Australia v New Zealand 3rd test at the SCG Jan 3 -7

[DaRick]

Overseas teams usually lose in Australia for two reasons.

Their batsmen aren't used to playing on really flat wickets and therefore don't have a mindset to bat for long periods of time to build 400+ totals against accurate bowling and their bowlers can't take 20 wickets when the wicket is barely doing anything due to their pace usually being below ours.

When the tracks are juiced up, their bowlers are more effective and with our batting line-up they have a good chance to roll us for a below par score. Even if their batsmen are worse, if they make 150 and we make 200 obviously they have a better chance of winning.

The best example of this was South Africa vs Sri Lanka last year where this basically happened. Sri Lanka's mediocre bowling attack got enough out of the surface where they could expose a weak SA batting line-up.

Yeah, greentops tend to be equalisers because the outcome of the match depends on the rub of the green RE the toss, and also on how well you catch, because both sides will generate plenty of chances.

 

[CrowBloke]

Overseas teams usually lose in Australia for two reasons.
Their batsmen aren't used to playing on really flat wickets

The Gabba and Perth wickets especially are hardly "flat" decks.
Sri Lanka/ Pakistan and the Kiwis were undone by the extra bounce of Australian wickets to which they're not accustomed. Except for the previous series, India as well, but they won here on the back of a superior batting line-up to ours (minus Smith and Warner, and pre-Labuschagne).
Bounce (and Smith + our bowling attack) probably got the Poms in the last 2 Ashes series in Oz, 5-0 and 4-0, both beltings by any measure.

 

[CrowBloke]

Why do we have to change things up to make other teams competitive?

+

How did you read that from the post you quoted?

I gotta say, I was similarly confused. Barlos' post made me think he was saying I'd suggested that we should help with oppo teams' preparation, or help make them more competitive, when I intended the opposite.

I was agreeing with the poster.

Clears it up, thanks.

 

[Jez1974]

The Gabba and Perth wickets especially are hardly "flat" decks.
Sri Lanka/ Pakistan and the Kiwis were undone by the extra bounce of Australian wickets to which they're not accustomed. Except for the previous series, India as well, but they won here on the back of a superior batting line-up to ours (minus Smith and Warner, and pre-Labuschagne).
Bounce (and Smith + our bowling attack) probably got the Poms in the last 2 Ashes series in Oz, 5-0 and 4-0, both beltings by any measure.

Flat wickets require good bowlers. 20 wickets win test matches! De shithomme!!

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

+

I gotta say, I was similarly confused. Barlos' post made me think he was saying I'd suggested that we should help with oppo teams' preparation, or help make them more competitive, when I intended the opposite.


Clears it up, thanks.

Yep. Completely agreed with you. Why do when we compete overseas no one says anything yet when teams struggle here it's because our pitches are terrible, CA is corrupt and power hungry etc etc, teams don't get enough practice matches blah blah blah?? Why can't other teams take some self responsibility?

 

[PhatBoy]

How did the conditions suit us and not NZ? They batted horribly enough. Juice up the fairly flat pitches and they would have been even worse.

Is this a serious question?

1. What type of bowling is the kind that can still succeed on fairly unresponsive pitches?
A: tall fast bowlers who bowl at 140+km/h who bang the ball into the pitch

2. What type of spin can still succeed on non-dry dustbowl pitches that don’t necessarily offer a heap of side spin?
A: gee, a relatively tall bounce-based off spinner perhaps?

3. What type of bowling will benefit the most from a pink ball?
A: maybe a 6’6 left armer who bowls at 150 and uses swing as his main weapon?

4. Which country’s batsmen tend to profit the most from pitches that don’t offer much seam movement or side spin?
A; Australia

That’s not a criticism - every side has its strengths in terms of the conditions it thrives in. But it’s reality. Australia has a side that suits those conditions perfectly, just as India has one that suits Indian conditions perfectly etc etc.



The last two genuine green seamers I can think of from Australian curators both resulted in defeats to the home side - both in Hobart, and one against New Zealand.

And to be honest, if the touring kiwi side that was just here played on juicy green mambas? I can’t imagine a circumstance in which they could have gone worse than they did on the pitches they just played on.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yep. Completely agreed with you. Why do when we compete overseas no one says anything yet when teams struggle here it's because our pitches are terrible, CA is corrupt and power hungry etc etc, teams don't get enough practice matches blah blah blah?? Why can't other teams take some self responsibility?

What do you mean no one says anything?

Every single time Australia sets foot in Asia, the phrase ‘doctored wickets’ is usually the first thing you read.
Every time England destroys us Stuart Broad style ‘the wickets have been juiced up and too green.’

