Pitches

[Boris]

Pitches

I have just, in some boredom, reread quite a few threads from a little while ago, and there is one theme that keeps popping up. Pitches. Obviously it would, because they are quite literally the centre of the game, but apparently there are problems with them.

Now there is probably already a thread like this, but to get some new opinions, are there too many roads of pitches out there?

What do you think of a flat pitch that is very good for batting?

How do you suggest there becomes a variety of pitches, because it's not as if a curator can just make a spinners wicket, which would be horrible to bat on?

Then again, is batting the primary part of cricket? Why does it override bowling for pitches?

And last of all, what about pitch fixing and doctoring? What are your thoughts on curators making pitches to suit a team or a particular situation in a series considering a team in mind (such as the case as to why Australia lost the Ashes, England love to fix pitches even more then Australians). Is it wrong?

 

[bren122]

Re: Pitches

i think that a good pitch is one that makes both the batsman and the bowler work for their success. however, with the amount of cricket likely to ramp up and the more stresses this will impose on bowlers' bodies perhaps it is best if the pitches actually favour the bowler rather than the batsman?
one thing that i have never quite gotten my head around is that a pitch can often have as much of an influence on a game as any umpire; yet while we have independent umpires we don't have independent curators. even if there was something like the ICC referee (perhaps even make the referee responsible for it) appointed to ensure a fair pitch surely this would fix a lot of problems with doctoring pitches.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

I have always said that pitches don't need to be juiced up to help the bowler, rather they need to have good carry through to the keeper.

Anyone remember the Ashes test matchs when it was quite common on day 1 to see the ball barely getting through to the keeper. That for me isn't good enough. Its why so many tailenders score runs today, and why so many ordinary players are averaging mid 40's.

If there is no carry in the wicket then batsmen can just plant their feet and hit through the line. Once you get a bit of bounce and pace in the wicket you see who the really good batsmen are. Because if your off with your footwork then the extra carry and bounce will mean that the ball catchs the edge of the bat rather then clunking off the face and going for down to 3rd man.

Also good carry in a wicket means that you have to either go right back or right forward, playing from the crease will get you into trouble. Anyone remember the 2006/07 Ashes when Paul Collingwood scored a double ton at Adelaide with no carry in the wicket.

Get the slopster onto a wicket with a bit of bounce and his technique was all at see, Ian Bell is another one who was trying to push back of a length deliveries through the covers from the crease, the extra bounce was catching him out. In England you can get away with that technique, not so in other places.

Its why I think England will struggle in South Africa, a lot of their players just shovel the ball from the crese and that will get you into trouble on wickets with bounce.

As for pitch doctoring - and lets be honest, that 5th test wicket was clearly doctored - yes it happens, but what goes around comes around. Cricket has a strange way of turning the tables in the most ironic way.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Pitches

Modern pitches undoubtedly favour the batsmen far too much. There is a perception that crowds enjoy seeing high scoring games over low scoring ones, and of course there's more $cashmoney$ for the administration if every test goes into a fifth day. I love to see games where the bowlers can actually attack the batsmen and get them out, rather than act as a glorified bowling machine until the batsmen make a mistake and get themselves out. Unfortunately these pitches are few and far between.

All this 'doctoring pitches' business is complete **************** and a knee-jerk reaction to Australia picking the wrong team for the fifth test. Anybody who thinks Australia can take some kind of moral high ground over England for electing not to pick a spinner on a raging turner is an abject imbecile. It's a home test, the curator can prepare a pitch any way he damn well pleases as long as it falls within acceptable standards of playability.

As for having neutral curators, it would never work. It is not as simple as an ICC official turning up at Adelaide Oval and declaring 'This pitch will have something in it for batsmen and bowlers'. Most curators of international grounds have had years of experience working on that ground and have a permanent team of people working under them. An outsider would simply not be able to come and prepare a quality pitch without extensive preparation and induction into the workings of that particular ground. This is all purely academic though, because a curator should have no restrictions on the type of pitch he can prepare, that's why it's called a home ground advantage.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

Who said anything about "neutral" curators. I couldn't give a stuff if the 5th test wicket was doctored or not. Merely pointing it out doesn't mean im trying to take the "moral high ground". If we had won the toss and got first use of a track that wasn't going to last more then a day we'd be laughing, because we would have retained the Ashes.

