What's new

Would any Aussies get into the New Zealand Test Team?

J

Junaids

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Runs
17,956
Post of the Week
11
Well, you really do have to ask.

Obviously Australia’s best two batsmen are banned, in the shape of Dave Warner and Steve Smith.

But:

1. Tom Latham is superior to Marcus Harris.
2. Jeet Raval is superior to Aaron Finch.
3. Kane Williamson is superior to Usman Khawaja.
4. Ross Taylor is superior to Shaun Marsh.
5. Henry Nicholls is superior to Travis Head.
6. Colin De Grandhomme is superior to Mitchell Marsh.
7. BJ Watling is superior to Tim Paine.
8. Trent Boult is superior to Mitchell Starc.
9. Tim Southee seems better than Hazlewood currently (since the ball tampering stopped, Hazlewood’s average to Top Six batsmen is 44).
10. Pat Cummins is really better than Neil Wagner.
11. Nathan Lyon is really better than Patel.

So by my reckoning, two Aussies - Cummins and Lyon - would be good enough to get into the New Zealand team.
 
Same with SA. In fact, barring Rabada and maybe Vern(injured), I don’t see any South African getting in to the NZ side.

ABD’s exit has hit them badly.
 
Why it need to be place for place replacement? Khwaja will easily get into NZ team as an opener replacing Raval. Mitch Marsh is way better than De Grandhomme in test cricket as evident from last Ashes. Starc will replace Boult, Cummins and Llyon will get in as well.
 
But you think NZ can beat this Australia in Australia? Australia beat NZ in NZ convincingly with the help of Hazlewood and Lyon back in 2016. Both picked 19 out of 40 wickets that fell. 2-0. Sure SMith fired. So did Khawaja, So did Burns, So did Voges. Warner didn't play in that series. Imagine Cummins against NZ lol
 
Everyone should carefully read the OP and use it as an example of how NOT to think about cricket - linearly.
 
Canford Cliffs said:
Why it need to be place for place replacement? Khwaja will easily get into NZ team as an opener replacing Raval. Mitch Marsh is way better than De Grandhomme in test cricket as evident from last Ashes. Starc will replace Boult, Cummins and Llyon will get in as well.
Click to expand...

No way.
 
Canford Cliffs said:
Why it need to be place for place replacement? Khwaja will easily get into NZ team as an opener replacing Raval. Mitch Marsh is way better than De Grandhomme in test cricket as evident from last Ashes. Starc will replace Boult, Cummins and Llyon will get in as well.
Click to expand...

Rahul1 said:
No way.
Click to expand...

My bad, I meant Starc would replace Southee. Below will be my combined XI:

Latham
Khwaja
Kane
Taylor
Nicholls
M.Marsh
Paine
Starc
Boult
Cummins
Llyon

So 6 Aussies would play as per my analysis (which is mostly accurate as most here are aware)
 
Junaids said:
Well, you really do have to ask.

Obviously Australia’s best two batsmen are banned, in the shape of Dave Warner and Steve Smith.

But:

1. Tom Latham is superior to Marcus Harris.
2. Jeet Raval is superior to Aaron Finch.
3. Kane Williamson is superior to Usman Khawaja.
4. Ross Taylor is superior to Shaun Marsh.
5. Henry Nicholls is superior to Travis Head.
6. Colin De Grandhomme is superior to Mitchell Marsh.
7. BJ Watling is superior to Tim Paine.
8. Trent Boult is superior to Mitchell Starc.
9. Tim Southee seems better than Hazlewood currently (since the ball tampering stopped, Hazlewood’s average to Top Six batsmen is 44).
10. Pat Cummins is really better than Neil Wagner.
11. Nathan Lyon is really better than Patel.

So by my reckoning, two Aussies - Cummins and Lyon - would be good enough to get into the New Zealand team.
Click to expand...

Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

z > a as proved almost.

y > a as proved in UAE.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "X" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

x > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
 
Canford Cliffs said:
Mitch Marsh is way better than De Grandhomme in test cricket as evident from last Ashes.
Click to expand...

On potential yes but not based on his overall mediocre performances over the past 4 years. Even now vs India he's regressed again.

de Grandhomme is a true all rounder based on his stats alone - average 33 (strike rate of 85!) with the bat and a sub 30 bowling average. Barring England, I think most teams would love to have such a player.
 
Last edited:
Usman will get in as an opener in place of Raval.

Anybody is better than Grandhomme really, don't know why Kiwis even pick him.

Lyon walks in.

Present Cummins is better than every single NZ quick and he is a handy bat as well.

Hazlewood will get in place of Wagner/Southee.

So that makes it 5.

NZ looks solid but OP has shown us how not to do an analysis. What he is saying is that Root will not get into Indian side (with Rahane, Vihari, Rohit :facepalm:) because Kohli at 4 is better option, I mean what !!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr_Bassim said:
Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

z > a as proved almost.

y > a as proved in UAE.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "X" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

x > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...


Sorry brother but can you pls explain us in simple english the underlying purpose of this thread? :srini
 
I was at that NZ v Australia series which Australia won 2-0 in early 2016.

But that was the series in which Australia first started to obtain incredible amounts of reverse swing. I wrote from Wellington’s Basin Reserve that Mitchell Marsh has suddenly turned into Waqar Younis.

I think we all need to accept that Australia almost certainly cheated themselves to victory in New Zealand in 2015-16 by the start of their use of sandpaper in that series.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

z > a as proved almost.

y > a as proved in UAE.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "X" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

x > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

:))) epic pwnage.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

z > a as proved almost.

y > a as proved in UAE.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "X" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

x > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

Ha ha.... Can't stop laughing.....

If India wins at SCG, we might have one more revolutionary thread coming up
 
dr_bassim said:
hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, i'll help.

If nz is x, pakistan is y and india is z and a is australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

Z > a as proved almost.

Y > a as proved in uae.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "x" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

X > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, junaids.

Merry christmas.
Click to expand...

potw
 
jaf348 said:
Name one current all rounder not from England with a batting average over 30 and bowling average under 30.
Click to expand...

Stats aren't the be all end all, I will use my eyes to judge and he can only play in NZ conditions and do useless stats boosting. Rohit averages 40 in test cricket but I can never take him seriously.
 
- Khawaja for Jeet Raval as Jeet Raval isn't that good (I don't think he should be playing for NZ even).

- Starc for Southee

- Cummins for Colin De Grandhomme (Cummins is very good with the bat so he is a near all-rounder, if
not an all-rounder)

- Lyon for Ajaz Patel

So the lineup would be:

Latham
Khawaja
Williamson
Taylor
Nicholls
Watling
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Boult
 
Canford Cliffs said:
Sorry brother but can you pls explain us in simple english the underlying purpose of this thread? :srini
Click to expand...
I’m pointing out that this is the weakest Australia team in my 50 year lifetime.

The batting is just appalling: the only decent batter is Usman Khawaja who is the Aussie Asad Shafiq.

The bowling is also far worse than anyone has realised. Up to now, the low point in my lifetime was the 2003-04 team who drew with India at home in the absence of Warne and McGrath.

But Shane Warne explained in “Cricket360” that since the sandpaper incident, in 6 Tests the bowling average of Josh Hazlewood against Top Six batsmen is 43, and Mitchell Starc is averaging 70.

And even Nathan Lyon is averaging 40.

Only Pat Cummins is going well, averaging 23 against Top Six batsmen since sandpaper use was stopped.

I fully accept that since time immemorial bowlers have all messed around with the state of the ball. That’s normal.

What is unique here is that an attack which many of us thought was close to greatness has been exposed as below mediocre once it has stopped industrial scale ball tampering.

