If Indians don't win, we will always, always blame them. Why? Is it written in stone that India will always win? Why is it so difficult to understand that Kiwis batted really well on a dead track? Why do we blame Ganguly's lack of enthusiasm, when by the end of Kiwi first innings, everybody in their right minds knew that the track is dead with little hope for a result (barring some foolish batting by the Kiwis).
I do not agree with the author's view that Kiwis have the mental edge now. They couldn't take 20 Indian wickets, while Indians did cause them some trouble even on a dead track. And pray me, did India lose this match? NO. The match was drawn and the Kiwis had to make efforts to do that.
cricket experts are all the same, if india win a match, they can't praise the team enough, if they lose, or even draw a match, they pull out all these klutzy reasons from their hats, bad training, low morale, etc. etc. .......just look at the world cup when india lost the first couple of matches and later when they started winning.......talk about singing to a different tune huh?
i think the author is probably right in saying that the kiwis have the mental edge. I couldnt watch the match because i dont get it here but i was always following it on the net. To end up with a draw after a huge first innings total and having the kiwis on the mat at the end of the second day reveals two things. One,the Kiwis managed to tackle our spinners well (against whom they have struggled in the past) and two, India failed to capitalise on the advantage they had when Zaheer took 3 wickets. Another mistake the Indians did was bat very slowly. To make 500 in 150 odd overs is anachronistic of the times. Look at the aussies. These days they easily make 350 plus runs in a day. That gives the bowlers so much time to get the opposition out. Its really strange that a team brimming with great strikers of the caliber of sachin, sehwag and ganguly manages only 500 in about 5 sessions. So as things stand, the only department the kiwis failed was in bowling. With Mohali wickets being more bouncier the Kiwi seamers might get more purchase from the wicket which might work to their favor. Remember the 1994 test when the carribean pacers won the test for them in Mohali? its sure dicey!
i do'nt agree that kiwis have the mental edge.in fact on the last day of earlier test match indians' appeared to be under pressure because they were trying to win whereas kiwis had nothing to lose & they were playing for a draw.our boys even without ganguly are capable to tear kiwis apart.
Don't forget Mohali is bouncy wicket. And kiwi bowlers may become very dangerous. India still struggling for an extra pace bowler. although kumble and bhajji are doing well but result can go any side.
I guess it time that rediff stop throwing up Masalas like this. It just doesn't make sense. We were frustrated at Ahemadabad, just because we couldn't crush Newzeland as we would have liked, just the way we couldn't crush kenya in the super six of the world cup. Just because we couldn't crush them, it doesn't give them the mental advantage; think....they have been in the back seat on four days. Why don't you stand behind our team like the medias of other country. Why couldn't you write, the newzelanders would be puzzled as how they would get 20 wickets, which the never looked like getting in Ahemadabad.
hi, I agree with the facts of the author. Saurav should have attacked more. But lets give these guys chance, as they are also coming from a long layoff. Sriram