That wicket was doctored to produce a result wicket in the sense that the wicket was going to break down faster then it would under normal circumstances. Of course the curator can prepare the wicket anyway he sees fit, but to sit there and kid yourself that the wicket was within "acceptable standards of playability" is a bit rich.

It clearly wasn't within those standards because whoever won the toss was presented with a clear advantage. Im not whinging about it, because if we had won the toss then we would have benefitted. But dont carry on about the wicket being fit for test cricket, it clearly wasn't, as pointed out by the editor of Wisden, but as the editor of Wisden was English he said it was fair because the ashes were on the line and as far as he was concerned it was "anything goes".

As a spectator I want to see the ball carrying through to the keeper, not bouncing once or twice before the keeper on day 1.

I've also been watching cricket long enough to know that what goes around comes around.

England benefitted from a good toss to win, sure. They bought out the physio, sure. They refused Graeme Smith a runner, sure.

Im smart enough to know that eventually Strauss is going to be presented with a doctored wicket, or a situation in which the other team saves the game through blatant time wasting. It will be interesting to see and hear how he handles it as well as the English fans.

I still remember their carry on after their bowling notes were stolen from the MCG in 2006.

What goes around, comes around.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Pitches

Who said anything about "neutral" curators.

umm...

yet while we have independent umpires we don't have independent curators. even if there was something like the ICC referee (perhaps even make the referee responsible for it) appointed to ensure a fair pitch surely this would fix a lot of problems with doctoring pitches.

I couldn't give a stuff if the 5th test wicket was doctored or not.

*Snipped a bunch of words complaining about the 5th test wicket*

You've been making exactly the same arguments since the day after the ashes, it's beginning to get a little bit tiresome. If preparing a pitch to suit the home team is 'doctoring' it, then every pitch in the history of cricket should has been or should have been doctored. The pitch was obviously within the acceptable standards for play because they played on it, unless you know something about it that the ICC match official didn't. Same goes for the editor of Wisden, if he did in fact say that.

As for the rest of your post, it's the same old "Curse you dastardly Englishmen, we'll get you next time when you can't cheat!" nonsense.

And for the record, I am a neutral supporter. The only team in the world I support is the Redbacks, the rest of the time I just hope for an exciting, high quality game, regardless of who wins.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

Well obviously you and I are poles apart on what he think is a good fair cricket wicket.

I personally, and its just my opinion, don't like to see the coin toss have an undue affect on proceedings. Now, anyone who knows a bit about the game would realise that the 5th test coin toss was a vital one. Even more so considering the wicket.

Explain to me how a ball that goes through the top on day 1 qualifies as a good cricket wicket?

There is no way the pitch was made to suit the home team - the curator didn't know Strauss was going to win the toss. But it was a 50/50 bet, whoever won the toss would have use of a wicket that was basically a 3 day wicket before the game started.

Now if you want to see 'high quality', 'exciting' thats fine. The biggest influence on those factors is the wicket.

Now instead of mocking me, why don't you actually address my points.

Do you think the wicket was conducive to high quality and exciting cricket? If so, then elaborate. Im interested to hear your thoughts, because personally, i think your cricket knowledge is lacking a bit.

England can prepare whatever wicket they want, thats fine - no argument from me.

But to hear people try and say that wicket was good for test cricket is crap, Michael Holding said it was crap, so did the editor of Wisden Scyled Berry.

Fergie is a god.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Pitches

Moved to the International forum.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Pitches

Well obviously you and I are poles apart on what he think is a good fair cricket wicket.

