Random Things on Your Mind (Part 5)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

All my mates in the health and pathology sectors are working all the way through. Luckily our boss does the roster on a volunteer type basis.
 
Brad Hodge was dropped after a 200, Dizzy was dropped after 200 and 5 wickets.
 
Mike Smyth said:
Marsh dropped after 182 - wtf.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness, as runs against a z grade attack hardly makes him a test cricketer.

Just had to stay with the same opening partnership.

I'm surprised the Australian selectors got it right.
 
Vader said:
Looking that way.

The pitches we've seen this series have been hopeless. The Gabba & Perth pitches were both far too batsmen friendly, giving the bowlers next to nothing. The Perth test would have gone for 8 days if the Australians didn't throw away so many wickets in the pursuit of quick runs ahead of declarations. The only reason the Kiwis lost the Gabba test is because they were so badly underdone, having played on even worse pitches in Canberra & Blacktown.

The Adelaide test has been the complete opposite - a bowlers' paradise. They've had to leave a lot of grass on the pitch, in order to ensure that the pink balls don't become unusable after 30 overs. As a result, the ball is seaming, swinging and spinning all over the place. A nightmare for the batsmen.

The Australian pitches aren't quite as bad as what the Indian curators came up with for the current South African tour, but they're not that far short of it.

The curators who prepared the first 3 pitches should all be sacked, so badly have they done their jobs.

Fingers crossed the pitches for the last 3 tests (against the Windies) give a decent contest between bat & ball.
Click to expand...
Adelaide test had a decent pitch. If the batsmen applied themselves it would have gone into a 5th day.

These other ground pitches which are roads are boring for test cricket. Needs to be something in it for the bowlers too.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
Adelaide test had a decent pitch. If the batsmen applied themselves it would have gone into a 5th day.

These other ground pitches which are roads are boring for test cricket. Needs to be something in it for the bowlers too.
Click to expand...
I think the Adelaide pitch was too bowler friendly. The Perth & Brisbane tests were very, very batsmen friendly. Needs to be a balance - the pitch needs to play well for the batsmen for the first few days, starting to deteriorate on days 3-4, becoming bowler friendly on day 5.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Vader said:
I think the Adelaide pitch was too bowler friendly. The Perth & Brisbane tests were very, very batsmen friendly. Needs to be a balance - the pitch needs to play well for the batsmen for the first few days, starting to deteriorate on days 3-4, becoming bowler friendly on day 5.
Click to expand...
Did you see most of the dismissals? Wasn't the best batting performance by either team. Was only tricky in twilight... Otherwise it was hardly a 3 day pitch.
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
Did you see most of the dismissals? Wasn't the best batting performance by either team. Was only tricky in twilight... Otherwise it was hardly a 3 day pitch.
Click to expand...
They doctored the pitch, leaving extra grass on it, to ensure that the pink ball didn't disintegrate after 20 overs (it would have been lucky to last 10 on the concrete strip in Perth). That resulted in extra seam and swing, shifting the balance too far in favour of the bowlers. It was even more dubious around sunset, when visibility was poor to the point of being completely unfair to the batsmen.

I don't have a problem with the concept of day/night tests, but they still have a long way to go if they're going to have a workable execution. Doctoring pitches to ensure that poor quality balls don't disintegrate is not the answer.
 
The pitches at Adelaide Oval have all had more grass on them this season - pink ball or red ball. The curator has been experimenting - initially to protect the pink ball perhaps but I don't think that's the only reason - and found that the pitches played better with some grass. More bounce, more turn for spinners, a bit there for the quicks, coming onto the bat better for the batsmen.

The other reason for the change was how flat the wickets were last year. The Shield team needs to be able to take 20 wickets if they're going to go anywhere and I'm sure there was encouragement from above to liven them up a bit.
 
Vader said:
They doctored the pitch, leaving extra grass on it, to ensure that the pink ball didn't disintegrate after 20 overs (it would have been lucky to last 10 on the concrete strip in Perth). That resulted in extra seam and swing, shifting the balance too far in favour of the bowlers. It was even more dubious around sunset, when visibility was poor to the point of being completely unfair to the batsmen.

