Reading the comment by John Bracewell I thought it was a strange one:
1, regardless of the fact that he was not coach of New Zealand in 2002\03 for the India tour, and even though the bad weather didn't help with the pitch-preparation, the fact is New Zealand used a perfectly legitimate method in an attempt to give themselves the best chance of winning a Test-series, not "produced the best cricketing wickets" (what this is assumed to mean, remember).
2, leading on from that, of course it's fair for the home team to prepare wickets that best suit their style of play, that's the whole point of cricket. It's a crying shame that there is such a proliferation of nonenity wickets around ATM - the whole beauty of playing cricket around The World is to come-up against different conditions and the different challenges they present. The subcontinent is supposed to have spin-friendly wickets and India were insane not to produce dustbowls for the return NZ series in 2003\04, as Sehwag pointed-out at the time. The ball's supposed to get scuffed easily and reverse-swing lots. New Zealand and England are supposed to produce green, average-bounce seamers, and the ball's supposed to swing conventionally, lots. Australia, South Africa and West Indies are supposed to produce wickets with a bit more bounce and a bit less seam-movement, and you're supposed to be able to get both types of swing at the right time.