I personally, and its just my opinion, don't like to see the coin toss have an undue affect on proceedings. Now, anyone who knows a bit about the game would realise that the 5th test coin toss was a vital one. Even more so considering the wicket.

Explain to me how a ball that goes through the top on day 1 qualifies as a good cricket wicket?

Again you seem to equate "pitch isn't a slab of bitumen" to "pitch is sub-standard". The pitch was obviously tailored by the English curator to ensure a result, nobody can deny that, but my view is "so what". If every pitch in the world offered some assistance to the bowlers, like the The Oval did, there would be no complaints from me. You seem to be upset that the Curator did not prepare a wicket which would allow Australia to play for a draw, which they apparently so rightly deserved.

And let's not forget that it wasn't the pitch that cost Australia the Ashes, no matter how much you whinge about it, it was their inept first innings batting display.

There is no way the pitch was made to suit the home team - the curator didn't know Strauss was going to win the toss. But it was a 50/50 bet, whoever won the toss would have use of a wicket that was basically a 3 day wicket before the game started.

Now if you want to see 'high quality', 'exciting' thats fine. The biggest influence on those factors is the wicket.

Of course it was suited to the home team. You have been trumpeting this obvious point for 3 months now. Pitch offers assistance to bowlers = more likely to produce a result = good for England who need a result. At this point I'm not even sure what your argument is because you seem to change it from post to post, the only that stays consistent is "GRRR THOSE BLOODY POMS".

Now instead of mocking me, why don't you actually address my points.

Do you think the wicket was conducive to high quality and exciting cricket? If so, then elaborate. Im interested to hear your thoughts, because personally, i think your cricket knowledge is lacking a bit.

Yes, I do think it was conducive to high quality cricket. My idea of high quality cricket is not a 500 run per innings snorefest, it's a game where good bowling is rewarded with wickets and good batting is rewarded with runs. In the fifth test we saw 1213 runs, two sensational centuries and 5 hauls of 4 wickets or more, and that is my idea of high quality cricket.

And as for suggesting that my cricket knowledge is lacking, let me assure you that the feeling is mutual.

England can prepare whatever wicket they want, thats fine - no argument from me.

But to hear people try and say that wicket was good for test cricket is crap, Michael Holding said it was crap, so did the editor of Wisden Scyled Berry.

Fergie is a god.

It was a hell of a lot better for test cricket than a pancake-flat landing strip where the Aussies could have shut up shop and played for the draw to retain the ashes. The nature of the pitch meant they had to go for the win, and fell short, which is a good thing in my book.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

Right, let me breakdown for you champ.

The pitch was a day 3 wicket on the first day. You could have played on that wicket 3 days before the start of the match.

As such the team who won the toss would bat first, and get first use of a strip when it was at its best. After day one the pitch broke up quickly, so much so that Michael Holding said he had never seen anything like it at the Oval. And he would know.

So therefore, the team batting first would basically get to bat on a road, - as most day 3 wickets are - but by day 2 the wicket was already going through the top it was that dry, so the team batting 2nd is now on a substandard wicket making it very hard for the team batting 2nd to push for a win.

As such the toss was crucial - becaues who ever won it was going to get first use of a wicket that wasnt going to last much past day 1.

Now you can throw out the cliches about batting pancakes, and thats fine, but lets make it fair for both sides. No-one wants to see matchs decided by a coin.

Im all for wickets that offer bowlers assistance, but why kill a contest by producing a wicket that offers one team a distinctive advantage over the other.

Traditionally, good wickets should offer something for the seamers up until half way though day 1, then flattening out to be a good batting wicket up until day 3, then slowly breaking up at the start of day 4 with it gradually becoming for advanced by the end of day 5.

Trying to say that wicket was good for the game is crap, the wicket wasn't fair for both sides, call be sour, call be bitter, I don't care.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

And change your farking avatar you knob.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Pitches

First things first, let's please avoid the name-calling. You've called both myself and Caesar "idiot", "fool", and "knob" recently, none of which are really called for.

