How do you explain these super spin friendly pitches in England?

[Pakhs]

I will come to the hatred point later. Please clarify me one thing. What is English Home advantage exactly? They slipped vs Aussies in seaming conditions. they didnt do jack in batting friendly conditions in Aus in the Last edition. They cant play spin. They cant play slow pitches. All they want is a cement road is it?

Regarding my hatred comment, Mate please start reading your posts backwards. You started with something and ended somewhere else. Purportedly wanted to show both AUS and Indians had the home advantage. This is what I felt. You are welcome to differ with me.

Well last time was a failure for them but this time they are getting a shock that pitches are no longer roads that they have been playing on recently at home.

I dont hate no team, But its true For Australia wickets suddenly didn't become turning square in Australia and for India pitches didn't suddenly become pace and bouncy in India. But for England pitches have changed to what they been playing on recently.

 

[zulfiqar]

Morgan's reaction to losing the semifinal in ICCT was over the top when he blamed the ICC for preparing pitches in a way that did not suit ENG for home advantage, and the schedule for letting Pakistan get a game in at the same ground prior to the semi.

What's his reaction going to be now? Should be fun to watch!

 

[Enforcer]

I didn't forget and I think he is a good bowler but he is not regular for India and just because he performed in two match against WI and Afghan doesnt mean he should be a regular now.

Point here even if you are kenya and you dont beat anyone you should still get home advantage.

I don't know , what is the home advantage for England? If flat track is their strength, then they got a flat track against pakistan and they lost. If seaming track means 'home conditions' for England, then they got one against Australia and they lost. If sluggish surface means home conditions for England and they got it against srilanka, and they lost.

So what is home conditions for England? Perhaps next time England should bat first after winning a toss, because that would more beneficiary for them, than thinking aboutt home conditions.

 

[Pakhs]

Pitches play according to the climatic conditions of the nations. Back in the days I used to love both kiwis and English pitches ic helped seam and pace bowlers. Nowadays both countries are making phattas.

Exactly England curators regardless of the weather armed with latest equipment etc were able to make roads for all matches. But ICC curators are not as experienced in these conditions and wickets are changing every math and hence no home advantage for England.

 

[jnaveen1980]

So what Kuldeep is good bowler! he can take wickets on any wickets. Why does that even come in the equation? Point here is England been playing on road in England and they are not getting roads anymore so no home advantage?

You ignore so many variables like quality of bowling captaincy importance of the match World Cup pressure and just focus on some mythical pitch where they are going to bulldoze every opposition. Doesn’t work that way. Malinga bowled brilliantly and took pitch out of the equation. These guys have been practicing this art of cow lashing for 4 years they can’t play Yorkers? May be they should also put a condition bowlers should bowl half trackers not Yorkers.

 

[Pakhs]

If they had rolled out a phatta against pak would have never won CT 2017

Its true and there was a lot of talk that day too that England didnt get home advantage and they didnt that wicket suited Pakistan more.

 

[Pakhs]

You ignore so many variables like quality of bowling captaincy importance of the match World Cup pressure and just focus on some mythical pitch where they are going to bulldoze every opposition. Doesn’t work that way. Malinga bowled brilliantly and took pitch out of the equation. These guys have been practicing this art of cow lashing for 4 years they can’t play Yorkers? May be they should also put a condition bowlers should bowl half trackers not Yorkers.

Whatever let malinga bowl those yorkers on roads and Kuldeep bowl well on roads and then England wont be able to say no home advantage. As it turned out Malinga bowled those yorkers on slow wicket where there was some turn and even their captain came out and said on these wickets we can beat anyone.

 

[Pakhs]

I don't know , what is the home advantage for England? If flat track is their strength, then they got a flat track against pakistan and they lost. If seaming track means 'home conditions' for England, then they got one against Australia and they lost. If sluggish surface means home conditions for England and they got it against srilanka, and they lost.

So what is home conditions for England? Perhaps next time England should bat first after winning a toss, because that would more beneficiary for them, than thinking aboutt home conditions.

Advantage for England are Roads which they have been playing on recent times regardless to if they win or not. So you can say Pakistan beat them even with their home advantage but other two time they didnt get home advantage.

