Jump to content

Cricket thread


Guest ZipGunBop

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Wanderboy said:

Didn't the MCG get an official warning from the ICC and threatened to have its test status removed for one of the pitches it dished up a couple of years ago?

What's going to happen to this joint? That was disgraceful.

The second test wicket was the worst, the ball was going through the surface first morning and taking chunks out. The third test that finished yesterday was a better surface but was doing far too much first day.

India need to sort their wickets out.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

 

It wasn't turning square day one as such, it was an issue of variable bounce and turn and it was the balls that were skidding on straight that caught just about all batsmen out. They were playing for the spin but some balls seemed to ping off the surface and zip straight in to the pads when it should have turned, it was bizarre to watch lol

A day 1 pitch should not have that variability though.

When you have Joe Root getting 5-8 on a second day pitch something is a bit suss...! They're saying it was the extra layer of lacquer on the pink  ball that made it skid on...but geez I know Root is a an ok part timer as a bowler but like Michael Clarke getting 6-9 in India it shouldn't happen on a two day old pitch....5th day maybe...lol

Edited by sonar
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Give me a break, I am at the bottom of a bottle of white wine...

....and I don't even drink....lol

Link to post
8 hours ago, Smoggy said:

The second test wicket was the worst, the ball was going through the surface first morning and taking chunks out. The third test that finished yesterday was a better surface but was doing far too much first day.

India need to sort their wickets out.

I think India have been sorting their wickets out

That is the problem

The crazy thing as well is that the Indian Cricket Board run the TV coverage so the commentators have all been going on about how its just poor batting and good bowling, and if any player makes and sort of a score it proves that the wicket if fine.

If Joe Root can take 5-3 or something, to me it suggests the pitch might not be ideal

Link to post
2 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

How did Engalnd also get there team selection so wrong. Playing 1 spinner on that pitch (not that it mattered)

They were working to the assumption seamers would work well under lights and get  a bit of swing, but this is India, not Headingley.

The wickets have been atrocious and talk of the ICC stepping in, but they won't of course. The second test wicket the worst I have seen since I started watching test cricket in 1988. It was like bowling on a digestive biscuit, ridiculous.

I know in England they will produce a green top wicket. These wickets will do something very early with the new ball but will generally dry off, flatten out and give a reasonable contest. Decent batting from 2nd session day 1, day 2 and in to day 3. Start taking a bit of spin late day 3 and something for the quicks. As a batsman if you get through the first few tricky hours / sessions then you can generally set yourself on a green top

These Indian wickets are damaging test cricket. You are right in that something is up when Root can get bowing figures of 5/8, it shouldn't happen.

Dodgy goings on with the ICB in my opinion.

Edited by Smoggy
Link to post
7 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

I think India have been sorting their wickets out

They definitely have been. But, y'know, if you are weak in one facet of the game then you are open to be manipulated by a pitch that doesn't suit you (not that I agree with it). That's why winning away in Test cricket is such an achievement.

I know most of our English pals on here won't agree with my next commment, but I'd say that Australia is one of the only Test playing nations that historically hasn't doctored it's pitches. This is because of the egalitarian nature of the country, and a groundsman would likely tell someone to go jump if they tried to tell him how to do his job. But with Cricket Australia taking a heavy handed approach to controlling the game and worrying about money more than anything else in the last decade or more (and the egalitarian nature of the country slowly eroding), I think a few years ago we saw some dead tracks because the message to the groundstaff was to make Tests go 5 days if possible. This was after the Sydney Ashes Test was over within 2.5 days and they lost a lot of cash.

More recently, the drop-in pitches (thanks AFL you greedy ****s) have meant that the groundsmen are just struggling to produce something decent.

England have had groundstaff admitting they cultivated certain types of pitches, as well as ex-players admit to asking for pitches, to the point where a few years ago it became so obvious that they were not really even hiding it anymore. The likes of Vaughan and Atherton were defending the practice. The was an Ashes where England set out to produce flatish wickets that were easier to bat first on in a clear attempt to nullify Aussie pace especially Mitch Johnson. Unfortunately for them that lead to Smith getting a double ton at Lords on and absolute road. So they then went for your traditional English greentops which undid the Aussies badly, with both bat and ball, and Lehmann's desire for outright pace meant they didn't pick Peter Siddle until it was too late.