Australia has a truly rubbish batting lineup, but the bowling turns out to be pathetic too when they can’t cheat.
 
Bilal Ahmad15 said:
- Khawaja for Jeet Raval as Jeet Raval isn't that good (I don't think he should be playing for NZ even).

- Starc for Southee

- Cummins for Colin De Grandhomme (Cummins is very good with the bat so he is a near all-rounder, if
not an all-rounder)

- Lyon for Ajaz Patel

So the lineup would be:

Latham
Khawaja
Williamson
Taylor
Nicholls
Watling
Cummins
Starc
Lyon
Boult
Click to expand...
In six Tests since the end of sandpaper use, Mitchell Starc averaged SEVENTY runs per wicket against Top Six batsmen.

And four of those six Tests were in Australia or South Africa, and Pat Cummins averaged 23 while Starc averaged 70.

Starc is just a Test no-hoper, who only did well in Tests with a doctored ball.

Give him a ball that hasn’t been tampered with and he is an inferior bowler to Irfan Pathan or Vinay Kumar.
 
How does sandpaper saga apply to Hazlewood and Lyon? The former due to his modus operandi never benefits from reverse swing and the latter is a spinner. Hazelwood has been played well by the patient Indian top/middle order (much to my surprise) while Lyon remains a danger. Cummins has done well and only Starc has suffered. So why not give some credit to Indian batsmen? If Aussie management wants, who is stopping them from benching Starc? If they are ignoring a fully fit Pattinson maybe there are reasons, like Starc's batting and his help in creating rough for Lyon.
 
Post the 1999 India tour to Australia, I reckon the current Aussie bowling unit is the best we have faced. And the pitches haven't been absolute roads, so facing them in these conditions is a challenge. Not many batting line ups will enjoy facing this Aussie attack in similar conditions.
 
Swashbuckler said:
How does sandpaper saga apply to Hazlewood and Lyon? The former due to his modus operandi never benefits from reverse swing and the latter is a spinner. Hazelwood has been played well by the patient Indian top/middle order (much to my surprise) while Lyon remains a danger. Cummins has done well and only Starc has suffered. So why not give some credit to Indian batsmen? If Aussie management wants, who is stopping them from benching Starc? If they are ignoring a fully fit Pattinson maybe there are reasons, like Starc's batting and his help in creating rough for Lyon.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you, it makes no sense EXCEPT that since the end of sandpaper use the records of Hazlewood and Lyon have fallen apart while Cummins has maintained his.

India are playing them well, but they couldn’t take wickets in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Abu Dhabi and Dubai on pitches where Philander and Abbas could.

So Pakistan and South Africa fared the same as India.

The point remains - since the end of sandpaper only Cummins remains as effective. Hazlewood and Lyon are half the bowlers they were, and Starc is a third of the bowler he was.
 
Swashbuckler said:
Stats aren't the be all end all, I will use my eyes to judge and he can only play in NZ conditions and do useless stats boosting. Rohit averages 40 in test cricket but I can never take him seriously.
Click to expand...

I too use my eyes to judge. M Marsh has zero notable performances overseas and hasn't lived up to expectations for someone that has played test cricket for 4 years. 26 with the bat and 43 with the ball is the sign of a true bits and pieces player. Anyway, we can agree to disagree.
 
I think only Cummins and Lyon will walk into NZ team. The latter are much stronger than Aussies. A great team in the making..
 
I can make a case for Khawaja opening the batting instead of Raval, but that's it. Only a complete fool would think that the two Mitchells deserve a place in the NZ side.
 
I'd say Cummins and especially Lyon would walk into that lineup. Apart from that, NZ are actually a better team.
 
Junaids said:
I’m pointing out that this is the weakest Australia team in my 50 year lifetime.

The batting is just appalling: the only decent batter is Usman Khawaja who is the Aussie Asad Shafiq.