I don't have a problem with the concept of day/night tests, but they still have a long way to go if they're going to have a workable execution. Doctoring pitches to ensure that poor quality balls don't disintegrate is not the answer.
Click to expand...
They did not doctor the pitch! Doctoring the pitch is to favour the home side. That is an outlandishly incorrect statement!

It is true more grass was left on as they were worried about the pink ball. The ball hardly seamed & swung around as much as you state - only tricky at twilight. Much easier than typical English conditions. It was poor batting that led to a 3 day game.

Did you actually go to the game? I was there as a saca member & it was hardly difficult batting condition!
 
Kane McGoodwin said:
They did not doctor the pitch! Doctoring the pitch is to favour the home side. That is an outlandishly incorrect statement!

It is true more grass was left on as they were worried about the pink ball. The ball hardly seamed & swung around as much as you state - only tricky at twilight. Much easier than typical English conditions. It was poor batting that led to a 3 day game.

Did you actually go to the game? I was there as a saca member & it was hardly difficult batting condition!
Click to expand...
Of course they doctored the pitch. Doctoring doesn't have to mean modifying it to suit the home team, it just has to be modified from it's usual condition to achieve some purpose. In this case it was doctored with the aim of improving the longevity of the shitty pink balls, ensuring that they wouldn't fall apart after 20 overs like they would on a normal Adelaide wicket.

No, I didn't go to the game. I did watch almost every ball on the TV and saw it swinging and seaming far more than is normal for Adelaide (or any other Australian ground) - at times it was almost unplayable for the batsmen.

It's no coincidence that this test produced the lowest combined 1st innings total in living memory (for Adelaide tests). The combined 1st innings for this match totaled just 426 runs - down on 961 runs in 2014, 742 in 2013, 938 in 2012, 876 in 2011, 890 in 2010. That's not a statistical anomally - it's a direct result of pitch doctoring. It's even more remarkable when you consider that the teams playing both had strong and in-form batsmen, something which often hasn't been true in previous years.

I love a good test match where there is a honest contest between bat and ball. None of the pitches prepared for the NZ series provided that. The Brisbane and Perth decks were both far too batsman friendly. In Adelaide the pendulum tilted too far the other way. Things haven't improved much against the Windies. The Melbourne deck was batsman friendly as well, but the Windies weren't good enough to take advantage. The Hobart pitch was probably the best we've seen this summer.

A good wicket should provide a bit for the bowlers early on the first day, before settling to provide a good batting surface on days 2-3. It should deteriorate on day 4, favouring the bowlers on day 5. Part of the problem with the drop-in pitches these days is that they're "too good" - they don't deteriorate enough to give the bowlers an edge at any stage during the game. The Adelaide wicket was the reverse - at no stage did it give the batsmen an even chance.
 
Punchy Bassett said:
How does one doctor a baseball field? Change the dimensions of the outfield?
Click to expand...

Naaaw you doctor the infield/outfield and baselines. If the other team likes to bunt you make sure it can roll foul. If your team likes to then you make sure it stays fair.

Infield grass can be cut lower or grow a wee bit higher to slow down or speed up balls. Same with the outfield grass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scorpus
Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5
250 251 252 253 254
Replies
6K
Views
157K
Bearded Clam
Bearded Clam
Chief
Opinion INTERNATIONAL Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5
149 150 151 152 153
Replies
4K
Views
111K
adelaidecrows
adelaidecrows
Mutineer
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics Thread Part 4
387 388 389 390 391
Replies
10K
Views
122K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
  • Locked
Opinion The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 3
402 403 404 405 406
Replies
10K
Views
234K
Scorpus
Scorpus
Scorpus
  • Locked
Banter The Adelaide Board Politics/COVID Thread Part 2 (WARNING NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED)
397 398 399 400 401
Replies
10K
Views
150K
Scorpus
Scorpus

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top