I'm sure you are aware of what an 'Appeal to Authority' is and how it is a relatively weak method of argument. Simply because 'renowned person X' said something doesn't automatically make it so, especially when 'equally renowned person Y' says the opposite. Ricky Ponting (who you may remember actually played in the match), said "I don't think the pitch affected the result". It doesn't get much more resounding than that.

I've heard all of the reasons why you think a preparing a dry pitch is a filthy, cheating, unsportsmanlike crime, and I've heard them many, many times, as you seem to try and segue it into every thread one way or another. The fact of the matter is that over 1200 runs were scored for the match, including nearly 350 in the fourth innings. This doesn't suggest that the pitch turned into an unplayable minefield the second Australia stepped on it to bat, does it? Yes, England had an advantage by winning the toss, but so does any team that wins the toss, that's why they have a toss at all. You are having a laugh if you think the order that the teams batted had such a dramatic effect on the game that it turned an Australian victory into an English one.

You can rant and rave and moan all you want, but Australia lost the Ashes. They will probably win it back next summer, I just hope we don't have to put up with another 14 months of this tripe before that happens.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Pitches

Oh England will suffer in the future? Really, maybe the Ashes was making up for the West Indies, where after West Indies got 1 win, every pitch was flatter than the Adelaide Oval, even McGrath and Warne wouldnt have been able to take 20 wickets on those pitches

Fact is the 5th test pitch was better for cricket than something like Adelaide, rather see a result in a deciding test than another 600 v 600 snore draw, but hey fans of ODI cricket dont like games where batsmen dont dominate

Oh and as for the toss being vital, I take it you must hate the GABBA wicket, you are ****ed if you bowl first there

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

How much cricket do you actually watch Edward, I've been watching cricket for years, West Indies have been producing feather beds for years. I remember us in 2003 when we toured the carribean we had to play 5 bowlers at certain stages, the wickets were amazingly flat.

Its not something that just came about because West Indies were 1-0 up.

Im not calling England unsportsmanlike, because there is no way they knew they were going to win the toss. If we had batted first, we would have retained the Ashes, because a score of 300+ batting first on that wicket would be been all but unbeatable.

The fact 350+ runs was scored in the 4th innings is not a correlation to indiate the quality of the wicket. Rather it was due to a dogged innings by Hussey and a innings that was shaping as one of the greatest of all time before Ponting was run-out.

It reflects the skill of those 2 players, rather than the quality of the wicket.

Let me make myself clear, preparing the wicket was not unsportsmanlike, or cheating, or filthy. Because it could have easily have backfired it we had won the toss.

Rather I dispute, and quite strongly, the assertion that the pitch was "good for test cricket". At the time neutral commentators, such as Holding, were bemoaning the fact that the deciding test match was degraded somehwhat by a poor wicket that unduly favoured the team winning the toss.

Strauss's team on skill would have had about a 20% chance of winning that match on a conventional wicket seen earlier in the series. Produce a result wicket that is overbaked and your chances of winning now literally ride on a coin toss. So what are you going to take? 20% or 50%.

Why main point is that you can produce 'result' wickets that are fair to both sides. We saw three of them in South Africa earlier this year. It's why England will get spanked in South Africa, despite their deluded thinking that their team is actually good.

Im not bitter about the ashes, but I am disappointed that people seem to correlate sub-stanard wickets as being good for the game.

Obviously my idea of the game of cricket is vastly different to some other peoples idea about the game of cricket.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Pitches

Im not calling England unsportsmanlike, because there is no way they knew they were going to win the toss. If we had batted first, we would have retained the Ashes, because a score of 300+ batting first on that wicket would be been all but unbeatable.

I keep seeing this statement posted, and I don't really understand it.

I could understand this claim if England had run up a big score on a pitch that then deteriorated rapidly, denying Australia the same opportunity. But that simply didn't happen. The pitch was still fine for Australia's first innings, and their collapse had nothing to do with the state of the pitch - it was all about their inability to deal with swing.

