Gabba pitch receives "below average" rating following first Test between Australia and South Africa

[Firebat]

Gabba pitch receives "below average" rating following first Test between Australia and South Africa

The pitch in Brisbane that was used during the first Test between Australia and South Africa has received a 'below average' rating from the ICC.

Australia won the Test match by six wickets to take a 1-0 lead in the series, but the pitch at the Gabba came severely under fire. A green top, the contest between the two sides was over under two days, with 34 wickets falling in this duration.

The pitch was criticised by many, including South Africa skipper Dean Elgar, who said, "I don’t think that was a very good Test wicket."

Emirates ICC Elite Panel of Match Referees member Richie Richardson has now released his report for the pitch, deeming it as 'below average'.

His prognosis read, "Overall, the Gabba pitch for this Test match was too much in favour of the bowlers. There was extra bounce and occasional excessive seam movement. The odd delivery also kept low on the second day, making it very difficult for batters to build partnerships."

“I found the pitch to be “below average” as per the ICC guidelines since it was not an even contest between bat and ball," he added.

Due to the 'below average' rating, the venue has received one demerit point under the ICC Pitch and Outfield monitoring process. Demerit points remain active for a rolling five-year period and when a venue accumulates five demerit points it is suspended from staging any international cricket for a period of 12 months.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2988462

 

[James]

Thanks.

So is the difference between “below average” and “poor” when a pitch is not only an uneven contest between bat and ball (as this was), but is also dangerous? (as this one perhaps wasn’t)

 

[Kianig89]

Rightly so 5 days of work should not be done in 2 days

 

[Sidilicious]

Thanks.

So is the difference between “below average” and “poor” when a pitch is not only an uneven contest between bat and ball (as this was), but is also dangerous? (as this one perhaps wasn’t)

That would indicate a square turner as long as it has even bounce shouldn’t be classified as a poor pitch?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Good. Wimbledon Test match lol

 

[James]

That would indicate a square turner as long as it has even bounce shouldn’t be classified as a poor pitch?

I have just looked this up via ICC.

Very Good pitch
Good carry, limited seam movement and consistent bounce throughout, little or no turn on the first two days but natural wear sufficient to be responsive to spin later in the game.

Good pitch
Average carry, limited seam movement, consistent bounce throughout, natural wear sufficient to be responsive to spin later in the game, though not quite meeting the criteria for carry and bounce for a “very good” pitch.

Above Average pitch
Lacks carry, and/or bounce and/or occasional seam movement, but consistent in carry and bounce. A degree of turn, but with average bounce for the spinner. Falling significantly short of “very good” with respect to carry, bounce and turn.

Below Average pitch
Either very little carry and/or bounce and/or more than occasional seam movement, or occasional variable (but not excessive or dangerous) bounce and/or occasional variable carry. If a pitch demonstrates these features, then the pitch can not be rated in a higher category regardless of the amount of turn the pitch displays at any stage of the match.

Poor pitch
If any of the following criteria apply, a pitch may be rated “poor”:
a. The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match
b. The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match
c. The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match
d. The pitch displays little or no seam movement or turn at any stage in the match together with no significant bounce or carry, thereby depriving the bowlers of a fair contest between bat and ball.

Unfit pitch
A pitch may be rated „unfit‟ if it is dangerous.

 

[Sidilicious]

I have just looked this up via ICC.

Very Good pitch
Good carry, limited seam movement and consistent bounce throughout, little or no turn on the first two days but natural wear sufficient to be responsive to spin later in the game.

Good pitch
Average carry, limited seam movement, consistent bounce throughout, natural wear sufficient to be responsive to spin later in the game, though not quite meeting the criteria for carry and bounce for a “very good” pitch.

Above Average pitch
Lacks carry, and/or bounce and/or occasional seam movement, but consistent in carry and bounce. A degree of turn, but with average bounce for the spinner. Falling significantly short of “very good” with respect to carry, bounce and turn.

Below Average pitch
Either very little carry and/or bounce and/or more than occasional seam movement, or occasional variable (but not excessive or dangerous) bounce and/or occasional variable carry. If a pitch demonstrates these features, then the pitch can not be rated in a higher category regardless of the amount of turn the pitch displays at any stage of the match.

Poor pitch
If any of the following criteria apply, a pitch may be rated “poor”:
a. The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match
b. The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match
c. The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match
d. The pitch displays little or no seam movement or turn at any stage in the match together with no significant bounce or carry, thereby depriving the bowlers of a fair contest between bat and ball.

Unfit pitch
A pitch may be rated „unfit‟ if it is dangerous.

Thanks for the detailed description.

So unfit is only when it’s dangerous. I guess that pitch in St Lucia (was it?) in 98 between England and WI comes to mind, when the match had to be cancelled.

However, surely the 1st test of both Aus vs Sa and Pak vs Eng series should be rated poor as the the description. The Multan pitch meets clearly d. Criteria, unless the fact that England won swayed them to call it below average.

The Brisbane pitch was surely poor with excessive seam movement. 34 wickets in 5 and bit sessions has to be offering too much seam movement. ICC again not able to apply the pitch rule consistently

 

[MenInG]

Good to see some even-handedness from the ICC

 

[James]

Thanks for the detailed description.

So unfit is only when it’s dangerous. I guess that pitch in St Lucia (was it?) in 98 between England and WI comes to mind, when the match had to be cancelled.

However, surely the 1st test of both Aus vs Sa and Pak vs Eng series should be rated poor as the the description. The Multan pitch meets clearly d. Criteria, unless the fact that England won swayed them to call it below average.

The Brisbane pitch was surely poor with excessive seam movement. 34 wickets in 5 and bit sessions has to be offering too much seam movement. ICC again not able to apply the pitch rule consistently

Poor should be a rating that is used more often.

It feels a bit weak and tactical to me from ICC in the sense that they’re not going to give major grounds like Lord’s and the Gabba a Poor rating because this causes too many political issues for them.

Unless it’s a top team against a recently promoted associate, a two day Test match is unacceptable.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Poor should be a rating that is used more often.

It feels a bit weak and tactical to me from ICC in the sense that they’re not going to give major grounds like Lord’s and the Gabba a Poor rating because this causes too many political issues for them.

Unless it’s a top team against a recently promoted associate, a two day Test match is unacceptable.

I noticed that too. It is actually a poor wicket. Below average is not the appropriate rating.

 

[msb314]

Good to see some even-handedness from the ICC

What’s incredible is that none of the usual suspects who were crying about the Rawalpindi pitch had nothing to say about the Brisbane pitch lol

 

[wrongun]

Below average seems about right.

Can't call it poor because almost every Test pitch gets some variable bounce and this was well within the "odd ball behaving differently" category. Same as the crack England spent hours aiming at last match- variable bounce but nothing too remarkable.