Roads or Minefields?

[Topkent]

Pretty simple question, what do you prefer to watch?

Do you prefer a game where both sides make 400 odd and it goes into day 5? Multiple hundreds being scored and a RR ~4 an over
Or do you prefer the minefield? Scoring 300 basically wins the game and any loss in concentration can see a collapse, a 75 like Paine scored can be match winning and the games over inside 4 days.

Id far far prefer the minefield, in fact Id like to see all Test matches reduced to 4 days to encourage a little more spice in the pitch, even with the days saved you could play an extra test. But for mine if a team scores 500 its ****ing boring and the games generally over, with the minefield it means the games generally always alive because the scores never get away from each other.

 

[frankrizzo]

A minefield to me is that one in 2004 in india where a part time spinner takes 6-9, those games are pure luck and bad for cricket but a pitch where around 300 is enough and the bowlers are in the game each day is just a good cricket wicket.

 

[Perth bloke]

The four day test idea has plenty of merit considering how many nonsense two test series are played these days

 

[Perth bloke]

Make a draw worth zero points for the WTC and you'd see some seriously exciting test cricket over four days

 

[dogs105]

Pretty simple question, what do you prefer to watch?

Do you prefer a game where both sides make 400 odd and it goes into day 5? Multiple hundreds being scored and a RR ~4 an over
Or do you prefer the minefield? Scoring 300 basically wins the game and any loss in concentration can see a collapse, a 75 like Paine scored can be match winning and the games over inside 4 days.

Id far far prefer the minefield, in fact Id like to see all Test matches reduced to 4 days to encourage a little more spice in the pitch, even with the days saved you could play an extra test. But for mine if a team scores 500 its ******* boring and the games generally over, with the minefield it means the games generally always alive because the scores never get away from each other.

So you've apologised to the Adelaide curator for calling the pitch "dogshit" when India were batting well on the first day?

 

[Topkent]

So you've apologised to the Adelaide curator for calling the pitch "dogshit" when India were batting well on the first day?

I don't care about being wrong matey, that's life. Wanna derail the thread further or ya happy?

 

[dogs105]

I don't care about being wrong matey, that's life. Wanna derail the thread further or ya happy?

Yeah I'm good thanks. No more derailment.

Sporting pitches are fun.

 

[PhatBoy]

I enjoy watching top class fast bowling. What i also really like is watching batsmen, good batsmen, make runs when the going is tough. I didn't get to watch much of Paine's innings but by all reports it was very classy, as was Kohli's the night before.

Innings' like AB De Villiers during the Sandpaper Series, or Kohli's 150 on a minefield over in SA, or some of Damien Martyn's masterclasses on rank Sri Lankan turners are innings that always stick out in my mind.

So in the same spirit, I do enjoy sometimes watching Tests played on a featherbed because they often sort out the contenders from the pretenders as far as fast bowlers go. Watching someone break their back to claim 5-90 on a road is equally as meritorious as someone taking 6-20 when it's seaming or swinging all over the place.

 

[Simple Jack]

Neither, but out of the two minefields by a country mile.

For me a perfect test wicket is one that allows scores of roughly:
300/350/200/150 as the test goes on and is probably over around the last session of day 4.

That gives the balance of:
1. Bowlers actually having a chance of being attacking
2. Batsmen having a chance if they are good enough to stick around and make runs
3. Big scores actually meaning something. Nothing is less interesting than some batsman scoring a "magical" triple century when some other guy also gets a double in the same game (or even innings) because it's a massive road.

IMO that Adelaide pitch wasn't a minefield anyway. Just that most modern batsmen have no capacity whatsoever to handle good fast bowlers on a pitch that gives them even the slightest hint of assistance.

 

[Scotland]

(C) The WACA.

Like all pitches it lost some character in the 2000s but historically it was fast and bouncy and you got good value for your shots, then as the game wore on it would start to crack (never mind the keys, it's big enough to pork your cor) up and make batting very difficult.