 

[thanuu]

Well last time was a failure for them but this time they are getting a shock that pitches are no longer roads that they have been playing on recently at home.

I dont hate no team, But its true For Australia wickets suddenly didn't become turning square in Australia and for India pitches didn't suddenly become pace and bouncy in India. But for England pitches have changed to what they been playing on recently.

Why should they get phattas mate? They cant handle pressure mate. If English batsmen are really world beaters as they are termed to be they should go good on any wickets. Indians are improving their skills in seaming conditions. Aussies are adapting to slow pitches. Saffers are contemplating hiring a batting consultant to improve their ability to play spin.

Why should English be favorably treated if every other team is maing effort to better themselves?
Home conditions are the ones where you get gallery backing and no attrition whatsoever.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Whatever let malinga bowl those yorkers on roads and Kuldeep bowl well on roads and then England wont be able to say no home advantage. As it turned out Malinga bowled those yorkers on slow wicket where there was some turn and even their captain came out and said on these wickets we can beat anyone.

Why didn’t you guy raise during CT when pak beat England on a sluggish track.

 

[Pakhs]

Why should they get phattas mate? They cant handle pressure mate. If English batsmen are really world beaters as they are termed to be they should go good on any wickets. Indians are improving their skills in seaming conditions. Aussies are adapting to slow pitches. Saffers are contemplating hiring a batting consultant to improve their ability to play spin.

Why should English be favorably treated if every other team is maing effort to better themselves?
Home conditions are the ones where you get gallery backing and no attrition whatsoever.

Bro you are not getting the point as a home side they should get some home advantage which for them would have been flat tracks.

 

[Pakhs]

Why didn’t you guy raise during CT when pak beat England on a sluggish track.

Who didnt? I always made the point the wicket suited us more than the home side. Our bigger achievement was to beat India in the final on a wicket that was fair to both sides.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Bro you are not getting the point as a home side they should get some home advantage which for them would have been flat tracks.

Your definition. Of home advantage is ambiguous. Define the characteristics. Don’t say pitches like 2 years.Thise oitches were not all the same.

 

[Pakhs]

Your definition. Of home advantage is ambiguous. Define the characteristics. Don’t say pitches like 2 years.Thise oitches were not all the same.

Home advantage is defined for home side by what sort of wickets they have played mostly in last two years or so and England have mostly played on flat wickets which didnt have anything for bowlers. The bowlers who bowled well were either really good bowlers or had a great day. What we are getting now is even slower bowls of fast bowlers are griping a little bit.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Home advantage is defined for home side by what sort of wickets they have played mostly in last two years or so and England have mostly played on flat wickets which didnt have anything for bowlers. The bowlers who bowled well were either really good bowlers or had a great day. What we are getting now is even slower bowls of fast bowlers are griping a little bit.

Nasser hussain is right now telling how England should have played like S.A. today who faces SL on a similar pitch. Batsmen have loads of time to place the ball. If anything this is Amal’s best innings. If you think they can’t bat on this they should play qualifier to play in the World Cup. Regarding your bizarre theory of home advantage that is not home advantage. Pitches they had for 2 years. If anything England had the highest number of belters compared to other teams. We even have a dedicated thread for how England gets flat wickets and others get tough wickets. It never happened in 2011 or 2015. All the pitches had a bit for bowler but for batsmen. They never had to deal with rain. Only one slow pitch against one of the weakest team. You call that unfair? Your agenda seems to be something else

 

[Pakhs]

Nasser hussain is right now telling how England should have played like S.A. today who faces SL on a similar pitch. Batsmen have loads of time to place the ball. If anything this is Amal’s best innings. If you think they can’t bat on this they should play qualifier to play in the World Cup. Regarding your bizarre theory of home advantage that is not home advantage. Pitches they had for 2 years. If anything England had the highest number of belters compared to other teams. We even have a dedicated thread for how England gets flat wickets and others get tough wickets. It never happened in 2011 or 2015. All the pitches had a bit for bowler but for batsmen. They never had to deal with rain. Only one slow pitch against one of the weakest team. You call that unfair? Your agenda seems to be something else

What Nasser hussain is saying is fine, And what yo are saying is fine. But the thread is there is no home advatage for England and I just think there is no home advantage for England. It could be its their won fault in believing they will get flat wickets in a ICC tournament where the pitch curators are 'independent'.