In fact, both teams scored more runs in their second innings than either side did in the first. That's an unusual result on any pitch, and completely goes against the idea that the side that went first had some sort of massive batting advantage. It shows that there were plenty of runs available throughout the match.

The reason Australia lost isn't because England scored 300+ in the first innings. It was because they completely fell apart in their own first innings and surrendered a massive first innings lead. Given the success of both sides in their second innings, I don't see how you can blame that on a rubbish pitch. If the curator at the Oval is capable of preparing a pitch that will bat well on the first day, massively deteriorate for the second innings, and then miraculously bounce back to allow the first side to surpass its first innings score then he's a bigger genius than I think anybody is giving him credit for.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

Look I remember watching the telecast, at the end of day 1 Allan Border was adamant that we were in trouble, and at that stage England were 300 - 8. Normally you'd say the the bowling team had a better day if that was the score at the end of day 1.

But Border had already noticed the tell-tale signs that the wicket was well advanced it is breakdwon.

He was right, this isn't just some renegade poster who is bitter about the ashes.

I agree with your comments completely about why the match was lost, a incisive spell of bowling destroyed us. No argument.

But its a hell of a lot easier to come out and make a wicket look good when your leading by 200 odd runs.

I stand by my statement that the team winning the toss had an undue advantage, to me that doesnt qualify a wicket as being good for wicket.

The pitch was roundly criticised by people who would know, Allan Border, Michael Holding, and the editor of Wisden Scyled Berry. Althought the latter did justify it by saying that the Ashes was on the line.

Do you not accept that the toss provided an undue advantage?

 

[a for effort]

Re: Pitches

Oh look it's exactly the same arguments as you posted yesterday with absolutely no attempt to rebut the many counter-arguments that have been presented to you.

this isn't just some renegade poster who is bitter about the ashes.

No, that's exactly what it is

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

Oh look it's exactly the same arguments as you posted yesterday with absolutely no attempt to rebut the many counter-arguments that have been presented to you.


No, that's exactly what it is

You still haven't answered my question.

Did the toss provide an undue advantage to the team that won it, more so then would be expected?

The answer to that is surely yes?

If so, then how is that wicket good for test cricket?

Its not, if anything it is worse then a feather-bed.

It's like in India to have a reasonable chance of winning the game you basically need to win the toss. If you don't you really are going to be up against it.

It's why so many series in India are amazingly booring.

Lose the toss, and you have to fight for a draw.

I am tearing you to pieces on this argument.

Your nothing but a fan boi mate, run along.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Pitches

Fergie, fergie, fergie.

*oh ****, my keyboard*.

Don't worry about that mate, ill give you an A for effort.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Pitches

You still haven't answered my question.

Did the toss provide an undue advantage to the team that won it, more so then would be expected?

The answer to that is surely yes?

If so, then how is that wicket good for test cricket?

Its not, if anything it is worse then a feather-bed.

It's like in India to have a reasonable chance of winning the game you basically need to win the toss. If you don't you really are going to be up against it.

It's why so many series in India are amazingly booring.

Lose the toss, and you have to fight for a draw.

I am tearing you to pieces on this argument.

Your nothing but a fan boi mate, run along.

Look, I've tried to be civil in the face of complete, unrelenting stupidity, but this takes the cake.

I have explicitly stated several times, that no, I do not think the toss had an undue effect on the result. Absolutely no more than it would winning the toss in Adelaide or Sydney. Seeing as 'OH BUT PERSON X SAID THIS' seems to be your favourite method of argument, Ricky Ponting agrees with me.

You raise two or three contentious points, which are summarily rebutted, and then paraphrase yourself in an endless loop of cognitive dissonance, terrible grammar and general internet tough-guyism, ignoring any and all counter-arguments that get raised in between your lunatic rantings, and maybe chucking a few generic insults in their just for good measure.

Shouting the same arguments over and over again does not mean you are 'tearing me to pieces', I do not believe any reasonable person would think that you have won this argument, or that you raised anything resembling a coherent argument throughout it.