a for effort
Active Member
Re: Pitches
lol, you got me!
LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374802 said:
lol, you got me!
Pitches
- Thread starter Boris
- Start date
Caesar
Member
Re: Pitches
If the innings deteriorated so badly after that first day, why was England's first innings score the second-lowest total for the match? Surely you would expect it to the the best if batting first gave so much advantage.
But... it wasn't. As demonstrated by the fact that England came out in the third innings and scored even more than they had in the first. And then Australia came out in the fourth innings and did the same thing.LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374793 said:
If the innings deteriorated so badly after that first day, why was England's first innings score the second-lowest total for the match? Surely you would expect it to the the best if batting first gave so much advantage.
No. What's more, I haven't seen you give a single tangible example or reason showing how it did. "A bunch of ex-players said so" doesn't count.LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374793 said:
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Pitches
LtD, you still havent answered my point about the GABBA, that is a win the toss, win the game pitch, so do you think the GABBA is a substandard, shit pitch completely unfair for test cricket?
LtD, you still havent answered my point about the GABBA, that is a win the toss, win the game pitch, so do you think the GABBA is a substandard, shit pitch completely unfair for test cricket?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Pitches
Its a lot easier to come out and score runs when you lead by 200 runs, doesn't change the fact that winning the toss was crucial.
A similar scenario happened against South Africa last SCG test, that wicket was sub-standard with massive cracking by day 3 due to the excessive heat. The groundsmen had made a mistake and hadn't watered the pitch enough in the preparation stage. The groundsmen admitted the mistake as well.
We led on first innings, came out to bat and scored something like 250/4 declared. Then South Africa came out and stuggled on a very difficult wicket.
The toss was crucial in that match as it turned out, because by day 3 the wicket was quite bad.
Caesar;374807 said:
Its a lot easier to come out and score runs when you lead by 200 runs, doesn't change the fact that winning the toss was crucial.
A similar scenario happened against South Africa last SCG test, that wicket was sub-standard with massive cracking by day 3 due to the excessive heat. The groundsmen had made a mistake and hadn't watered the pitch enough in the preparation stage. The groundsmen admitted the mistake as well.
We led on first innings, came out to bat and scored something like 250/4 declared. Then South Africa came out and stuggled on a very difficult wicket.
The toss was crucial in that match as it turned out, because by day 3 the wicket was quite bad.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Pitches
Didn't help NZ much last year did it eddie.
The Gabba is probably the best cricket wicket in the world, and I fully condone the gabba preparing a road everytime we play victoria in the final and then playing it safe by racking up 700+ :and winning the shield.
GET THAT INTO YA
eddiesmith;374809 said:
Didn't help NZ much last year did it eddie.
The Gabba is probably the best cricket wicket in the world, and I fully condone the gabba preparing a road everytime we play victoria in the final and then playing it safe by racking up 700+ :and winning the shield.
GET THAT INTO YA
bren122
Member
Re: Pitches
it is a bit of a stretch to say it was doctored if it was going to reward whoever won the toss- as a 50-50 chance then Australia had as much chance of using the pitch as the English did.
my definition of a doctored pitch is where it clearly favours one side over another regardless of who wins the toss.
something like the WACA, where it favours fast bowlers, does not really qualify under this definition because the other side can bring their own pace battery. but there was that period in the late 90s and early 00s when the curator was not up to the task of preparing even first class pitches much less test pitches. i don't think that that qualifies because, lets face it, it was a pretty open secret he was struggling with it.
in truth there have been very few truly doctored pitches- but i think there should be some sort of check on the curator to make sure they are doing their best. if their best is not good enough then the ICC should have the faculty to impose a solution- even if it is merely to require that an experienced curator oversee a new curator; or to require the association to replace an incompetent one. (i really hesitate to use that word because it is as much art as science and some people don't have the art- i certainly couldn't do it)
at the end of the day some pitches are going to be sub-standard. it only really becomes an issue when it is deliberate or if it keeps happening.
i personally think that the Oval Pitch was sub-standard but not deliberately so. it is possible to do the same thing 500 times and the 501st time you make a mistake- and i think that that is what happened here. did it affect the game- probably. but i also think that Australia could have performed better, certainly in the batting department in that first innings. despite losing the game i don't think i have seen a better batting performance from these Australians than in the second innings- a truer indication of their ability than batting on a flat deck. after all- isn't that why they're called tests?
it is a bit of a stretch to say it was doctored if it was going to reward whoever won the toss- as a 50-50 chance then Australia had as much chance of using the pitch as the English did.
my definition of a doctored pitch is where it clearly favours one side over another regardless of who wins the toss.
something like the WACA, where it favours fast bowlers, does not really qualify under this definition because the other side can bring their own pace battery. but there was that period in the late 90s and early 00s when the curator was not up to the task of preparing even first class pitches much less test pitches. i don't think that that qualifies because, lets face it, it was a pretty open secret he was struggling with it.
