Indian tour pitches

[Mateyman]

I think you're missing the point

pitches are not made to suit Australian bowlers - they are naturally quite hard and fast and that ensures that the bowlers who succeed here can exploit those conditions

it's just Darwinian natural selection - in Australia, tall fast bowlers who bang it in will succeed and therefore tend to be our prominent bowlers

that's not cheating and nor is it cheating when seaming pitches tend to favour England's seamers or spinning wickets favour India's spinners

the word 'cheating' comes into play when those 'natural conditions' are deliberately and artificially made much more 'extreme' in order to benefit the home side and it's tactical position from Test to Test

this is especially so when it is done to the point where the contest between bat and ball is damaged as was the case in Pune and, to a lesser extent, in Bangalaru (hence the pitch ratings of 'poor' and 'below average', respectively)

similarly, when England lost the 2nd Test in last Ashes series, they explicitly called on curators not to prepare slow wickets but to spice them up to maximise the home team's revised view of their 'areas of strength'

initially they wanted slow pitches but when Australia handled slow 1st Test conditions smoothly they abruptly changed their 'brief' to the curators 180 degrees - from 'slow and dry' to 'fast and green'

the next two pitches were a disgrace and damaged the contest between bat and ball

that was cheating. full stop.

for comparison, if Cricket Australia had requested and received a slow, dry, spinning wicket at Hobart after the recent Perth Test in order to nullify the South African seamers and then included 2 spinners, I would consider that cheating also

but they didn't...mainly because Australians consider that cheating

that's what is so ordinary about the BCCI's deliberate and direct intervention in pitch manipulation in this series in order to suit the 'tactical' needs of the home team from Test to Test

so I'm glad the Aussies are just getting on with it and focusing on winning in whatever conditions are put forward

but that is not an argument for the rest of the country to stop calling out what is obvious, blatant and cynical cheating by the BCCI

it is cheating and I'm glad to hear ppl calling it out...

peace

I wouldn't go as far as cheating, but I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of this. It' where it goes from natural characteristics to deliberate planning that is the problem.

 

[beatnik]

So in other words, England wanted traditional English wickets.

Let's hang them.

no, now you're just being deliberately obtuse...engage with the actual point

I specifically said there's nothing wrong with seeing seaming wickets in England

the cheating comes in when they requested and received slow and low in the 1st and 2nd Test then requested and received the exact opposite - green tops - between Tests for tactical reasons

that is cheating...

 

[DT_fanatic]

pitches are not made to suit Australian bowlers - they are naturally quite hard and fast and that ensures that the bowlers who succeed here can exploit those conditions

it's just Darwinian natural selection - in Australia, tall fast bowlers who bang it in will succeed and therefore tend to be our prominent bowlers

Yep that explains why none of the Australian pitches besides Hobart retain the characteristics it used to. Could have nothing to do with the Aussie batsmen being found out for their technical deficiencies. Nothing to do with them becoming far more one-dimensional than the great side of the early 2000s.

Australian pitches these days have true bounce but they're hardly fast. That's why the likes of Starc and Johnson have had more success, because they have that extra speed you need to be effective on these pitches. The pitches continue to be the same (i.e. made to type, or doctored?) to assist them because they know most other visiting countries don't possess the same type of bowler.

 

[Mateyman]

Yep that explains why none of the Australian pitches besides Hobart retain the characteristics it used to. Could have nothing to do with the Aussie batsmen being found out. Nothing to do with them becoming far more one-dimensional than the great side of the early 2000s.

Australian pitches these days have true bounce but they're hardly fast. That's why the likes of Starc and Johnson have had more success, because they have that extra speed you need to be effective on these pitches. The pitches continue to be the same (i.e. made to type, or doctored?) to assist them because they know most other visiting countries don't possess the same type of bowler.