The bowling is also far worse than anyone has realised. Up to now, the low point in my lifetime was the 2003-04 team who drew with India at home in the absence of Warne and McGrath.

But Shane Warne explained in “Cricket360” that since the sandpaper incident, in 6 Tests the bowling average of Josh Hazlewood against Top Six batsmen is 43, and Mitchell Starc is averaging 70.

And even Nathan Lyon is averaging 40.

Only Pat Cummins is going well, averaging 23 against Top Six batsmen since sandpaper use was stopped.

I fully accept that since time immemorial bowlers have all messed around with the state of the ball. That’s normal.

What is unique here is that an attack which many of us thought was close to greatness has been exposed as below mediocre once it has stopped industrial scale ball tampering.

Australia has a truly rubbish batting lineup, but the bowling turns out to be pathetic too when they can’t cheat.
Click to expand...

So as a fan you are feeling v bad that India is beating them
 
1. Tom Latham > Vihari
2. Agarwal > Raval.
3. Kane Williamson is superior to Pujara.
4.Kohli > Taylor
5. Henry Nicholls > Rahane
6. Colin De Grandhomme > Rohit sharma
7. BJ Watling > Pant
8. Trent Boult > Ishant
9. Bumrah > Southee
10. Wagner > Shami
11. Jadeja > Patel

That is like 3 Indians walk into NZ side lol

So this must be the worst Indian line up ever to play. No Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Dhoni, Zaheer.
 
Barring Boult, I will take the entire Aus bowling over NZ bowling.

In batting, Khwaza and Shaun Marsh are better than Raval and DeGrandomme.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
1. Tom Latham > Vihari
2. Agarwal > Raval.
3. Kane Williamson is superior to Pujara.
4.Kohli > Taylor
5. Henry Nicholls > Rahane
6. Colin De Grandhomme > Rohit sharma
7. BJ Watling > Pant
8. Trent Boult > Ishant
9. Bumrah > Southee
10. Wagner > Shami
11. Jadeja > Patel

That is like 3 Indians walk into NZ side lol

So this must be the worst Indian line up ever to play. No Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Dhoni, Zaheer.
Click to expand...

OP trying hard to discredit the Indian victory.
 
Except Boult, Aus bowling is superior. So all of them will make it. Aus has bowled very well in this series. Khwaza and Shaun Marsh should get into Aus team.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

z > a as proved almost.

y > a as proved in UAE.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "X" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

x > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

b is England right? :srini
 
None of their batsmen.

Bowling would be only Boult + Hazlewood + Cummins and Lyon.
 
Aman said:
Who would Khawaja come in the place of?

He's not breaking into that 3-5 (Kane, Taylor or Nicols) on form.
Click to expand...

I rate Ravel and I am certainly no Khawaja lover but Khawaja is a better player than Ravel.
 
Junaids said:
Well, you really do have to ask.

Obviously Australia’s best two batsmen are banned, in the shape of Dave Warner and Steve Smith.

But:

1. Tom Latham is superior to Marcus Harris.
2. Jeet Raval is superior to Aaron Finch.
3. Kane Williamson is superior to Usman Khawaja.
4. Ross Taylor is superior to Shaun Marsh.
5. Henry Nicholls is superior to Travis Head.
6. Colin De Grandhomme is superior to Mitchell Marsh.
7. BJ Watling is superior to Tim Paine.
8. Trent Boult is superior to Mitchell Starc.
9. Tim Southee seems better than Hazlewood currently (since the ball tampering stopped, Hazlewood’s average to Top Six batsmen is 44).
10. Pat Cummins is really better than Neil Wagner.
11. Nathan Lyon is really better than Patel.

So by my reckoning, two Aussies - Cummins and Lyon - would be good enough to get into the New Zealand team.
Click to expand...

There is a small problem here though... NZ got thrashed badly by Ind lol
 
leg-side-flick said:
So as a fan you are feeling v bad that India is beating them
Click to expand...

