THAT Pitch.

[Dez!]

Am I the only one who actually liked the wicket that was produced for the 5th Test?

Too often in Test cricket and even cricket in general these days we see bland, flat as a tack pitches but this one I thought was almost the perfect pitch.

Plenty of turn for the spinners, which is something you rarely get these days in Test cricket.

Uneven and unpredictable bounce for the pace bowlers, I like seeing a pitch that has something for the bowlers regardless of cloud cover or not from ball one.

It was nowhere near a bat first and win the game type of pitch despite how Australia made it look to the contrary in their first innings, if you put your head down and batted and batted and batted there was a hundred waiting for you as both Hussey and Trott proved.

I mean I love seeing a fluently played and breathtaking hundred that you might see from Ricky Ponting or Kevin Pietersen at their best but I love seeing a bloke grind out a ton by surviving and applying himself for a long period of time to really earn the hundred on a pitch that you're unsure of what can do at any given time.

Just my thoughts anyway.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Agreed, good to see pitches other than the ones designed to last for 12 days we usually see around the world

 

[crownie]

the pitch wasn't the minefield everyone made it out to be.

if batsman got their eye in it was easy to score runs while offering something for the bowlers.

 

[Caesar]

Don't know if I'd go as far as saying it was a perfect pitch, but I agree that it was refreshing to see a bowler's track for once.

The whole "turn out a road so we get five days' play" attitude has really taken off in recent years, which is frustrating.

 

[Cooldude]

It was a lot like the SCG

Which made it even more staggering that Hauritz didn't play

 

[likka]

Any wicket that is difficult to bat on but still allows the sides batting third and fourth to score 350-400 is a very good test pitch in my book.

 

[JimDocker]

Agree entirely.

I commented on another post that the batsmen that got their heads down and played with a bit of discipline did ok. Cricket should always be a good battle between bat and ball. It is boring when it is one sided in favour of either.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I wasn't sure what all the hoo-ha was about over the pitch. "Ooh, naughty England, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a result!" Well so they bloody should, and so should every Test venue!

Sure I'd rather see a five-day result than a four-day one, but I'd also prefer a three-day result to a draw.

It's not as though Australia chose their team based on one pitch, and then the Poms switched pitches while they weren't looking! They had their chance to predict what the pitch would be like and select the team accordingly, and they got it wrong. Even then, it was more a lack of application by the batsmen that killed them rather than any demons in the wicket.

Curators should be paid a bonus by the ICC for producing result wickets.

 

[nobbyiscool]

any pitch on which stuart broad can take 5-for has to be a dog doesn't it? surely!

seriously though - some valid points raised on here, no doubt.

but this pitch was a dog! certainly, australia made it look a lot worse than it really was on day 2... but this was one of the more bizarre pitches i've ever seen.

it was crap in the final session of day 1 and then for day 2 and the first half of day 3... and it kind of healed itself. and i don't judge that based on the batting, rather i base it on the consistency of it.


i love a result producing pitch - but its a fine line. there should never be so much importance based on winning the toss. this one was almost sub-continental in the way it played.

the best pitches are the ones in australia and south africa that offer plenty to the quicks early then become the spinners paradise. day 1 of that test played like a day 3 pitch, got worse... then rejuvinated itself

 

[Paddy_Mac]

any pitch on which stuart broad can take 5-for has to be a dog doesn't it? surely! Perhaps he just bowled well.

seriously though - some valid points raised on here, no doubt.

but this pitch was a dog! certainly, australia made it look a lot worse than it really was on day 2... but this was one of the more bizarre pitches i've ever seen. So, it was great cricket and it wasn't dog because England needed to win.

it was crap in the final session of day 1 and then for day 2 and the first half of day 3... and it kind of healed itself. and i don't judge that based on the batting, rather i base it on the consistency of it. Probably because they were hitting the better areas. I doubt that a pitch can repair itself.


i love a result producing pitch - but its a fine line. there should never be so much importance based on winning the toss. this one was almost sub-continental in the way it played. There wasn't. You're only saying that cause we made 160 the first innings. Don't forget both teams made more runs in the second innings.

the best pitches are the ones in australia and south africa that offer plenty to the quicks early then become the spinners paradise. day 1 of that test played like a day 3 pitch, got worse... then rejuvinated itself Spinners paradise! Plenty for the quicks early! That's hardly the case. Like I said I find it hard to believe how a pitch can rejuvinate itself.

Above.

 

[Zarrix]

Whats the fuss? Was a great pitch, something for everyone. The second innings proved that anyone who buckled down could get a decent score. Australia's insipid first innings batting lost the match, the pitch had something in it for the bowlers, but it wasn't too nefarious.

A lot better than the usual roads we get for Test Cricket these days, pity corporate hands have ruined this aspect of the game to an extent. There is NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING better in sport than seeing a good game of test cricket on a balanced pitch (sans seeing your team win the Grand Final of course )