I am really confused why we put out really flat pitches which allowed the Indians to draw 2 tests in 2014-15 rather than the faster ones we had in 2011-12...
Oh also, why do we keep producing green/fast pitches when the South Africans tour even though the only tests they've won here have been on those sorts of pitches? It's almost like they're not doctored

 

[PhatBoy]

no, now you're just being deliberately obtuse...engage with the actual point

I specifically said there's nothing wrong with seeing seaming wickets in England

the cheating comes in when they requested and received slow and low in the 1st and 2nd Test then requested and received the exact opposite - green tops - between Tests for tactical reasons

that is cheating...

1. This is a genuine question, did they request them or is that speculation. Has there been any confirmation?

2. Some English surfaces, off the top of my head Cardiff and the Oval, are known to be very un-English in behaviours. (Understandably in Cardiff given that it's not English). So naturally from time to time some of them ARE going to behave notably different.

3. Australian strength, like England's, lies in its fast bowling stocks. So any attempt to make fast bowling infinitely more potent comes with inherent risk of backfire.

4. Hobart has often been a haven for batsmen. How does its occasional morphing into a batting hell, like SA this summer and NZ five years ago, differ from an overseas venue that suddenly behaves vastly out of character? Sydney has been a highway for years - suddenly when Pakistan tour in 2010 it becomes a northern English green top totally against type, and just happens to be against a team who struggle in those conditions. Why are these examples exempt from scrutiny?

 

[PhatBoy]

I am really confused why we put out really flat pitches which allowed the Indians to draw 2 tests in 2014-15 rather than the faster ones we had in 2011-12...
Oh also, why do we keep producing green/fast pitches when the South Africans tour even though the only tests they've won here have been on those sorts of pitches? It's almost like they're not doctored

Um, we don't.

In 2008, they chased 400 in the last innings. Oh yeah, must have been very green. Next test, the number 10 batsmen and a mediocre lefty in his second test put on 160 before Australia were blasted by the best quick in 30 years of test cricket.

Four years later they clung on for draws in Brisbane and Adelaide (surprise surprise, five day bat-a-thons), before De Villiers and Amla each posted run-a-ball 150s in SA's second innings to set Australia an impossible chase.

Don't basically blatantly lie about the conditions SA face over here just to make your point.

 

[Mateyman]

Um, we don't.

In 2008, they chased 400 in the last innings. Oh yeah, must have been very green. Next test, the number 10 batsmen and a mediocre lefty in his second test put on 160 before Australia were blasted by the best quick in 30 years of test cricket.

Four years later they clung on for draws in Brisbane and Adelaide (surprise surprise, five day bat-a-thons), before De Villiers and Amla each posted run-a-ball 150s in SA's second innings to set Australia an impossible chase.

Don't basically blatantly lie about the conditions SA face over here just to make your point.

Blatant lies...ok champ. Whatever you say. Firstly, you realise that green pitches become flatter as test matches go on yeah? Like they actually dry out which is kind of why it's worse when pitches start already dry than already green.
Now, to your other point, I was referring to the 2012 series and the last one here. Was not referring to 2008 that's a decade ago. In 2012 the first two pitches were roads, and then the last one was spicy. Just because Amal and De Villiers played well in the 2nd innings doesn't undermine the point that the first innings aggregate was under 400. That most definitely did not help us. We would have been better off going for a similar pitch to the first two test where in both we were well on top when it was drawn, and we could have retained the trophy regardless with a draw.
Then instead of making Hobart flat on this tour, we made another green wicket, allowing the South Africans to seal the series, rather than producing a road. Weird that when we were doctoring the pitches we didn't learn from our mistakes.
Oh also the average first innings score on SAs tour here was around 250... sounds like we're producing roads again

 

[PhatBoy]

Blatant lies...ok champ. Whatever you say. Firstly, you realise that green pitches become flatter as test matches go on yeah? Like they actually dry out which is kind of why it's worse when pitches start already dry than already green.
Now, to your other point, I was referring to the 2012 series and the last one here. Was not referring to 2008 that's a decade ago. In 2012 the first two pitches were roads, and then the last one was spicy. Just because Amal and De Villiers played well in the 2nd innings doesn't undermine the point that the first innings aggregate was under 400. That most definitely did not help us. We would have been better off going for a similar pitch to the first two test where in both we were well on top when it was drawn, and we could have retained the trophy regardless with a draw.
Then instead of making Hobart flat on this tour, we made another green wicket, allowing the South Africans to seal the series, rather than producing a road. Weird that when we were doctoring the pitches we didn't learn from our mistakes.
Oh also the average first innings score on SAs tour here was around 250... sounds like we're producing roads again

Yes at 0-157 in Perth in their first innings it was obvious that Australia was really jittery in the billiard table wicket. De Kock smashing 80 odd at a run a ball on day one with his team in dire straits was further proof of that.