Mate if you think Australia is the only country that cops it because of its pitches, you don’t read much media - social or educational

 

[to1994]

The Gabba and Perth wickets especially are hardly "flat" decks.
Sri Lanka/ Pakistan and the Kiwis were undone by the extra bounce of Australian wickets to which they're not accustomed. Except for the previous series, India as well, but they won here on the back of a superior batting line-up to ours (minus Smith and Warner, and pre-Labuschagne).
Bounce (and Smith + our bowling attack) probably got the Poms in the last 2 Ashes series in Oz, 5-0 and 4-0, both beltings by any measure.

I wasn't speaking about one specific summer but instead the trend of the past 8 years or so. Perth has had some very flat summer including the one where Mitchell Johnson retired because of the state of the pitches.

Bounce is obviously a big factor, but when the pitches are flat it basically means we're going to make 400+ no matter what while the touring side who've had zero preparation in getting used to the bounce aren't going to be able to do that. England haven't been losing strictly due to batting ability, they've been losing because the way their bowlers are brought up they can't take 20 wickets on Australian soil. This goes for a lot of teams around the world and I have no doubt that reality creeps into the minds of the batsmen.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Is this a serious question?

1. What type of bowling is the kind that can still succeed on fairly unresponsive pitches?
A: tall fast bowlers who bowl at 140+km/h who bang the ball into the pitch

2. What type of spin can still succeed on non-dry dustbowl pitches that don’t necessarily offer a heap of side spin?
A: gee, a relatively tall bounce-based off spinner perhaps?

3. What type of bowling will benefit the most from a pink ball?
A: maybe a 6’6 left armer who bowls at 150 and uses swing as his main weapon?

4. Which country’s batsmen tend to profit the most from pitches that don’t offer much seam movement or side spin?
A; Australia

That’s not a criticism - every side has its strengths in terms of the conditions it thrives in. But it’s reality. Australia has a side that suits those conditions perfectly, just as India has one that suits Indian conditions perfectly etc etc.



The last two genuine green seamers I can think of from Australian curators both resulted in defeats to the home side - both in Hobart, and one against New Zealand.

And to be honest, if the touring kiwi side that was just here played on juicy green mambas? I can’t imagine a circumstance in which they could have gone worse than they did on the pitches they just played on.

Australia does now have bowlers who will get more out of a flat deck but I still think the conditions gave NZ batsmen a chance to occupy the crease if they were good enough (like India's last year). Maybe they couldn't have won but definitely been more competitive or get a draw somewhere. Bouncier pitches with more sideways movement and they get blasted out in no time but probably do better with the ball.

 

[CrowBloke]

including the one where Mitchell Johnson retired because of the state of the pitches.

I loved watching Mitch bowl, especially in that 5-0 Home whitewash.
There's plenty of informed comment about why Mitch retired, aged 36, August 2018:
" Former Test pace great Mitchell Johnson has announced his retirement from all levels of cricket.
Johnson, 36, said he had hoped to continue playing in Twenty20 competitions around the world but his body was "shutting down" and some back problems during the Indian Premier League had reinforced that it was time to finish."
(https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mitchell-johnson-retires-from-all-cricket-20180819-p4zyeu.html)
The wear and tear on fast bowlers' bodies is extensive, especially the delivery stride which impacts hard the back foot, then the front, as well as the load on the shoulder of the bowling arm, ball after ball.
Here, too:

Fast bowler Johnson retires from cricket

Former Australia fast bowler Mitchell Johnson retires from all forms of cricket at the age of 36.

www.bbc.com

No mention of flat wickets.

 

[Topkent]

I loved watching Mitch bowl, especially in that 5-0 Home whitewash.
There's plenty of informed comment about why Mitch retired, aged 36, August 2018:
" Former Test pace great Mitchell Johnson has announced his retirement from all levels of cricket.
Johnson, 36, said he had hoped to continue playing in Twenty20 competitions around the world but his body was "shutting down" and some back problems during the Indian Premier League had reinforced that it was time to finish."
(https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/mitchell-johnson-retires-from-all-cricket-20180819-p4zyeu.html)
The wear and tear on fast bowlers' bodies is extensive, especially the delivery stride which impacts hard the back foot, then the front, as well as the load on the shoulder of the bowling arm, ball after ball.
Here, too:

Fast bowler Johnson retires from cricket

Former Australia fast bowler Mitchell Johnson retires from all forms of cricket at the age of 36.

www.bbc.com

No mention of flat wickets.

What the *? That's an article from when he retired from T20 cricket not test cricket. He retired 3 years earlier after the Perth test which was flat as a s**t Carter's hat and said as much.

Ryan Harris corroborated the story aswell

Johnson's pace accomplice Harris blames tepid pitches for his retirement

Ryan Harris has a crack at the docile pitches being produced for Test cricket at the moment while praising his retiring fast bowling compadre, Mitchell Johnson.

mobile.abc.net.au

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

What do you mean no one says anything?

