then I would consider them as equal to SA team of 2010s.

 

[Chrish]

I don’t think any team other than Australia can beat NZ on their soil right now.. NZ has a big brother mental block against playing Australia.

 

[pillionrider]

WI and Pak were rivals.

If you say so. I do agree that they continue to be rivals though

 

[Buffet]

NZ has acquired new quality opener Conway and pace bowler Kyle Jamison who is a notch above their already other good bowlers. Their batting is good and so is their pace bowling with Jamison, Wagner, Boult and Southee, ....

Everything is fine, but they got to win something. These talks of new talent or potential seem good and I am hopeful, but I need to see them actually producing results.

India is the least condition-dependent team due to a balanced bowling attack. Not sure why you think they are condition dependent team when compared to NZ. NZ relies far more on conditions.

 

[Chrish]

Everything is fine, but they got to win something. These talks of new talent or potential seem good and I am hopeful, but I need to see them actually producing results.

India is the least condition-dependent team due to a balanced bowling attack. Not sure why you think they are condition dependent team when compared to NZ. NZ relies far more on conditions.

Because India has yet to win a single game in NZ in a decade? They also lost against them in England that has similar conditions to NZ. So, NZ can’t beat India in India but India also can’t beat them in NZ or England.

 

[Chrish]

And I consider last English tour as incomplete.. India didn’t win the series. The result is undecided..

 

[street cricketer]

NZ has acquired new quality opener Conway and pace bowler Kyle Jamison who is a notch above their already other good bowlers. Their batting is good and so is their pace bowling with Jamison, Wagner, Boult and Southee, although they lack quality spinner. They also beat India in England albeit it was just a one game.

Current SA team is in rebuilding phase; they even lost to SL. So, saying it has been a good team in past 10 years has no relevance here. Yes, NZ do need to win against Australia to be qualified as no. 1 team.

Current India is a good team and I have no issue with naming them as no. 1. But they are condition dependent. They are unbeatable in SC and have done really well in Australia and England against England (although I consider last series as incomplete). They are well out of their depth every time they tour NZ; and this gap will only widen after addition of Kyle Jamison. If they can beat NZ in NZ then I would consider them as equal to SA team of 2010s.

New Zealand cricket's greatest soft power in the last few years has been in convincing the world that it's a better team than India across conditions despite it not winning a single test in India, South Africa and Australia since decades, and the latter succeeding in Australia, England and potentially South Africa too all within the span of 12 months.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Because India has yet to win a single game in NZ in a decade? They also lost against them in England that has similar conditions to NZ. So, NZ can’t beat India in India but India also can’t beat them in NZ or England.

Indians have already won a test series in NZ while NZ may never ever win a series in India.

NZ won in Eng against India because Indians were isolating for covid without any match practice while NZ were all used to playing in the local conditions. On a level playing field NZ doesn't stand a chance on that test match in ENG vs the Indians.

Final frontier for the Indians is South Africa. They win the next test match and they seal their legacy as the greatest sub continental test side ever..

 

[Chrish]

New Zealand cricket's greatest soft power in the last few years has been in convincing the world that it's a better team than India across conditions despite it not winning a single test in India, South Africa and Australia since decades, and the latter succeeding in Australia, England and potentially South Africa too all within the span of 12 months.

I don’t know how closely you follow cricket outside of India but current NZ team is very strong.. They have destroyed every side that has toured there in past years not named Australia. Have destroyed India and England. Have won away tours in England and won series in UAE against Pakistan. Won World Series final against India. You are delusional if you think their reputation as one of the current top teams is unwarranted. If anything, they suffer from not being a part of big 3 because they play so much less test cricket. Their Icc ranking would go to a roof if they are consistently playing 3 or 4 home games instead of two.

 

[Chrish]

NZ won in Eng against India because Indians were isolating for covid without any match practice while NZ were all used to playing in the local conditions. On a level playing field NZ doesn't stand a chance on that test match in ENG vs the Indians.

This is hilarious even by your usual standards..

 

[Romali_rotti]

This is hilarious even by your usual standards..

You seem to be hurting...

NZ were just lucky Indians were cold and isolating in covid..


Don't let it get to you, it's just a game, let it go...

 

[Chrish]

NZ beat England in England. They also beat India in England. India did well against England but series remains incomplete with no final winner.

As things stand, India would beat NZ if playing in India and also Australia (most likely). While NZ would win if they are playing in NZ or England.

