[Report] BCCI accused of switching pitches in ICC World Cup 2023

[RexRex]

So you concede you have no counter to the fairness of the situation? And if it was not unfair, then how was it abuse of any power?

You can only prove the abuse of power if you prove that something was unfair to the other.

Changing the pitch unilaterally from fresh to used at the last minute is abuse of power. Should have been the ICC's call.

 

[Ahmed216]

Mark Butcher also criticized the alleged breach of protocol in pitch selection, which I guess reinforces the perception of bias.

-------------------------------------------

Mark Butcher on the recent pitch controversy said:

“Changes to planned pitch rotations are common towards the end of an event of this length, and has already happened a couple of times. This change was made on the recommendation of the venue curator in conjunction with our host. The ICC independent pitch consultant was apprised of the change and has no reason to believe the pitch won’t play well.”

“There is a growing perception that around the world in the game of cricket that the ICC is nearly sort of an executive branch of the BCCI. And when things like this happen, it does very little to change people’s opinion that that is the status quo.

“Now, to have Andy Atkinson, the ICC pitch inspector, apoplectic at the way the whole thing had gone about, regardless of whether or not the Maharashtra (Mumbai) Cricket Association were actually overall in charge of the conditions, to feel as though the ICC had kind of been blindsided by the decision that they clearly hadn’t been made aware of until the leak came, doesn’t do much to change people’s thought that the ICC basically does whatever the BCCI wants.”

“Look, India are the best team in the tournament, right? And if they win it, they will have deserved to win for that fact. Is there any need whatsoever, for there to be any sort of shenanigans whereby the gloss gets taken off the brilliance of their playing team?

“By this sort of, this nagging suspicion that the dice are loaded in their favour outside of the playing field as well. Stuff like this shouldn’t happen. And again, the pitch was fine, no issues with how it played. The issue is not how the pitch played.

“The issue is the railroading of the protocol around how it came about. And that, gives that perception that things are not as they ought to be, or at least that the playing field is not that level.”

“The perception is that ICC does what the BCCI wants and the reality looks as though that is the case.

“That’s got nothing to do with India being the best side and nothing to do with what happened on the field today (November 15), but you extrapolate that to other concerns whether it be about money, whether it be about tournament hosting, whether it be about television rights, whether it be about any of those things, the perception is already there that there is something slightly awry and when things like that happen, it reinforces it.

“It’s an unnecessary blight on the Indian playing squad, who are utterly fabulous.”
​

I will never forgive these greedy people for sabotaging the sport that was I was so attached to

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Pitch was same for both the teams but in matches like these it is the toss that matters the most.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Changing the pitch unilaterally from fresh to used at the last minute is abuse of power. Should have been the ICC's call.

Can you provide the ruling which says that it's the ICC's call and not the local curator's call?

 

[globetrotter]

BCCI’s conspiracy of changing pitch at the last moment to assist Indian spinners was clearly exposed by Indian spinner Mohammed Shammi who took 7 wkts…..NZ team is still searching for Atkinson

 

[RexRex]

Can you provide the ruling which says that it's the ICC's call and not the local curator's call?

Read the news reports on what was agreeed - pitch 7. It is out there.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Read the news reports on what was agreeed - pitch 7. It is out there.

It does not say that the final call is with ICC consultant

 

[RexRex]

It does not say that the final call is with ICC consultant

You can google the ICC regulations - i can't be bothered. There was an email by ICC curator to his bosses complaining about Indian team management getting involved in pitch preparation.

 

[globetrotter]

You can google the ICC regulations - i can't be bothered. There was an email by ICC curator to his bosses complaining about Indian team management getting involved in pitch preparation.

Can u produce that email copy?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

You can google the ICC regulations - i can't be bothered. There was an email by ICC curator to his bosses complaining about Indian team management getting involved in pitch preparation.

Yeah well ICC regulations don't state anything of the sort. So there's no argument there.

 

[RexRex]

Yeah well ICC regulations don't state anything of the sort. So there's no argument there.

Read the ICC curator's email.

 

[RexRex]

Can u produce that email copy?

.. reported by DailyMail I think.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Read the news reports on what was agreeed - pitch 7. It is out there.

Toss is a bigger factor than the pitch in matches like these.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Read the ICC curator's email.

ICC have themselves come forward and clarified what happened . So what does an internal mail matter ?

His concern was whether the pitch would unduly aid India or not ?

It clearly did not.

Secondly , was it clearly a violation of protocol for the curator to have final say on the pitches or not?

Because if it's not and the local curator has the final say , there is no argument to stand on

 

[RexRex]

ICC have themselves come forward and clarified what happened . So what does an internal mail matter ?

Of course they're going to come out with some 'clarification'. What do you expect them to do - sanction India and disqualify them for the final ? lol

They are not going to get into a scuffle with the powerful BCCI.

Secondly , was it clearly a violation of protocol for the curator to have final say on the pitches or not?

Yes I assume it was. I see no other reason why an ICC curator should be complaing to his bosses in an email. He was likely overruled by some local official.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Of course they're going to come out with some 'clarification'. What do you expect them to do - sanction India and disqualify them for the final ? lol

They are not going to get into a scuffle with the powerful BCCI.



Yes I assume it was. I see no other reason why an ICC curator should complaing to his bosses in an email.

Well then you are wrong about the 2nd part .

The local curator has the final say. The only role of the ICC consultant is actually to ensure that the pitch is "fit for purpose" which on the evidence of the match it clearly was

There is actually nothing stopping the BCCI from influencing the curator to make pitches despite Atkinson's reservations.