The beauty of test cricket is the extra variables of the pitch deteriorating over 5 days and the ball being replaced every 80 overs. Sure in a one dayer it's different batting at night vs batting during the day and the ball is harder in the first 5-10 overs but you really shouldn't lose a limited overs game because of the conditions. Test cricket you can be coasting at 3/200 and losing a wicket late in the day exposes your lower order to a new ball. Less common here but I've seen a bunch of Ashes tests over the years where everyone is constantly looking at the weather forecasts to plan around how many sessions over 5 days will actually be played. No point declaring at 0/600 on day 2 when days 3 and 4 look like being washed out. Etc.

Whether the pitch is a road or a searing green top on day 1 the main thing you want to see is that it's not the same for 5 days. The other year (at the WACA, when it was lifeless) David Warner made 253 and Ross Taylor 290, to go with 4 other players making 100s. Warner not out 244 end of day 1, Taylor not out 26 end of day 2 then not out 235 end of day 3, Smith and Voges both not out 100+ end of day 4... I don't know if anyone finds that interesting cricket. 28/1672 with two declarations over 5 days play. I'm fine with a team making 300+ in a day but you at least want to see that by day 4 and 5 that batting is a bit of a challenge. Far too often on the coverage now you see the commentators talking about the pitch playing 'like a day 2/3 pitch' on days 4 and 5. Or on day 1 you see a batsman edge a 140 km/h delivery and it doesn't even carry to the slips.

 

[Gethelred]

Minefield.

Smith's Pune century was the best knock I've ever seen, and IIRC he got dropped multiple times. No-one else even got close to him in that test. That Hobart test where NZ bowled Australia out to win the test was a rippa too; Clarke's ton on the pitch that the ICC declared unfit in Sri Lanka was just sublime, and it was a pity that barely anyone saw it. It became about how the pitch was barely international standard, instead of how brilliant it was to see someone of actual skill having dug in and won the test off the back of their grit and desire to win.

Having said that...

I am completely against shortening the test duration. 5 days is a good amount, because it genuinely gives a pitch enough time to become a minefield if the groundstaff are much chop, and test cricket requires (above and beyond all else) context. Each ball is more meaningful due to what came before, in the game, on the day, in the series. The epic in Headingley was only possible due to 5 day tests, and the mistakes which lead to an England win for the ages are due to the 5 day duration (that, and Joel Wilson).

Just because most games don't go the full five days does not mean that 5 days isn't needed to tell the story that a test match tells.

 

[PhatBoy]

Special mention for Quinton de Kock's century in the Hobart Test where Philander destroyed Australia's first innings.

I have seen other players make runs on pitches like that before. I've never seen someone do it that easily.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

300 / 400 / 350 / 250 (Innings 1/2/3/4)

Rough estimates only - I want a pitch that if you put in you can get the scores above - by innings of the test match


Should be something in it for the bowlers early meaning whoever bats first should have to struggle.

The pitch should then even our for a few days making batting easier and the bowlers struggle.

By day 4 it should be deteriorating and starting to give some assistance back to the bowler

Day should be hard work to make runs (but not impossible) and bowlers rewarded for bowling well.

Challenges all aspects of your game depending on the stage of the test.

 

[archibald]

This is the perfect wicket




In all seriousness though you want it to seam and swing on day 1, flatten out on day 2 & 3 and start to spin with some uneven bounce on day 4-5. I know nothing about curating pitches, but it seems like such a mysterious art almost akin to some complex theoretical concept rather than just rolling grass and watering it.

How good is it the pure artistry and technique required to withstand quality bowling on a difficult deck? From an Australian perspective, Steve Waugh's 63 vs west indies at Port of Spain, Mark Waugh 116 vs SA at Port Elizabeth, Michael Clarke 151 vs SA at Newlands and as mentioned Steve Smiths Pune hundred were all amazing displays

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Clarke’s hundred in South Africa comes to mind. One of the best displays I have ever seen.

 

[Topkent]

Minefield.