 

[Pakhs]

Nasser hussain is right now telling how England should have played like S.A. today who faces SL on a similar pitch. Batsmen have loads of time to place the ball. If anything this is Amal’s best innings. If you think they can’t bat on this they should play qualifier to play in the World Cup. Regarding your bizarre theory of home advantage that is not home advantage. Pitches they had for 2 years. If anything England had the highest number of belters compared to other teams. We even have a dedicated thread for how England gets flat wickets and others get tough wickets. It never happened in 2011 or 2015. All the pitches had a bit for bowler but for batsmen. They never had to deal with rain. Only one slow pitch against one of the weakest team. You call that unfair? Your agenda seems to be something else

Thats because they made the wickets flat at home to get advantage for their batsmen. which is called home advantage.

 

[jnaveen1980]

What Nasser hussain is saying is fine, And what yo are saying is fine. But the thread is there is no home advatage for England and I just think there is no home advantage for England. It could be its their won fault in believing they will get flat wickets in a ICC tournament where the pitch curators are 'independent'.

Because pitches that don't offer anything to any bowler is not called home advantage. Are you seriously telling me that is how English pitches behave? Home advantage don't mean designing pitches to suit a certain type of batting. If India had dug the pitches in India and made sure ball turns from ball one, then that is unfair. Australian pitches have been flat over the years. But they always offered bounce to those who were willing to extract. How come Boult and STarc were outstanding in the 2015 world cup. Your definition of "home advantage" does not exist. It is mythical. They scored high scores against certain weak oppositions. Just because they can't score against other teams doesn't mean they lost home advantage. That is because they were up against better attack. Even on a patta wicket Roy got out to Shadab, Stokes, Morgan got out to Malik, hafeez. So should we say "no home advantage" because they got out to spinners? May be every team should play Wahab Riaz against England so that England will magically get back their home advantage.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Thats because they made the wickets flat at home to get advantage for their batsmen. which is called home advantage.

Then why are you complaining they don't have home advantage.

 

[Pakhs]

Then why are you complaining they don't have home advantage.

I think this conversation is not going anywhere, ICC curators are making wickets which England dont want regardless to they win or not hence no home advantage. I rest my case no point going any further.

 

[zulfiqar]

You guys need to stop it with the "they're doing it for India" bit. Very few posters actually believe this but even that is annoying. The truth is, I was going into this WC skeptical of how good it was going to be because I'm sick of watching teams pile up 350 and others chasing it down. To my pleasant surprise, not a single score of 300 has been chased aside from the BAN v WI game if I'm not mistaken. It's been proper cricket and good bowling has been rewarded for most of the games. All we need now for a cracking finish to the group stages is for England to lose a game to make their encounter vs NZ a virtual knockout dependent on the other knockout in PAK v BAN. That will keep the group stages alive till the end except for the meaningless AUS v SA.

 

[zulfiqar]

And for those saying "OMG SPIN" - as someone else pointed out, look at the top 5 wicket takers before commenting.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I think this conversation is not going anywhere, ICC curators are making wickets which England dont want regardless to they win or not hence no home advantage. I rest my case no point going any further.

Good. No team altered pitches drastically to suit their strengths. Even if you alter it won't work because weather will determine the nature. This English team trounced must better Srilankan side in Srilanka with a scoreline of 3-1. You think the pitch they played on is tougher than those pitches? Just because senseless batting didn't come off , don't blame the pitch. They are bilateral bullies. Come the world cup. They fold under pressure. A supposedly "all conquering" side should have been able to chase 348 easily against Pakistan, should have been able to chase 285 against Australia, should have been able to chase 232 against Srilanka. Blaming the pitches is an excuse.

 

[Balthazar]

It's a common sense that spin will come into play in the latter part of the tournament because of wear and tear of the pitch. There was no assistance for spinners in the first 2 weeks, as was expected.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It's a common sense that spin will come into play in the latter part of the tournament because of wear and tear of the pitch. There was no assistance for spinners in the first 2 weeks, as was expected.