in truth there have been very few truly doctored pitches- but i think there should be some sort of check on the curator to make sure they are doing their best. if their best is not good enough then the ICC should have the faculty to impose a solution- even if it is merely to require that an experienced curator oversee a new curator; or to require the association to replace an incompetent one. (i really hesitate to use that word because it is as much art as science and some people don't have the art- i certainly couldn't do it)
at the end of the day some pitches are going to be sub-standard. it only really becomes an issue when it is deliberate or if it keeps happening.
i personally think that the Oval Pitch was sub-standard but not deliberately so. it is possible to do the same thing 500 times and the 501st time you make a mistake- and i think that that is what happened here. did it affect the game- probably. but i also think that Australia could have performed better, certainly in the batting department in that first innings. despite losing the game i don't think i have seen a better batting performance from these Australians than in the second innings- a truer indication of their ability than batting on a flat deck. after all- isn't that why they're called tests?
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Pitches
But the NZ example is a good one, the toss doesnt always help a shit team, so no guarantees that Australia would have won the 5th test if they won the toss judging by how they batted in their first innings
We have won 2 out of the last 3 Shield finals we have played against QLD soLIONS then DAYLIGHT;374823 said:Didn't help NZ much last year did it eddie.
The Gabba is probably the best cricket wicket in the world, and I fully condone the gabba preparing a road everytime we play victoria in the final and then playing it safe by racking up 700+ :and winning the shield.
GET THAT INTO YA
But the NZ example is a good one, the toss doesnt always help a shit team, so no guarantees that Australia would have won the 5th test if they won the toss judging by how they batted in their first innings
Caesar
Member
Re: Pitches
Try again.
You could say that about any match where the team batting second failed in their first innings, it doesn't necessarily say anything about the pitch. It also ignores the fact Australia scored the second-highest total of the match in the fourth innings.LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374822 said:
How is that at all similar to this game? In that match, both teams made the bulk of their runs in their first innings, with the latter two innings totals being quite low due to pitch deterioration. Quite the opposite of what happened at the Oval.LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374822 said:
Try again.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Pitches
Look Im not going to waste time trying to explain stuff to people who aren't up to my level of intelligence.
England didn't cheat, they didn't doctor the wicket, but at the end of the day the curator has been head groundsmen for something like 30 years, and for that time the oval has been known as a good batting wicket.
Michael Holding said he had been coming to the oval for more than 30 years and said he had never seen it so dry.
The coin toss gave an undue advantage to whoever won it, as was the groundsmen's intention. Because it levelled the playing field and made it a 50/50 bet.
Privately the Australian's will admit they were dudded, going out to bat on day 2 they would have known that they were up against it. May that realisation have contributed to their batting collapse? Who knows.
But that type of breakup on day 1, in which there were shots of the ball going throup the top, someone is still yet to explain to me how that makes for a good cricket wicket?
England won the Ashes and well done to them, Im not trying to take away their achievement, merely pointing out what are facts to people who know the game.
Look Im not going to waste time trying to explain stuff to people who aren't up to my level of intelligence.
England didn't cheat, they didn't doctor the wicket, but at the end of the day the curator has been head groundsmen for something like 30 years, and for that time the oval has been known as a good batting wicket.
Michael Holding said he had been coming to the oval for more than 30 years and said he had never seen it so dry.
The coin toss gave an undue advantage to whoever won it, as was the groundsmen's intention. Because it levelled the playing field and made it a 50/50 bet.
Privately the Australian's will admit they were dudded, going out to bat on day 2 they would have known that they were up against it. May that realisation have contributed to their batting collapse? Who knows.
But that type of breakup on day 1, in which there were shots of the ball going throup the top, someone is still yet to explain to me how that makes for a good cricket wicket?
England won the Ashes and well done to them, Im not trying to take away their achievement, merely pointing out what are facts to people who know the game.
Caesar
Member
Re: Pitches
I'm not asking you to explain anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions with facts. Actually, one fact would do. Any fact.
Repeating over and over "the pitch was crap" doesn't make it so. You keep saying that it fell apart after the first day, but that's flat out contradicted by the fact that both teams batted better in their second innings than either did in the first.
What colour's the sky on your planet?
I'm not asking you to explain anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions with facts. Actually, one fact would do. Any fact.
Repeating over and over "the pitch was crap" doesn't make it so. You keep saying that it fell apart after the first day, but that's flat out contradicted by the fact that both teams batted better in their second innings than either did in the first.
What colour's the sky on your planet?