BaankeJi said:
India beat any team - he starts this kind of thread to belittle that win. Just check last few threads started by him.
Simply amazing.
Click to expand...
When David Peever was refusing to step down as Cricket Australia Chairman two months ago I wrote that:

1. India would easily beat Australia minus Warner and Smith, and

2. I hoped that India would crush Australia.

I’m actually HAPPY that India is winning, and I admire how they are playing.
 
I dont rate de Grandhome. Dont remember him doing much. M Marsh is better than Colin.

Bowling will be Boult and C.H.L.
 
Usman Khawaja will walk in eyes closed replacing Ross Taylor or Jeet Raval as the opener. Cummins is better than Southee. Lyon is better than whatever spinner New Zealand will put forward.
Starc or Hazlewood will come in for Wagner.
 
Stalin said:
Usman Khawaja will walk in eyes closed replacing Ross Taylor or Jeet Raval as the opener. Cummins is better than Southee. Lyon is better than whatever spinner New Zealand will put forward.
Starc or Hazlewood will come in for Wagner.
Click to expand...
Khawaja replacing Taylor :))) :))) :))) :)))

That's got to be one of the worst takes I've ever read on here.

People taking Khawaja over Rawal havent seen him bat, he occupys the crease and sees off the new ball like a good opener does. He has issues converting, but I'd rather have him than Khawaja any day.
 
Taylor averages 46 after 90 Tests, who knows if Khawaja is even playing Test cricket for Aus next year.

He a decent period where he scored runs, but people are overlooking the fact for most of his career he's been in and out of the team. He's never cemented a spot for himself in the team.
 
I wouldn't trade Taylor for 20 Khawaja's. I mean seriously? :facepalm:

Australia atm would give up their top 6 for a player like Taylor who can take the responsibility and lead.

Khawaja has scored 2 hundred away and averages less than 25 in 4 out of 6 countries.
 
Last edited:
This is the "time to overrate New Zealand because they embarrassed Pakistan and time to underrate Australia because they got embarrassed by India" season.
 
Dr_Bassim said:
Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

y < x as proved already.

z > a as proved almost.

y > a as proved in UAE.

Since x is greater than y , it follows logically that x must also be greater than z.

Since x > z and x > y both of which are greater than a , it follows logically that "X" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between y and z.

But since y beat a and z also beat a, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" which will ease our troubles.

Since y drew with b while z lost to b it is quite obvious what the situation is.

x > y > z > a (using "b as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

This deserves to be POTW.. Mostly long written posts get POTW however this is actually funny and a better post than most POTW.
 
The funny thing is I think Australia would still beat NZ in tests if they played each other. Australia would win in Australia even without Smith and Warner . In NZ, with Smith and Warner Australia would win.
 
Mamoon said:
This is the "time to overrate New Zealand because they embarrassed Pakistan and time to underrate Australia because they got embarrassed by India" season.
Click to expand...

Exactly . :misbah

If this same Australian team ( even weaker) had beat them recently in UAE , then there would have been claims of "Khawaja is a better batsman than Smith" and " Tim Paine is a better captain than Michael Clarke" and so on.
 
Aman said:
Khawaja replacing Taylor :))) :))) :))) :)))

That's got to be one of the worst takes I've ever read on here.

People taking Khawaja over Rawal havent seen him bat, he occupys the crease and sees off the new ball like a good opener does. He has issues converting, but I'd rather have him than Khawaja any day.
Click to expand...

Taylor averages 23 in 7 tests in 2018
Khawaja averages 41 in 10 tests in 2018

Having a better average than a certain player even after playing more games than him in a substantial time frame (in this case , one year) certainly makes you a better batsman than him. In case if you don't know this :inti
 
Aman said:
I wouldn't trade Taylor for 20 Khawaja's. I mean seriously? :facepalm:

Australia atm would give up their top 6 for a player like Taylor who can take the responsibility and lead.