Sounds like a pre-emptive excuse for future encounters lol That is the only explanation.

 

[jnaveen1980]

England bowlers in England last 2 years lol Makes me wonder why they don't want to play on spin pitches

 

[hur rizvi]

What should we expect tomorrow?

If it’s anything like sl/eng match Afghanistan can run through Pakistan

 

[Balthazar]

Sounds like a pre-emptive excuse for future encounters lol That is the only explanation.

The crying starts as soon as Indian spinners start to perform.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes, it was a matter of great frustration for the visiting teams in 2011 and 2015 WC where the home teams got that huge advantage with wickets favoring them. Aus only seemed beatable when they got to play in NZ, and likewise. But the thing is, WC is meant to be a neutral thing. Too bad that ICC didn't have the balls to make neutral and sporting pitches in WC11 and WC15, but the way they are going this time, is the way they SHOULD do in all the world cups.
Yes, there is merit in Bairstow's moaning but being the no.1 team, they won series everywhere in all the conditions, it still should be no excuse to lose here. They beat Australia 5-0 in Aus, 2-1 in Bangladesh on the traditional Bangladeshi wickets that too without Morgan and Hales, so it should not be used as an excuse. There is definitely some weightage in the point that the surfaces have not been home sided-favorable. But this is how it should have been in all the world cups before. If ICC has started doing it from now on, they should follow it in the next WC's as well, so I direly hope the wickets in Aus in next year Wt20 be 140-150 pitches rather than 200plus ones favoring the BBL guns.

But to be the best team in the world, you have to beat everyone everywhere and England has the capability to do that. It's just because of mental strength(lack of), and the squad selection that has led to their receding performance. Dropping Hales seemed foolish, but correct. But picking Vince seemed like a blunder. Not giving Dawson a go even after Rashid's poor form has been a weird decision.

Going for a 90+MPH attack IMO has been a total decision England management made because of their obsession to have 90mph bowlers. They dropped Willey, arguably their most underrated bowler and one who offered consistent swing and variation early on, coupled with more than decent death bowling and hard hitting prowess. The decision to not give Tom Curran a go is so baffling as he is their arguably their best death bowler and comes off well in batting in pressure situations unlike Woakes who has bottled in most, and Archer's hard hitting has only been a myth till now. And Mark Wood, he is not an ODI bowler atleast in my eyes. Horses for courses should be the way rather than getting 145kph guys.

Tom Curran is underrated by the England management, but Archer and Wood have done very well. Both are among the leading wicket-takers.

I think the biggest problem for England at the moment is the horrible batting of Moeen. He has been a complete dud and England would have beaten both England and Sri Lanka had he performed.

He is the link between the lower-order and tail. Woakes and Rashid are competent, but they cannot perform like proper batsmen which Moeen can. With him not performing at all, England’s batting depth looks shallow.

 

[Pakhs]

The crying starts as soon as Indian spinners start to perform.

Whats its got to do with Indian spinners? They have not even played India yet? and for all we know that might be a flat wicket?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Tom Curran is underrated by the England management, but Archer and Wood have done very well. Both are among the leading wicket-takers.

I think the biggest problem for England at the moment is the horrible batting of Moeen. He has been a complete dud and England would have beaten both England and Sri Lanka had he performed.

He is the link between the lower-order and tail. Woakes and Rashid are competent, but they cannot perform like proper batsmen which Moeen can. With him not performing at all, England’s batting depth looks shallow.

One common thing in all losses is , Plunkett did not play in all 3 matches.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I want England getting kicked out. Absolutely gave no respect to other departments of the cricket. They just concede 340 and they chase and gloat "hey we are world beaters" not analyzing why they conceded 340 in the first place. We knew it was going to come back. When your bowling is reckless you can come back. When your batting is reckless you cannot. (unless someone drops you). Whole England batting style is based on reckless slogging. it most likely comes off on wickets that doesn't turn , doesn't offer movement of any sorts.

 

[hur rizvi]

One common thing in all losses is , Plunkett did not play in all 3 matches.