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Pitches
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Genuine space cadet.LIONS then DAYLIGHT;374864 said:
bren122
Member
Re: Pitches
there is some truth to the notion that the state of the pitch on the second day may have contributed to a poor mindset for the Australian batsmen; but does this really excuse their performance?
i don't think that the quality of the game was ever going to be particularly edifying regardless of the quality of the pitch. but i for one thoroughly enjoyed the grit and determination of the Australian side in their second innings. it was a display i personally did not think the Australians could muster. was it pretty? no. but i thought it made for good cricket.
there is some truth to the notion that the state of the pitch on the second day may have contributed to a poor mindset for the Australian batsmen; but does this really excuse their performance?
i don't think that the quality of the game was ever going to be particularly edifying regardless of the quality of the pitch. but i for one thoroughly enjoyed the grit and determination of the Australian side in their second innings. it was a display i personally did not think the Australians could muster. was it pretty? no. but i thought it made for good cricket.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Pitches
Look, when discussing the game of cricket the use of 'facts' is quite hard outside quoting statistics from a reliable source (ie, cricinfo).
Other than that its pretty hard to use 'fact' in the course of disclosing an opinion.
I have added weight to my opinion by paraphrasing what some respected ex-players have said about the matter. More importantly, I have included some quotes from neutral commentators such as Michael Holding. Who said that he remembered playing at the Oval during one of the hottest summers on record in the 70's and the wicket was never that dry. He also added that he was "disappointed" with the wicket.
Allan Border said at the end of day 1 that the Australians were in trouble and that winning the test match was all but out of the question, because at that stage england were 8- 300 odd and in his opinion, that type of first innings total was going to make it very hard for us to win the match.
Im not bitter, or whinging, because if we had won the toss we'd be laughing.
The notion of using the total amount of runs scored to evaluate the quality of a pitch sounds good in theory, but is fundamentally flawed.
You could argue that more runs were scored in the 2nd innings for both sides because the match was all but decided after the first innings was completed for both sides. Eng had a 200 + lead and went out and scored easily, as would be expected with a position of dominance.
Australia came out chasing a impossible total but there score was boosted by the skill of Ponting and Hussey, rather then the pitch becoming easier to play.
If any of you clowns had actually read my stuff and took it all in. You'd realise my main beef is the fact that the toss provided an undue advantage.
That being that the team batting first would get first use of a wicket that was going to last for 1 day at most before it would start to break up at an excessive rate.
I saw the ball going through the top before stumps on day 1, now try and tell me that isn't a 'fact' that the pitch was over-baked, cooked, whatever you want.
At the end of the day the toss was crucial, England wanted it like that because it ment that they had a 50% chance of winning rather then a lesser chance on equal merit.
Its not that hard to understand.
Really, you lot are not worthy in my company.
Caesar;374866 said:
Look, when discussing the game of cricket the use of 'facts' is quite hard outside quoting statistics from a reliable source (ie, cricinfo).
Other than that its pretty hard to use 'fact' in the course of disclosing an opinion.
I have added weight to my opinion by paraphrasing what some respected ex-players have said about the matter. More importantly, I have included some quotes from neutral commentators such as Michael Holding. Who said that he remembered playing at the Oval during one of the hottest summers on record in the 70's and the wicket was never that dry. He also added that he was "disappointed" with the wicket.
Allan Border said at the end of day 1 that the Australians were in trouble and that winning the test match was all but out of the question, because at that stage england were 8- 300 odd and in his opinion, that type of first innings total was going to make it very hard for us to win the match.
Im not bitter, or whinging, because if we had won the toss we'd be laughing.
The notion of using the total amount of runs scored to evaluate the quality of a pitch sounds good in theory, but is fundamentally flawed.
You could argue that more runs were scored in the 2nd innings for both sides because the match was all but decided after the first innings was completed for both sides. Eng had a 200 + lead and went out and scored easily, as would be expected with a position of dominance.
Australia came out chasing a impossible total but there score was boosted by the skill of Ponting and Hussey, rather then the pitch becoming easier to play.
If any of you clowns had actually read my stuff and took it all in. You'd realise my main beef is the fact that the toss provided an undue advantage.
That being that the team batting first would get first use of a wicket that was going to last for 1 day at most before it would start to break up at an excessive rate.
I saw the ball going through the top before stumps on day 1, now try and tell me that isn't a 'fact' that the pitch was over-baked, cooked, whatever you want.
At the end of the day the toss was crucial, England wanted it like that because it ment that they had a 50% chance of winning rather then a lesser chance on equal merit.
Its not that hard to understand.
Really, you lot are not worthy in my company.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Pitches
Look no doubt about the display of grit and determination, primarily once again by Ricky Ponting.
The last day made for good cricket primarily because there was one player, an all-time great player, that stood head and shoulders above every other player on the field that was attempting to do something that had never been done before in the history of the game.