 

[Mkcaptain]

Yes at 0-157 in Perth in their first innings it was obvious that Australia was really jittery in the billiard table wicket. De Kock smashing 80 odd at a run a ball on day one with his team in dire straits was further proof of that.

What's wrong with a day 1 pitch being good for batsmen anyway?

My ideal Australian day 1 pitch offers a bit with the new ball in the morning. Batsman have to work for their runs in the first session and are a good chance of nicking to keeper/slips. But if you can get through that opening new ball spell then it becomes a good pitch for batting until day 3 when it starts to deteriorate.

 

[Mateyman]

Yes at 0-157 in Perth in their first innings it was obvious that Australia was really jittery in the billiard table wicket. De Kock smashing 80 odd at a run a ball on day one with his team in dire straits was further proof of that.

I love how if batsmen can put on a partnership the pitch must be flat, even if overall the teams are dismissed for about 200 runs. Rightio. It seems like your definition of a green wicket is one where nobody can make any runs regardless of how good they are?

 

[PhatBoy]

I love how if batsmen can put on a partnership the pitch must be flat, even if overall the teams are dismissed for about 200 runs. Rightio. It seems like your definition of a green wicket is one where nobody can make any runs regardless of how good they are?

I love how if any wickets fall it must have been a green top

It seems like your definition of a flat wicket is one where no bowler can take any wickets no matter how good they are.

 

[Mateyman]

I love how if any wickets fall it must have been a green top

It seems like your definition of a flat wicket is one where no bowler can take any wickets no matter how good they are.

Nope I simply advocate look at results reasonably
If neither team can score more than 300 - the pitch is probably doing a bit. If both teams can easily make 400, it's probably quite flat!
It's not that hard

 

[gbatman]

Wicket's been a belter so far, ODI pace

 

[PhatBoy]

Pitch responsible for Warner's wicket no doubt.

 

[beatnik]

1. This is a genuine question, did they request them or is that speculation. Has there been any confirmation?

2. Some English surfaces, off the top of my head Cardiff and the Oval, are known to be very un-English in behaviours. (Understandably in Cardiff given that it's not English). So naturally from time to time some of them ARE going to behave notably different.

3. Australian strength, like England's, lies in its fast bowling stocks. So any attempt to make fast bowling infinitely more potent comes with inherent risk of backfire.

4. Hobart has often been a haven for batsmen. How does its occasional morphing into a batting hell, like SA this summer and NZ five years ago, differ from an overseas venue that suddenly behaves vastly out of character? Sydney has been a highway for years - suddenly when Pakistan tour in 2010 it becomes a northern English green top totally against type, and just happens to be against a team who struggle in those conditions. Why are these examples exempt from scrutiny?

1. yes, both Indian media and officials have been quite open about the BCCI pitch officials spending several days 'guiding' the local Pune curator's work in the lead-up to the 1st Test...they don't appear to be embarrassed or shy about the interventions, just unhappy about the use of C-word in relation to the interventions


2. agree - as I said previously, this is not cheating.