 

[street cricketer]

I don’t know how closely you follow cricket outside of India but current NZ team is very strong.. They have destroyed every side that has toured there in past years not named Australia. Have destroyed India and England. Have won away tours in England and won series in UAE against Pakistan. Won World Series final against India. You are delusional if you think their reputation as one of the current top teams is unwarranted. If anything, they suffer from not being a part of big 3 because they play so much less test cricket. Their Icc ranking would go to a roof if they are consistently playing 3 or 4 home games instead of two.

Oh I perfectly follow test cricket alright, it's the only cricket I watch actually. So I'm fully aware of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each team. New Zealand are the best in the world in conditions where the ball moves about, where they can beat teams with their highly accurate and skillful seam/swing bowlers which no other team can match (England included), not too dissimilar to how India can demolish any team in asia with their highly accurate and skillful spinners. They have a mental block in facing Australia anywhere, but it's more pronounced at home where they have all the tools to beat Australia at home but still come up short. They are a disciplined team, both batting and bowling wise, and so can beat/draw average teams like Pakistan and Sri Lanka in asia. Yes, Pakistan are indeed an average test team, they're not terrible, but they're not great either. They do win test series against Australia and England at home, but in the same vein, they also drop tests and series to West Indies and Sri Lanka at home.

However, while their discipline can make up for teams like Pakistan and Sri Lanka in alien conditions, that discipline cannot make for top teams like India and Australia in their own homes. Their batters get overawed by the sustained pace and bounce of Australian pacers, and the consistency of Indian spinners; while their skillful medium fast seamers are not quick enough to be as potent on Australian decks as they're in their home conditions and their spin attack can't match the Indian spin attack in India (Ajaz's feat notwithstanding). It's why it's been a decade since they won a test in Australia while Kapil Dev was probably still playing when the Kiwis last won a test in India. They are a very conditions dependent team, in that they're extremely potent when the ball swings or seams, in England or New Zealand, but struggle against the top teams elsewhere. South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka are pretty average right now and so yeah, I do think the Kiwis can win a test in SA too if they visit them now, but their deficiencies in India and Australia will remain.

The WTC is a gimmick and I could care less about it. Joe Wilson getting a routine umpiring decision right in the Ashes, Tim Paine not being a stupid to waste his reviews on shocker calls, Australia bowl a slightly quicker and complete their overs in time in their test series vs India at home, New Zealand's or Australia's away tours getting scrapped due to covid, the WTC final being anywhere else other than England or New Zealand, NZ don't even make the final and even if they do, they don't win it. I would even argue if NZ had not won the toss and bowled first in tailormade conditions for them, they'd find it hard to win the title too, but that's an argument for another day. Point is the WTC is a gimmick, you didn't need a silly test to determine which was the best team in the world in the past 100 years in test cricket. It's a gimmick designed to boost interest in Test cricket for the casual fans, but Test cricket purists can work out what's the best team in the world based on the results worldwide, just like they had been doing for the last god knows how many years in Test cricket history.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Not a ATG team unless they defeat NZ and South Africa away.
To be fair there is no atg team after Australia one, closest was Cronje one but they lost to Australia

 

[uppercut]

I don’t know how closely you follow cricket outside of India but current NZ team is very strong.. They have destroyed every side that has toured there in past years not named Australia. Have destroyed India and England. Have won away tours in England and won series in UAE against Pakistan. Won World Series final against India. You are delusional if you think their reputation as one of the current top teams is unwarranted. If anything, they suffer from not being a part of big 3 because they play so much less test cricket. Their Icc ranking would go to a roof if they are consistently playing 3 or 4 home games instead of two.

If the WTC Final was scheduled post the Eng Series NZ would be toast. NZ had the huge adv of having been in Eng for few weeks and having played a proper series vs Eng and some practice game. Ind went into the WTC with Zero practice and came within an hour more of batting in drawing that match.

However if NZ were to play India in any other neutral territory they will most likely get beaten black and blue. The only 2 countries where they can compete are Eng and NZ. This is the same yardstick that used to be used against India to mock their previous #1 rankings.

 

[Unbiased-Fan]

India is not as strong as anyone thinks. Their middle order is filled with passengers. The one thing that works for them is that they now have 3 bowlers who walk into their all time 11 without fretting. Any decent side from the past like the Pakistan of 80s and 90s, Sri Lanka of 90s - let alone the legendary teams - would rip apart this Indian team. They're very lucky to be playing in an era where none of the other teams are strong and they conveniently also don't play against the one team which can defeat them in home and away conditions with ease.