Once again Ricky Ponting was almost single handedly trying to lead us home, his batting on that wicket was excepptional, its hard not to think that had he not been run out that he would have gone on craft one of the greatest innings the game had ever seen, win , lose or draw.
bren122;374901 said:
Look no doubt about the display of grit and determination, primarily once again by Ricky Ponting.
The last day made for good cricket primarily because there was one player, an all-time great player, that stood head and shoulders above every other player on the field that was attempting to do something that had never been done before in the history of the game.
Once again Ricky Ponting was almost single handedly trying to lead us home, his batting on that wicket was excepptional, its hard not to think that had he not been run out that he would have gone on craft one of the greatest innings the game had ever seen, win , lose or draw.
Caesar
Member
Re: Pitches
That would have to be the first disintegrating, overbaked pitch I've seen where the best two innings in the game were the latter two.
I just find it hard to credit the statement 'the toss gave an undue advantage to the team batting first', when the pitch batted so well for both sides right to the end of the match.
That would have to be the first disintegrating, overbaked pitch I've seen where the best two innings in the game were the latter two.
I just find it hard to credit the statement 'the toss gave an undue advantage to the team batting first', when the pitch batted so well for both sides right to the end of the match.
bren122
Member
Re: Pitches
it was not a perfect pitch; it was not an attrocious pitch.
it was a pitch that required work to bat well and for three innings the two sides batted with the required skill and concentration to produce good scores.
me- i wish more pitches were like that. i want to see the players actually putting in the effort to succeed. it's supposed to be a test of skill, not how far you can hit the ball.
it was not a perfect pitch; it was not an attrocious pitch.
it was a pitch that required work to bat well and for three innings the two sides batted with the required skill and concentration to produce good scores.
me- i wish more pitches were like that. i want to see the players actually putting in the effort to succeed. it's supposed to be a test of skill, not how far you can hit the ball.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Pitches
Look im not arguing with you bren122.
My point is, the wicket was a road for the first day, an absolute road.
Hence the importance of the toss.
That is my point, once the toss becomes a crucial element of the game then the game becomes boring.
Hence why Test cricket in India is so dull, win the toss, bat first, score 500+ then try and somehow get 20 wickets while the other team batting second trys to save the game.
Look im not arguing with you bren122.
My point is, the wicket was a road for the first day, an absolute road.
Hence the importance of the toss.
That is my point, once the toss becomes a crucial element of the game then the game becomes boring.
Hence why Test cricket in India is so dull, win the toss, bat first, score 500+ then try and somehow get 20 wickets while the other team batting second trys to save the game.
Re: Pitches
Okay I have been away for a while and haven't the time to read over it all so I would like to bring up a point that was said a bit back about doctoring pitches.
Doctoring DOES occur in almost every match. In the first place I used the Ashes example because it was the last time that most likely everyone here saw it.
I'm not putting down the English for doing it, Australia does it as well, if not more. That is why Australian bowlers go so well in Australia because they grow up bowling on roads, then they make a pitch that is extremely easy to bat on, score 500 first innings, have your road bowlers get them out for 300 then score 100, declare then bowl them out on a deteriorated pitch. All within 5 days.
I think doctoring has a place in the game. It's like baseball, the parks are very suited and designed to fit the team, if that team has a high slugging percentage then the fence is put back and higher to make it hard for the opposition to score home runs, whereas their team sluggers clear it easily. Perth is where good players of bounce naturally come from, so it's only natural that the WACA be made bouncy (which it isn't any more for some reason) so that their batsman can do well on it, and their bowlers can bounce the opposition out. Then they go to another State and find they are facing a tough game in enemy territory.
Some people don't like doctoring because it is unfair, which in a way it is, but I think of it as the game. If you can win while playing away, you are much better than the opposition.
Okay I have been away for a while and haven't the time to read over it all so I would like to bring up a point that was said a bit back about doctoring pitches.
Doctoring DOES occur in almost every match. In the first place I used the Ashes example because it was the last time that most likely everyone here saw it.
I'm not putting down the English for doing it, Australia does it as well, if not more. That is why Australian bowlers go so well in Australia because they grow up bowling on roads, then they make a pitch that is extremely easy to bat on, score 500 first innings, have your road bowlers get them out for 300 then score 100, declare then bowl them out on a deteriorated pitch. All within 5 days.
I think doctoring has a place in the game. It's like baseball, the parks are very suited and designed to fit the team, if that team has a high slugging percentage then the fence is put back and higher to make it hard for the opposition to score home runs, whereas their team sluggers clear it easily. Perth is where good players of bounce naturally come from, so it's only natural that the WACA be made bouncy (which it isn't any more for some reason) so that their batsman can do well on it, and their bowlers can bounce the opposition out. Then they go to another State and find they are facing a tough game in enemy territory.
Some people don't like doctoring because it is unfair, which in a way it is, but I think of it as the game. If you can win while playing away, you are much better than the opposition.