Are NZ the greatest modern cricket nation POUND FOR POUND?

[Nuke Fremantle]

Silly argument. All these 'per capita' arguments in any context are pretty dumb.

So what do India have to do to be the best "pound for pound"? Replicate peak west Indies for about 50 years? After all they have 1.3 billion people.

It's like if some weightlifter from Tonga or Fiji wins an Olympic Gold medal. Because they have tiny populations you can argue that "pound for pound" they are the strongest sporting nation on earth.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Horrendous home town umpiring in that series. That series win is nothing to be proud of.

Happened everywhere back then of course (cough - Whitney at the G in 87 - cough) but that umpiring was terrible.

Ahhh the memories of bad umpiring....John Dyson being run out by a metre by Bob Willis and given not out at the SGC in 1982/83.....Dyson went on to score 79....

For those of us who are older and can remember, this is the test where Eddie Hemmings scored 95 as a night-watchmen in England's 2nd innings.

 

[Santana]

Silly argument. All these 'per capita' arguments in any context are pretty dumb.

So what do India have to do to be the best "pound for pound"? Replicate peak west Indies for about 50 years? After all they have 1.3 billion people.

Most of these 1.3 billion people are poor and don't have access to equipment and facilities. Not that uncommon to come across an Indian that has never played with an actual cricket ball

New Zealand is a 1st world country that even though they have a much smaller talent pool, that talent pool has access to good equipment, coaching and facilities. How else could a country of 5 million even remotely compete against a country of 1.3 billion in anything?

 

[Mockcockpit]

Hence the term ‘pound for pound.’

It's actually a bit of a mystery PB why they haven't been more competitive against us for at least 20 years. I think their bowling lacks penetration on Australian pitches and when we play over there it's always in March when their pitches are at their flattest. But still curious.

 

[PhatBoy]

It's actually a bit of a mystery PB why they haven't been more competitive against us for at least 20 years. I think their bowling lacks penetration on Australian pitches and when we play over there it's always in March when their pitches are at their flattest. But still curious.

2 reasons


1. They rarely host australia in tests. Their best and really only chance to beat australia in a test series is at home, though oddly enough their only win in a decade or so in a test match was in Hobart when they drew the series 1-1. I would think that a regular date with australia in the Southee/Boult era in NZ would have given them a few chances to spring an upset. I think they’ve only hosted one in the last 16 years or so

2. In limited overs cricket they’ve generally been competitive full stop in both countries aside from their last 5 years in Australia. But the lack of trophies certainly gives the impression that they’ve underachieved

 

[Mockcockpit]

Since 1993 when they last won a home test against us we've played 4 series there for 4 series win and 9 wins total with only one draw. Last test tour was 2016 and before that 2010. It's been a domination this century. Your point stands though, should tour there for test matches more often. And 2 test series can kiss my dirt button.

 

[frankrizzo]

Yeah small sample but we have seen nothing to suggest nz do any better at home in tests vs us than away, we racked huge scores last time v their best bowlers and that was an aussie team that would just a few months later struggle badly vs SL and south africa.

Its not an ability issue or simply a conditions issue as nz are a proven test side its clearly a mental block playing aussies in tests.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah small sample but we have seen nothing to suggest nz do any better at home in tests vs us than away, we racked huge scores last time v their best bowlers and that was an aussie team that would just a few months later struggle badly vs SL and south africa.

Its not an ability issue or simply a conditions issue as nz are a proven test side its clearly a mental block playing aussies in tests.

Agreed but I think they’re a much more rounded side now and mentally stronger. Not that I would just assume they’d beat australia if they hosted them this summer they probably wouldn’t. But I think they have a more even side from top to bottom

 

[BStaff17]

I was born in 1994 & Bangladesh have beaten us in a Test Match the same amount of times as the Kiwis have since which is once each.

I don't recall too many tests between Australia v NZ have had where it was close other then the actual Hobart victory for NZ in 2011.

Probably the best series was the 2001/02 in Australia. The Kiwis should have won 2-0 in Australia.


They fell 10 runs short at the Gabba. Admittedly we did a sporting declaration to try and get a result but they still almost chased 284 in 57 overs in the final 2 sessions.

And had us on toast in Perth in the match Warne got 99.

New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2001–02 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kram]

Most of these 1.3 billion people are poor and don't have access to equipment and facilities. Not that uncommon to come across an Indian that has never played with an actual cricket ball

New Zealand is a 1st world country that even though they have a much smaller talent pool, that talent pool has access to good equipment, coaching and facilities. How else could a country of 5 million even remotely compete against a country of 1.3 billion in anything?

Exactly 99% of people living in the sub continent probably can't even afford to buy a real bat, let alone play the game properly. Heck with the gear it's hardly a cheapest sport for people even in 1st world countries to be involved in.

Maybe it's changed now but I thought Pakistan barely even had any proper cricket development structure in place.

 

[PhatBoy]

Exactly 99% of people living in the sub continent probably can't even afford to buy a real bat, let alone play the game properly. Heck with the gear it's hardly a cheapest sport for people even in 1st world countries to be involved in.

Maybe it's changed now but I thought Pakistan barely even had any proper cricket development structure in place.

1 per cent of India’s population is still more than double New Zealand’s and it is still the main sport there and those who are good at it have all the access they could possibly ever need. It also doesn’t have 2-3 other sports skimming the top off the athletic pool that New Zealand cricket does.

Of course it’s a developed country - Monaco is a developed country - it still doesn’t mean they’re going to automatically be better at sport than a colossal less developed country.

The powerful African soccer nations in particular aren’t going to be expected to lose to the kiwis because their facilities and infrastructure aren’t as good per capita.

As long as India is making the money that it is, and pouring back into cricket which they do - they have 20-odd first class teams too which can’t hurt things from an opportunity perspective - they have no excuse to really be anywhere but top 3 across all formats

The other subcontinental nations I can agree there’s an argument there. Pakistan’s lack of a home for a long time gives them extra credit

 

[Westend]

No because they keep failing in ICC world cup tournaments

Until they win any silver they are just making up the numbers

 

[corbies]

No because they keep failing in ICC world cup tournaments

Until they win any silver they are just making up the numbers

They're World Test champions.

 

[Drunkcat]

Kiwis lol bad luck

 

[Westend]

Well at least the kiwis are not India the most over rated white ball cricketing country in the world