A team that suffered whitewash from Srilanka, lost many tests against Windies, lost a test against Zimbabwe, got beaten in by Newzealand, got always whitewashed in Australia and Newzealand will defeat India home and away that too with ease **.. From where you get such confidence??
You're lucky that indian government don't allow bilaterals between India and Pakistan, otherwise India would have changed that 9-12 to 24-12.

 

[Buffet]

Because India has yet to win a single game in NZ in a decade? They also lost against them in England that has similar conditions to NZ. So, NZ can’t beat India in India but India also can’t beat them in NZ or England.

Yes, they can't beat each other in familiar conditions, that's clear. But NZ has not won a single test in many top teams' homes. The first step will be to win some tests in all venues and then win a series. NZ has not taken the first step so far. Yes, the future may change, but let NZ actually perform. I am not even talking about winning series here, just being competitive.

When all said and done, NZ has a far inferior record than India overall, home and away. And yes, I am aware of NZ not losing to India at home. One-off tests are meaningless. Eng won the first test in India.

 

[MP2011]

So previously it was our away record that was poor and hence was held against us. Now that it has improved beyond recognition, only thing matters now is our record in NZ.

I think some of you are our secret admirers and want us to have a great all round record.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

So previously it was our away record that was poor and hence was held against us. Now that it has improved beyond recognition, only thing matters now is our record in NZ.

I think some of you are our secret admirers and want us to have a great all round record.

I am indian, Our home record is beyond many atg sides but we are still not atg, but we are very good side.
As I have said before there is no atg side after great Australian team, many atg players but no atg sides.

 

[Last Monetarist]

I am indian, Our home record is beyond many atg sides but we are still not atg, but we are very good side.
As I have said before there is no atg side after great Australian team, many atg players but no atg sides.

Why is this Indian Test team not an ATG side? What are they missing? If it's a series win in New Zealand, then even the West Indies team led by Clive Lloyd doesn't qualify.

 

[Sidilicious]

Why is this Indian Test team not an ATG side? What are they missing? If it's a series win in New Zealand, then even the West Indies team led by Clive Lloyd doesn't qualify.

If they can pull a series win in SA and win the England series, I would be happy to call them the 3rd best side ever after Aus of 90s and 00s, Windies. You cannot have a gap in 3 countries and be an atg side. 1 country is understandable. Not 3. So winning Sa and Eng is important here

 

[MP2011]

To be fair there is no atg team after Australia one, closest was Cronje one but they lost to Australia

Cronje couldn't win in England either so how could you say that team was closest to Australian team? Compared to Cronje's team, this Indian team is yet to win a test series in NZ only. And unlike Cronje's team, this Indian team is GOAT home team.

 

[MP2011]

If they can pull a series win in SA and win the England series, I would be happy to call them the 3rd best side ever after Aus of 90s and 00s, Windies.

Agree with this. We gotta win both these series. Or else, we'll remain a very good side only.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Why is this Indian Test team not an ATG side? What are they missing? If it's a series win in New Zealand, then even the West Indies team led by Clive Lloyd doesn't qualify.

I don't belive in this silly things, I mean even great Australian side only won one time in India.
The thing is this Indian team still depends upon condition and toss in Sena countries, things are changing from this year Australia away your but it may take one odd more year
Even in this test if we have bowled first, things may have been different.
In England 2018 or South Africa 17-18 toss nearly decided the match for India.
But this year Australia series onwards there was new start, we lost tosses but won the match, if we can win even when conditions are against us then we will be atg sides.
This is why Australia was great, they can win on any track whether batting first or bowling.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Cronje couldn't win in England either so how could you say that team was closest to Australian team? Compared to Cronje's team, this Indian team is yet to win a test series in NZ only. And unlike Cronje's team, this Indian team is GOAT home team.

No side is better than us in home, Cronje team was unlucky in England but they were very good in every where else apart from Australia.
If you have seen 96 series, you will know, how much they put us in pressure.
It was Srinath awesome spell that saved us big time in 96 but there was no saving with Kathik bad bowling 2000.
They defeated every sub continental team in their home

 

[MP2011]

Cronje team was unlucky in England

If losing a test series by few runs is the criteria then we've lost quite a few tests by very few runs and hence series!

