Do bowlers need help?

[Furn]

In the last few weeks we've seen 6 scores over 560 all declared, including 2 scores well over 700. In the WI we've seen 15 wickets fall in 4 and a bit days.

There are about 15 current players who average more than Viv Richards or Allan Border did. And plenty more who have retired recently. Even the worst tailenders are averaging around 10 and most average close to 20,some 30.

Meanwhile very few bowlers average under 30. Pitches are flatter,bats are better, you cant bowl more than 2 bouncers, players have better protection etc.

SO the question is, is it too easy for batsman at test level? and if so what can be done about it.

Should there be changes to the ball such as a bigger seam?. A new ball more often ? wet the pitch each morning ?

IMO something has to be done. 400 should be a really good score and 500+ a rarity.

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Basically the problem is the wickets. More so then bats, helmets and short boundaries or what not. Those factors are relatively minor and IMO have little impact on how much a player is going to average with the bat. I mean if your an ordinary batsmen your bat isn't going to help you score runs.

The problem is the wickets. We saw in India in October batsmen racking up massive scores. In this situation the toss basically is crucial, lose it and your out of the match.

The key is you want bounce in the wicket. This encourages all the shots to be played while also allowing bowlers to get some carry. We saw in India, bowlers getting genuine edges that weren't carrying to the slips, basically one mode of dismissal was taken away from the bowlers.

If the wickets don't bounce and there isn't much seam movement (which is dependent on the amount of grass on the wicket) then the batsmen simply can hit through the line of the ball with confidence. Some bowlers will try and bowl cutters but because of the slow nature of the wicket and the lack of bounce batsmen have time to adjust.

Go and bat on a concrete wicket with astro turf on it in the nets. The ball flys through and pace bowlers get good bounce. Then go out to a wicket which is just a tad slow and see how much easier it is to play the same pace bowlers. You have a lot more time.

However just becaues the wicket has a bit of grass on it doesn't mean bowlers are assured a bag full as we saw here at the Wanderers. It was a perfect wicket but if he bowl shit you will go for runs.

It also comes down a bit to the quality of the attack, i remember in 06/07 the English were saying that the Gabba wicket was too good and you got too much of an advantage by winning the toss. But England bowled poorly apart from Flintoff and their bowlers were card-carrying pie chuckers.

Stuart Clarke on that same wicket bowled a perfect line and length and on a wicket with bounce the ball almost takes off, in that situation you don't need much seam movement to be a handful.

[alfy!]

No, it is just the curators keep making absolute roads.

[krisholio14]

It's a combination of a number of things.

The preparation of batsman friendly pitches (and even the homogenization of pitches from one ground to the next), juiced up bats, roped off boundaries and better drainage of the outfield all add up to one thing...a shitload of runs.

[Simon_Nesbit]

Pitches are prepared too early. They now last better than ever before thanks to advances in treatment techniques, so what was previously a 4th day wicket is now considered a 'poor' 5th day wicket. The opening ball is often bowled on what should be a 2nd, or sometimes even 3rd day pitch.

ASFAIC, pitches should be designed so that ideally teams batting first make 250-350, and are bowled out late on the first day, or early on the 2nd. Team batting second makes 300-400, and is bowled out lunch time on day 3. First team bats until tea on day 4, making 300-400, leaving opposition 350 to get on the last day and a bit.

Even that involves somewhere in the region of 1300-1400 runs scored, so is probably too high.


The people that matter are hopefully beginning to realise how boring high-scoring cricket is, and will reintroduce challenging pitches, with unique characteristics.

Green the pitches up, let them deteriorate quicker, and watch the spectacle improve.

[davey_magik]

South African and Kiwi pitches IMO are usually the best, there is a bit there for the bowlers and the batsmen have to knuckle down and play well.

[Dez!]

While the Sydney pitch was a dangerous pitch, I reckon it was the best. It gave us what was an awesome Test match and it was a real battle between bat and ball.

I'd like to see a new ball every 60 overs instead of 80, it's about time the bowlers get something to go their way.

[Black Thunder]

the wicket's are the biggeest problem. they so flat and placid. that wanderer's pitch IMO was about as close to the perfect test wicket as you could get.