Khawaja has scored 2 hundred away and averages less than 25 in 4 out of 6 countries.
Click to expand...

Yeah they'd give up their top 6 for a player whose 2018 test average matches with Mitch Marsh , who by the way is their worst batter.
:salute
 
Dr_Bassim said:
Hi.

If someone missed the underlying reason this post was made, I'll help.

If NZ is x, Pakistan is y and India is z and a is Australia the logical events say

Pak < NZ as proved already.

IND > AUS as proved almost.

PAK > AUS as proved in UAE.

Since NZ is greater than PAK , it follows logically that NZ must also be greater than IND.

Since NZ > IND and NZ > PAK both of which are greater than AUS, it follows logically that "NZ" is the strongest.

The remaining battle is between PAK and IND.

But since PAK beat AUS and IND also beat AUS, so a clear winner is impossible to see.

So we will bring another variable "b" (ENG) which will ease our troubles.

Since PAK drew with ENG while IND lost to ENG it is quite obvious what the situation is.

NZ > PAK > IND > AUS (using "b(ENG) as a variable).

Hence proven.

Regards, Junaids.

Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

here this is more easier to read and comprehend without my head spinning lol EPIC post nonetheless ... the highlighted part is just pure gold. :)))
 
Mamoon said:
This is the "time to overrate New Zealand because they embarrassed Pakistan and time to underrate Australia because they got embarrassed by India" season.
Click to expand...

Haha. All New Zealand have done is to beat an average pakistan team. Even in that they just won the first match barely and were man handled in the second match. Any other captain would have won that series against them. I firmly believe BD would have won the thar series comfortably.

SL also drew a match against NZ. Let's not overrated them. They are probably fourth best team on form and wont win a match in Australia even now

I know the intent is to belittle Indian team achievements. I think the OP was expecting that India would be performing badly on these overseas tests. But I he fact is they have done much better than those same SENA teams in india. SA and England were pathetic in India. The only reason India didn't win series in SA and England was due to tosses

Pathetic attempt BY OP
 
Stalin said:
Taylor averages 23 in 7 tests in 2018
Khawaja averages 41 in 10 tests in 2018

Having a better average than a certain player even after playing more games than him in a substantial time frame (in this case , one year) certainly makes you a better batsman than him. In case if you don't know this :inti
Click to expand...
Khawaja is not a world class player, just because Taylor had 2 poor series doesn't suddenly make Khawaja better than him. I doubt khawaja will even be in the Aus team next year.
 
SportsWarrior said:
Haha. All New Zealand have done is to beat an average pakistan team. Even in that they just won the first match barely and were man handled in the second match. Any other captain would have won that series against them. I firmly believe BD would have won the thar series comfortably.

SL also drew a match against NZ. Let's not overrated them. They are probably fourth best team on form and wont win a match in Australia even now

I know the intent is to belittle Indian team achievements. I think the OP was expecting that India would be performing badly on these overseas tests. But I he fact is they have done much better than those same SENA teams in india. SA and England were pathetic in India. The only reason India didn't win series in SA and England was due to tosses

Pathetic attempt BY OP
Click to expand...
SL drew a match after 5 day was rained out, they lost the other by 420 runs....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Savak
SENA stats don’t lie: Pakistan edge India in England and New Zealand
2
Replies
112
Views
3K
harshjoshi87
harshjoshi87
Savak
Should Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis performances against New Zealand in the 90's have any value, given they were a horribly weak side back then?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
Cricket Warrior
New Zealand tour of Zimbabwe - 2 Test matches (2025)
Replies
55
Views
914
gazza619
gazza619
N
World Test Championship - The era of doctored pitches & technique-less batters?
Replies
2
Views
170
jnaveen1980
J
Cricket Warrior
New Zealand (264/8) defeat Pakistan (221) by 43 runs in the third ODI to accomplish the series whitewash by 3-0
8 9 10
Replies
761
Views
17K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Back
Top