Every single time Australia sets foot in Asia, the phrase ‘doctored wickets’ is usually the first thing you read.
Every time England destroys us Stuart Broad style ‘the wickets have been juiced up and too green.’

Mate if you think Australia is the only country that cops it because of its pitches, you don’t read much media - social or educational

I stand by my comments. Agree to disagree

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

What the fu**? That's an article from when he retired from T20 cricket not test cricket. He retired 3 years earlier after the Perth test which was flat as a s**t Carter's hat and said as much.

Ryan Harris corroborated the story aswell

Johnson's pace accomplice Harris blames tepid pitches for his retirement

Ryan Harris has a crack at the docile pitches being produced for Test cricket at the moment while praising his retiring fast bowling compadre, Mitchell Johnson.

mobile.abc.net.au

Absolutely right. The NZ series cooked him. Common knowledge

 

[PhatBoy]

I stand by my comments. Agree to disagree

Reality does the disagreeing for me

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

Reality does the disagreeing for me

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. I stand by my comments

 

[CrowBloke]

What the fu**?

Unnecessary.
We're discussing, not shouting expletives at each other. You're right. I was talking about his final retirement in 2018, and said so.
Your original post did not specify his retirement from TEST cricket in 2015, here:

Perth has had some very flat summer including the one where Mitchell Johnson retired because of the state of the pitches.

T20 is also played in Perth.

You said he retired "because of the state of the pitches". There were several more reasons, the most obvious being age.
Johnson seemed unable to change his bowling as he got older eg as Lillee and Hadlee had done, bowling with less pace but more guile. MJ's greatest weapon was pace and that deadly reverse-swinging yorker of his (like Starc now).
This article mentions his lowest days:
"But Johnson also experienced some deep lows, most notably his loss of form during the 2010 Ashes series in England that saw him pilloried by English crowds and had him question his hunger for the game, and a serious foot injury in 2011 that forced him out of the game for a year.
He used that time to regain his fitness and reignite his passion and returned in the second phase of his career as one of the most dominant, exciting players in the world. "

Mitchell Johnson pulls up stumps | cricket.com.au

Paceman to retire from all international cricket at the end of the WACA Test

www.cricket.com.au

There's some speculation in there about the Perth Test wicket, but that's from the journalist, not Johnson himself.

Flat wickets might have been a reason for his retirement, but not the reason, as you said.

That's an article from when he retired from T20 cricket not test cricket. He retired 3 years earlier after the Perth test which was flat as a s**t Carter's hat and said as much. Ryan Harris corroborated the story aswell

Hardly "corroboration". Harris speculated, as well.
As with my expletive-free reasoning above, Harris said flat decks were only a part of Johnson's decision to retire, specifically:
"I am sure that was part of his decision making ...", from that article.

In the same way that it's ok for you to state that he retired because of flat decks, it's ok for me to disagree.

The NZ series cooked him. Common knowledge

That NZ series might have been the last straw, helping him to make the decision he'd been contemplating for some time.
See above. There were other reasons.

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

Unnecessary.
We're discussing, not shouting expletives at each other. You're right. I was talking about his final retirement in 2018, and said so.
Your original post did not specify his retirement from TEST cricket in 2015, here:

T20 is also played in Perth.

You said he retired "because of the state of the pitches". There were several more reasons, the most obvious being age.
Johnson seemed unable to change his bowling as he got older eg as Lillee and Hadlee had done, bowling with less pace but more guile. MJ's greatest weapon was pace and that deadly reverse-swinging yorker of his (like Starc now).
This article mentions his lowest days:
"But Johnson also experienced some deep lows, most notably his loss of form during the 2010 Ashes series in England that saw him pilloried by English crowds and had him question his hunger for the game, and a serious foot injury in 2011 that forced him out of the game for a year.
He used that time to regain his fitness and reignite his passion and returned in the second phase of his career as one of the most dominant, exciting players in the world. "

Mitchell Johnson pulls up stumps | cricket.com.au

Paceman to retire from all international cricket at the end of the WACA Test

www.cricket.com.au

There's some speculation in there about the Perth Test wicket, but that's from the journalist, not Johnson himself.

Flat wickets might have been a reason for his retirement, but not the reason, as you said.


Hardly "corroboration". Harris speculated, as well.
As with my expletive-free reasoning above, Harris said flat decks were only a part of Johnson's decision to retire, specifically:
"I am sure that was part of his decision making ...", from that article.

In the same way that it's ok for you to state that he retired because of flat decks, it's ok for me to disagree.

That NZ series might have been the last straw, helping him to make the decision he'd been contemplating for some time.
See above. There were other reasons.

If I remember correctly he mentioned the "tough days in the field" and "losing the enjoyment during those tough days" straight after retiring. Jon Pierek article iirc. The flat decks rendering his bowling ineffective and he quite rightly gave it up imo.