However, calling on the curators between Tests to spice the next pitches up and those curators serving up surfaces that ruined the contest between bat and ball to advantage the local side definitely is cheating. I can explain it using different language and/or examples but I think the point is clear enough for you to understand the point that I'm making, regardless of whether or not you agree


3. that oversimplifies what we're discussing to the point of irrelevance

for one thing, Australian fast bowling stocks thrive on hard, bouncy wickets rather than swinging, seamers - they are very different things...Andersen's record in Australia and Johnson's record in UK probably illustrate this well but I'm sure there are many examples of others (as well as some examples of those who translate well in both conditions like Broad or McGrath)

for another, relative strength of batting comes into it as much as bowling strength...slow, turners in England were being requested and received when Swann was rampant and the Aussie bats seemed unable to restrain themselves but then Cook and Co called for extreme (seaming, not bouncing) green tops when it became obvious the Aussie bats had adjusted their approach

I agree there is always a risk of backfire - see Pune - but that doesn't change the fact that Australia could have requested a slow bat-a-thon in Hobart or even a 7th day raging turner and picked an additional spinner or 3

we didn't and I'm glad we didn't - if we had, I'd consider it cheating and call it out


4.

to your example:

the Hobart pitch livened up for 3-5 years there, it was hardly a one-off thing for the Pakastani team (who by the way generally have a strong fast-bowling unit)...we also lost a Test to NZ there don't forget and they had a bowling attack far better suited to maximising those conditions than we did

to my point:

why do you keep raising long-term examples of changing wickets that a touring party are aware of and can predict?

I'm not talking about the gradual slow-down of the WACA or the reduction of spin at the SCG over the past decade...nor even the fact that drop-in pitches (Adelaide, MCG) are generally flatter than the 'real' pitches they became known for

I have also gone to some effort to point out that I am talking about abrupt changes in pitch conditions that match the home team's request in-series (i.e. BETWEEN Tests)

serious question, am I not explaining that part well?

 

[The Swans Blog]

I'm looking forward to having a perv on this one when I get home in 30.

 

[frankrizzo]

These pitches in india worry me more as we score quick but just hand over so many soft wickets, india will score at a similar pace but without as many soft dismissals.

 

[The Swans Blog]

These pitches in india worry me more as we score quick but just hand over so many soft wickets, india will score at a similar pace but without as many soft dismissals.

Warner can't defend to save himself. Renshaw has pretty much thrown his wicket away every time. He should have batted two centuries at least. Marsh is what Marsh does.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Pleasantly surprised at how good this pitch is. It will allow for good batting for a couple of days before the spinners really come into it which is much closer to a traditional Indian wicket.

Much better than the 1st two shockers.

Smith needs to make 200 on this though for us to win can't let the Indians bat on it til late on day 2 at the earliest

 

[The Swans Blog]

Pitch is slow as, going to be hard for spin bowlers to take a lot of wickets early in the match.

Maxwell will definitely get a good bowl.

 

[imperial_oz]

Who are these cheats you keep banging on about?

You sound like one of those f***sticks who would probably accuse a footy team of cheating because they spent two quarters with the breeze at their backs

You mean like you have been doing through out this thread.

Mate if you hate Australia so much, why stay. I think most of Australia would be happy to see the back of you

 

[Blue1980]

Some valid points but realistically you could ask identical questions of Australia. Australia's Achilles heel - or one of two of them anyway - is dry spinning pitches. Why aren't we seeing those decks here if the side is fair dinkum about shaking that tag?

Definitely agree, but I think India go to greater extremes.

Pitches for the first 4 tests in aus were all pretty good.

Last 2 weren't great and made for boring cricket

 

[gbatman]

Pitch is a belter, fantastic test wicket.

 

[beatnik]

You mean like you have been doing through out this thread.

Mate if you hate Australia so much, why stay. I think most of Australia would be happy to see the back of you

hey speak for yourself

just because someone has some strong views on sport, doesn't mean you can reach for the 'f*** off, we're full' Trump card

 

[imperial_oz]

hey speak for yourself

just because someone has some strong views on sport, doesn't mean you can reach for the 'f*** off, we're full' Trump card

Naah I didn't.

Its just one individual that has made some strong and proven wrong statements that prompted that. The fact that he's being doing now for some weeks suggests that he has a bit of problem.

Disagree is fine but anti-Australian bias is not the same thing.

Also I didn't say he should 'F*** off' but if he did, he wouldn't be missed.

Feel free to disagree

edit: As for Trump