 

[BreadPakoda]

The thing is this Indian team still depends upon condition and toss in Sena countries, things are changing from this year Australia away your but it may take one odd more year
Even in this test if we have bowled first, things may have been different.

Agree. India is also dependent on weather conditions. Even in this test if it rained for one more day, things may have been different.

 

[mohan11]

And I consider last English tour as incomplete.. India didn’t win the series. The result is undecided..

Let not kid ourselves. England is a laughing stock in the world right now. Thanks for the 1st test washout.

 

[CrIc_Mystique]

If the WTC Final was scheduled post the Eng Series NZ would be toast. NZ had the huge adv of having been in Eng for few weeks and having played a proper series vs Eng and some practice game. Ind went into the WTC with Zero practice and came within an hour more of batting in drawing that match.

However if NZ were to play India in any other neutral territory they will most likely get beaten black and blue. The only 2 countries where they can compete are Eng and NZ. This is the same yardstick that used to be used against India to mock their previous #1 rankings.

Some fab points in your post mate!
End of the day the final was decided on the SIXTH day.
If the finals were a best of 3 contest - we'd get them.
Am not beating the drum about us being some GOAT or ATG but i wager our guys to toast NZ on ice in NZ over a 3 test series were we to play them now.
Playing them in any conditions - should we even go there?

 

[RamLakhan]

Aravinda De Silva
Ranatunga
Jayasurya
Sanga
Dilshan
Mahela

These guys never played together but consider this line up. Everyone at their peak, playing together. They would demolish Ashwin / Jadeja. This is what Teddy is trying to say.

How can we combine all these players and form a dream 11. In that case even we can have a dream XI like Kumble & Ashwin playing together (along with peak Harbhajan) and maybe these bowlers helped by batting lineup consisting of Gavaskar, Sehwag, Dravid, Sachin & Laxman...

 

[RamLakhan]

If the WTC Final was scheduled post the Eng Series NZ would be toast. NZ had the huge adv of having been in Eng for few weeks and having played a proper series vs Eng and some practice game. Ind went into the WTC with Zero practice and came within an hour more of batting in drawing that match.

However if NZ were to play India in any other neutral territory they will most likely get beaten black and blue. The only 2 countries where they can compete are Eng and NZ. This is the same yardstick that used to be used against India to mock their previous #1 rankings.

With Indian team the yardsticks keep changing according to the scenario! Now the new complaint is the opposition teams are not strong! Also India should stop playing in South Africa run back to Australia (who are doing well against England currently), beat them and prove freshly because they are a different team now (Previous complaint was Smith & Warner didn't play). Hence Indian victory won't count even if they time travelled somehow and beat West Indies of 80s... Some other complaint/issue would pop out!

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

Very seriously. This team was not built overnight. It took Virat and co. 8 years and journey started in 2014 in Australia, which they lost 2-0. They won in familiar conditions, and were coming up short overseas with some close calls. Now they have matured as a unit and winning overseas as well.
The current Indian team has 76 Centuries in its top 7. Only Australia will be close to that number.

SAF has only 19.

This is a rebuilt team post losses of 2012 and 2013. How long this can be sustained will define them.

 

[Buffet]

And I consider last English tour as incomplete.. India didn’t win the series. The result is undecided..

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION] - In another thread we were looking at how NZ made it to rank 1, I always knew that and that's why did not rate NZ that high,

-------------------------------------------

Last 4 years not including the current series,

At home: played 8 test series Hosted Pak, WI, India, Eng, SL and BD - won 8 test series [ Obvious missing teams are Aus and SA who were most likely to beat NZ in NZ]

Outside of home: played only 4 test series - Won a grand total of one test series. Lost in Aus. Lost in Ind. Didn't win in SL. Won in Eng.

That's the reason I never rated NZ that high. They still played well to win those home series, but the entire rank was due to playing twice the number of test series at home without playing Aus and SA in that duration.

Rank can be chalked up to schedule. It is much harder to maintain rank 1 than simply claim it due to schedule. If you maintain it for a couple of years then it undoubtedly means that you are the number one team.

-----------------------------------

I am not sure if you followed the NZ schedule closely otherwise it will be surprising to think that NZ had a team to claim to rank 1 with a balanced schedule. No, I am not posting it here due to BD loss. You can exclude that loss.