Smith's Pune century was the best knock I've ever seen, and IIRC he got dropped multiple times. No-one else even got close to him in that test. That Hobart test where NZ bowled Australia out to win the test was a rippa too; Clarke's ton on the pitch that the ICC declared unfit in Sri Lanka was just sublime, and it was a pity that barely anyone saw it. It became about how the pitch was barely international standard, instead of how brilliant it was to see someone of actual skill having dug in and won the test off the back of their grit and desire to win.

Having said that...

I am completely against shortening the test duration. 5 days is a good amount, because it genuinely gives a pitch enough time to become a minefield if the groundstaff are much chop, and test cricket requires (above and beyond all else) context. Each ball is more meaningful due to what came before, in the game, on the day, in the series. The epic in Headingley was only possible due to 5 day tests, and the mistakes which lead to an England win for the ages are due to the 5 day duration (that, and Joel Wilson).

Just because most games don't go the full five days does not mean that 5 days isn't needed to tell the story that a test match tells.

I disagree though, whilst the wicket falling apart can be entertaining it's one of the reasons batting first is basically a guaranteed win, wickets need to offer more earlier so that bowling first is a genuine option outside of an overcast day.

 

[Gethelred]

I disagree though, whilst the wicket falling apart can be entertaining it's one of the reasons batting first is basically a guaranteed win, wickets need to offer more earlier so that bowling first is a genuine option outside of an overcast day.

It's why groundkeeping is such an art; making the pitch a little underdone over day one, ripe on day 2 and getting harder each day subsequently. Ideally, a team should be rewarded for surviving day 1 with the best conditions on day 2; a team should be rewarded for bowling a side out on day 1.

 

[Topkent]

It's why groundkeeping is such an art; making the pitch a little underdone over day one, ripe on day 2 and getting harder each day subsequently. Ideally, a team should be rewarded for surviving day 1 with the best conditions on day 2; a team should be rewarded for bowling a side out on day 1.

Yeah but that doesn't happen, majority of tests that go into a 5th day is a team unable to chase down more than 200 to 250 because of the wicket.
I would rather there not be a day where bowling almost becomes irrelevant just so it can get to a 5th day. Keep spice in the wicket and you'll have plenty of epic 4 day games that can be won by either side

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why does it have to be either?

A good sporting pitch is what every pitch should be. Adelaide was perfect actually- batsmen were able to score once in, neither Kholi or Paine looked like getting out. There was turn for the spinners, and there was enough but not huge amounts of seam so the quicks were in the game.

 

[RohitSharma]

Road when India is batting and minefield when Aussies are on. Team spirit

 

[Perth bloke]

Road when India is batting and minefield when Aussies are on. Team spirit

You will need Sachin to have any chance. Bring Sachin

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah but that doesn't happen, majority of tests that go into a 5th day is a team unable to chase down more than 200 to 250 because of the wicket.
I would rather there not be a day where bowling almost becomes irrelevant just so it can get to a 5th day. Keep spice in the wicket and you'll have plenty of epic 4 day games that can be won by either side

The majority of tests don't go for the full 5 day duration anyway, because most tests are won/lost at some point in the first 2 days.

Did you watch the last Ashes series? The 3rd and 5th tests went for 4 days, but all of the rest went for the full 5, due to a combination of weather and the inability to separate the two sides via skill or home advantage. That was an absolutely gripping series, and a full advertisement for what 5 day tests offer.

 

[Perth bloke]

A minefield to me is that one in 2004 in india where a part time spinner takes 6-9, those games are pure luck and bad for cricket but a pitch where around 300 is enough and the bowlers are in the game each day is just a good cricket wicket.

The pitches that India have provided for test cricket imo have been disgraceful. How do they get away with it?

 

[PhatBoy]

The pitches that India have provided for test cricket imo have been disgraceful. How do they get away with it?

there HAVE been occasions where that is the case, but the majority of the time, players and supporters from SA, Australia, NZ and England simply whinge because it is spin that does the damage not pace.

 

[Perth bloke]

there HAVE been occasions where that is the case, but the majority of the time, players and supporters from SA, Australia, NZ and England simply whinge because it is spin that does the damage not pace.

Which is fine but let the spin dictate from the fourth or fifth day not the second session of the match!!!!