Put it in a good region and you'll get some assistance. The bounce was pretty even but every now and then you got one that broke the surface and reared up or stayed low. Also if you notice any time a bowler went a bit wide the bounce in those regions was flat as a tack and he was generally sent to the boundary.

and at the end of the test we saw 1186 runs at an average of 29.5 runs per wicket. pretty much about perfect.

People rave about that Ashes Adelaide test but IMO that test was one of the most boring i've watched until Warne weaved his magic on day four. the first three days was just redicolous for mine.

the thing as well if you look at every rule change throughout the ages they've almost entirely been in favour of the batsmen;

- pitch outside leg stump lbw rule (i agree with this one)
- front foot no ball rule
- short bowling
- shorter boundaries (i don't mind ropes to protect fieldsmen sliding, but sometimes they are just bought in redicolous amounts)
- one-day cricket in general, and in particular 20/20

and plenty of others.

cricket is a batsmen game. especially nowadays with all the money involved in the game... the crowds want to see big hitting and sixes, and the crowds bring the sponsors in and the sponsors bring the money.

[Black Thunder]

then if you look at how that further compounds things look at the junior kids coming through - they all want to be batsmen;

and why not?? just about every cricketing highlight you see on tv is of big hitting batsmen. who wants to be a quick bowler these days?? **** i'd much rather be a batsmen than a bowler but i'm shit at batting.

parent's, whether they realise it or not, will also be influrnced and probably push their kids more towards batting then bowling. that's where the money is.

dave warner hasn't even played a first class game yet he will be one of australia's highest paid cricketers in 2009 (he'll actually be one of australia's highest paid sportsmen believe it or not) - he's got a CA base contract (180k), NSW contract (80k), IPL contract (350k), Durham contract (100k), plus he'll get match payments, he's got a bat contract (70k-ish from reports i've heard) and word is he is signing a deal with Adidas (unknown).... so that's above 700k for a young hard hitting batsmen who's yet to even play first class cricket. He'll probably earn about as much, probably more than Peter Siddle. He'll actually earn more than just about every AFL footballer despite not having played a first class game. I can garuantee you if he was a bowler with the same talent and method of playing the game he wouldn't be earning near that amount....

[Badesumofu]

We've seen 4 gripping Test Matches between Aus and SA, a great balance between bat and ball - the last two matches both went into the final sesion, and the other two both went into the second sesion of the final day.

Unfortunately, nearly every other match played during this period has been a farce. Looking at Cricinfo earlier and seeing teams routinely (!) making scores of 6-700, seing less than 20 wickets total falling in a match - it's really worrying. Seeing bowlers toil away, getting nothing out of the pitch, just having to wait for the batsmen to get themselves out is really awful to watch. You like to see 1 or 2 really good partnerships in a match, but you also want to see spells like some of Johnson and Steyn's where they look like getting a wicket every ball, and completely turn a match.

I think it's a mix of things - England, WI, Pakistan and Sri Lanka all have rather weak or out of form bowling attacks. You could put together one or maybe one and a half really good (and in form) bowling attacks from those four sides put together. The pitches they are playing on are atrocious, the recent England vs WI Test in which over 1500 runs were scored for the loss of only 17 wickets is nearly as much of a farce as the Ten Ball Test. Neither game had any real chance of a result from the start.

Compare that to the balanced yet varied pitches that we've been playing on. Also compare the fast bowling stocks - SA have the best pace attack in the world, and Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus would probably have to be the second best, despite having played only 25 Tests between them.

Major props to the people who prepared the pitch for The Wanderers Test. Just about perfect. Plenty for the bowlers, but good value for shots for the batsmen. It was a great contest between bat and ball.

[Illinois Nazi]

Problem seems to the curators in certain parts of the world, who appear to be under instruction to prepare a wicket the home team cannot possibly lose on. Doesn't matter if they don't win, so long as they don't lose.

Maybe pitch preparation should be overseen by the ICC rather than the individual countries (though I realise that opens a whole new can of worms as well).

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Agree, remember Ganguly ringing up curators and ordering pitches.

[Simon_Nesbit]

Agree, remember Ganguly ringing up curators and ordering pitches.

Not really...but I do remember his (think it was Ganguly) outrage in an interview post-match when the pitch wasn't "as we asked for it to be, it's not good enough, the curator should be fired".

It was VERY quickly reworded for the press, but the original interview went to air.