Even with plunkett playing they would have lost. I don’t care what stats say but plunkett is just an average bowler

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Tom Curran is underrated by the England management, but Archer and Wood have done very well. Both are among the leading wicket-takers.

I think the biggest problem for England at the moment is the horrible batting of Moeen. He has been a complete dud and England would have beaten both England and Sri Lanka had he performed.

He is the link between the lower-order and tail. Woakes and Rashid are competent, but they cannot perform like proper batsmen which Moeen can. With him not performing at all, England’s batting depth looks shallow.

You can't simply put the blame on one guy. England bat deep till no10. Woakes and Rashid are proper batters as well as reflected by their domestic stats. Rashid has something like 15 tons at FC level.
They have failed collectively. If Moeen fails, Woakes and Rashid should be able to finish the job with the credentials and talent the possess.

 

[barah_admi]

The first pitch that truly spun was pak v nz. The others have been lost w and slow but hardly worth talking about in terms of big spin.

The slowness of the pitches has been down to rain, heat and the cold vers staying on at times too long.

 

[Pakhs]

I want England getting kicked out. Absolutely gave no respect to other departments of the cricket. They just concede 340 and they chase and gloat "hey we are world beaters" not analyzing why they conceded 340 in the first place. We knew it was going to come back. When your bowling is reckless you can come back. When your batting is reckless you cannot. (unless someone drops you). Whole England batting style is based on reckless slogging. it most likely comes off on wickets that doesn't turn , doesn't offer movement of any sorts.

Suddenly Kuldeep and chahal couldn't take the pitch and condition out of the equation? I hope now you got the answer if the pitch is not slow and turning England are still the best team in the WC.

 

[wrongun]

I am all for an even contest between bat and ball and scores around 280-300 to be wining scores, but seriosuly what is up with these rank tuners in England?

England is supposed to be a place to favour geunine fast / seam / swing bowling. England's home advantage has been totally taken away and they seem pithces more out of India / UAE / Sri Lanka then they from England.

ICC has really taken this in a direction I did not expect. Not only the crowd but now the pithces seem sub-continental as well!

English pitches always turn as the summer wears on. Warne & Murali used to take wickets in England by the bagful. Because it turns. It's just that England never had any good spinners to use them, but the visitors did.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Suddenly Kuldeep and chahal couldn't take the pitch and condition out of the equation? I hope now you got the answer if the pitch is not slow and turning England are still the best team in the WC.

No. This pitch was a designer pitch. Most English pitches will offer some turn. This was a freshly laid pitch where sloggers had the first hit. Perfect scenario. Anywho we will have another bite at the cherry. Let us see.

 

[W63L35]

I am all for an even contest between bat and ball and scores around 280-300 to be wining scores, but seriosuly what is up with these rank tuners in England?

England is supposed to be a place to favour geunine fast / seam / swing bowling. England's home advantage has been totally taken away and they seem pithces more out of India / UAE / Sri Lanka then they from England.

ICC has really taken this in a direction I did not expect. Not only the crowd but now the pithces seem sub-continental as well!

Spin friendly pitches? How? When? where?
If you are talking about World Cup 2019 in England then look these stats so far. Pacers have taken almost 4 times more wickets than spinners. Also Pacers have much better average and S/R than spinners. So which square turners and in which year you are talking about?

 

[silentkiller187]

Weather has changed, pitches have been used and are now drying out and baking. People will make a conspiracy for absolutely anything. England have been preparing pitches to suite their own needs over the past few years, hard roads were you can easily make 350+. Go back a decade or so it was very rare to find such a pitch in England. The pitches we are seeing now are more natural and unbias so stop with these stupid conspiracy rubbish and enjoy the game

 

[Robert]

Even with plunkett playing they would have lost. I don’t care what stats say but plunkett is just an average bowler

In that case I don’t care what stats say, Wasim is average.

 

[Pakhs]

No. This pitch was a designer pitch. Most English pitches will offer some turn. This was a freshly laid pitch where sloggers had the first hit. Perfect scenario. Anywho we will have another bite at the cherry. Let us see.

Whatever pitch its was that's the home advantage for England. I hope now you know what is home advantage if not for ICC England would make every wicket like that.