That's why in the last Ashes the Aussie brought Siddle and didn't pick Starc until the third Test I think it was, as they anticipated more green wickets and wanted accuracy and seam, not pace. To England's credit the pitches were a lot fairer.

Test cricket is much better when the groundsmen are left to cultivate pitches that have their own characters. 

Link to post

I think a greentops are one of the best test match surfaces out there and are why touring sides to England can be quite successful (* depending on overhead conditions)

If you win the toss you can either think 'well we can have a bowl with the likelihood we will get 2-4 early wickets and get at the middle order before the pitch flattens out. Or you can think 'we will have a bat and dig in and get through the first few sessions, after that batting will become easier  (* depending on overhead conditions).  

Usually on these surfaces a team will be like 3/65 but at close of play like 5/245. If overheads are bad for batting that is when you get stupid low scores on greentops. 

England may do this or that with the wickets, but the fact is compared to Australia or the sub-continent England is not such a tricky place for visiting sides. Plus the majority of top Aussies, Indian, South Africans and Kiwi's play county cricket. Many are used to opening the batting or bowling at places even further north than Headingley like Durham lol

I have always thought it is easier for Aussies touring to England than it is the other way around.

 

Edited by Smoggy
Link to post
16 hours ago, btron3000 said:

They definitely have been. But, y'know, if you are weak in one facet of the game then you are open to be manipulated by a pitch that doesn't suit you (not that I agree with it). That's why winning away in Test cricket is such an achievement.

I know most of our English pals on here won't agree with my next commment, but I'd say that Australia is one of the only Test playing nations that historically hasn't doctored it's pitches. This is because of the egalitarian nature of the country, and a groundsman would likely tell someone to go jump if they tried to tell him how to do his job. But with Cricket Australia taking a heavy handed approach to controlling the game and worrying about money more than anything else in the last decade or more (and the egalitarian nature of the country slowly eroding), I think a few years ago we saw some dead tracks because the message to the groundstaff was to make Tests go 5 days if possible. This was after the Sydney Ashes Test was over within 2.5 days and they lost a lot of cash.

More recently, the drop-in pitches (thanks AFL you greedy ****s) have meant that the groundsmen are just struggling to produce something decent.

England have had groundstaff admitting they cultivated certain types of pitches, as well as ex-players admit to asking for pitches, to the point where a few years ago it became so obvious that they were not really even hiding it anymore. The likes of Vaughan and Atherton were defending the practice. The was an Ashes where England set out to produce flatish wickets that were easier to bat first on in a clear attempt to nullify Aussie pace especially Mitch Johnson. Unfortunately for them that lead to Smith getting a double ton at Lords on and absolute road. So they then went for your traditional English greentops which undid the Aussies badly, with both bat and ball, and Lehmann's desire for outright pace meant they didn't pick Peter Siddle until it was too late.

That's why in the last Ashes the Aussie brought Siddle and didn't pick Starc until the third Test I think it was, as they anticipated more green wickets and wanted accuracy and seam, not pace. To England's credit the pitches were a lot fairer.

Test cricket is much better when the groundsmen are left to cultivate pitches that have their own characters. 

I don’t entirely disagree, it’s all to different extents isn’t it?

To me It’s part of the home advantage of cricket and it’s to an extent fair enough too.

If you have a seam attack you’ll likely prepare wickets that seam or if you have a spinner you’ll prepare tracks that take spin.

In part its why the mark of great test teams is to win away.

However of a match lasts 2 days and the spinners are opening the bowling after lunch on the first day, it’s not a good wicket for cricket. Not to mention Joe Root getting 5 for be to nothing 

 

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

To be fair that’s from the totally un-English publication of *checks notes* Wisden.

Link to post
On 14/03/2021 at 8:55 PM, Davo said:

To be fair that’s from the totally un-English publication of *checks notes* Wisden.

Yeah.

I note the Poms are very quiet in here. First little sniff of a sledge from an Aussie player and they'll be banging on again about our poor culture.

Meanwhile their hero - who bashed a guy to a pulp outside a pub - called a spectator f***ing four eyed c***. Lovely stuff.

Link to post
1 hour ago, btron3000 said:

called a spectator f***ing four eyed c***. Lovely stuff.

While the national team was sponsored by Specsavers.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...