He was not kept in the loop apparently which was wrong but his concerns about the used pitch being unfit were clearly unfounded.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The more pertinent question should be why the ICC "consultant" allowed such rubbish pitches in the knockouts in 2019 World Cup and in 2021 World T20 . But somehow had an issue with such a good pitch in this World Cup's knockout and raised a hue and a cry about the best, fairest knockout pitch we have seen in a long time

Either he is not competent enough or he is simply informed by his Anglo-centric idea of what a good pitch is.

But people are simply missing the forest for the trees as usual.

Atkinson was happy with the pitches as per his interview given in Kolkata few days back.

This is a dubious media outlet trying to raise a storm in a tea Cup.

Such is the reputation of Daily Mail that sometime back Wikipedia was refusing to accept Daily Mail articles as source.

 

[cricketjoshila]

What you mean ? This is simple. Fresh pitches favour NZ a bit more and used ones favour India. BCCI intervened at last minute to change the 'fresh pitch' which had all the cameras set up for it.

The pitch favoured no one. It played well throughout.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Fresh pitch would aid any team that bowls under lights significantly more in the first 15 overs.

Then everyone would cry about imbalanced conditions.

Happened versus SL.

That's why the local curator recommended a used pitch.

 

[cricketjoshila]

There's no need.

Fresh pitch would aid Kiwi fast bowlers, who in 2019 semi reduced India to 5/3. The trauma of that defeat was lingering in their minds.

And Bumrah Shami and Siraj are duds?

They are a notch above NZ Pacers.

2019 has no relevance here.

 

[cricketjoshila]

By nullifying the kiwi bowlers, the same ones that ambushed the Ind top order in 2019 semi.

They were playing in England in 2019 not India.

Indian bowlers have been above everyone else in this tournament.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Thank god this semi is not between India and Pak or there have been huge cry over today spin wicket.
bcci is stupid to not make this wicket for yesterday match

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because if a highly reputable journalist has published communications between the ICC and one of their employees that bring the game into disrepute and they're fake, the first thing you'd do when commenting on the articles off the back of it would be to point out that they're fake.

Highly reputable journalist of a tabloid known to publish unreliable news. Lol.

Why will ICC need to give publicity to a lowly tabloid news?

As i said, BCCI didn't find it important enough to even comment.

And communications between ICC its employees and boards are not public documents that they will be discussed in public.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Kumble said it was changed at the last minute and that it was unusual move.

Indian express had published an article before daily mail, on 14th November regarding what kind of pitch was expected.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Atkinson was happy with the pitches as per his interview given in Kolkata few days back.

This is a dubious media outlet trying to raise a storm in a tea Cup.

Such is the reputation of Daily Mail that sometime back Wikipedia was refusing to accept Daily Mail articles as source.

Maybe he wasn't happy with the pitch being changed from 7 to 6?

Regardless , I'm just happy we didn't play NZ on this rank turner of an Eden pitch.

Every one and his dog would be accusing India of rigging pitches to aid India.

Not a peep about Eden pitch because IND is not involved.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That is debatable.

Its not. Look at what happened to Srilankans vs India.

Btw on one hand you are saying fresh pitch would help NZ. Then you are saying its debatable.

What do you want to say?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Changing the pitch unilaterally from fresh to used at the last minute is abuse of power. Should have been the ICC's call.

If pitch was changed at the last minute, how did Indian express knew about the pitch and published an article a day before?

How is the change unilateral, if ICC says Atkinson was informed?

 

[cricketjoshila]

You can google the ICC regulations - i can't be bothered. There was an email by ICC curator to his bosses complaining about Indian team management getting involved in pitch preparation.

Who said there was this email? Did you read it? Did Atkinson or ICC say there was such an email?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Of course they're going to come out with some 'clarification'. What do you expect them to do - sanction India and disqualify them for the final ? lol

They are not going to get into a scuffle with the powerful BCCI.



Yes I assume it was. I see no other reason why an ICC curator should be complaing to his bosses in an email. He was likely overruled by some local official.

Where is this complain? Where is the evidence?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Maybe he wasn't happy with the pitch being changed from 7 to 6?

Regardless , I'm just happy we didn't play NZ on this rank turner of an Eden pitch.

Every one and his dog would be accusing India of rigging pitches to aid India.

Not a peep about Eden pitch because IND is not involved.

ICC has no problem. England failed in India. And India is likely to face Aussies, so these Journalists are trying to create some controversy.

 

[HitWicket]

Highly reputable journalist of a tabloid known to publish unreliable news. Lol.

Why will ICC need to give publicity to a lowly tabloid news?

As i said, BCCI didn't find it important enough to even comment.

And communications between ICC its employees and boards are not public documents that they will be discussed in public.

Attacking the website it was posted on rather than looking at the journalist themself and realising they are a highly reputable leading cricket journalist makes no sense.

The BCCI and the ICC have both already seen the piece as noteworthy enough to comment, the fact they didn't even try to deny the email was real says a lot.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Attacking the website it was posted on rather than looking at the journalist themself and realising they are a highly reputable leading cricket journalist makes no sense.

The BCCI and the ICC have both already seen the piece as noteworthy enough to comment, the fact they didn't even try to deny the email was real says a lot.

Regardless, the controversy was pretty much ado about nothing. It was a very good surface

 

[cricketjoshila]

Attacking the website it was posted on rather than looking at the journalist themself and realising they are a highly reputable leading cricket journalist makes no sense.

The BCCI and the ICC have both already seen the piece as noteworthy enough to comment, the fact they didn't even try to deny the email was real says a lot.

BCCI made no comments.

ICC released a small statement.

Why will they talk about the privileged conversation between them and their employees because some tabloid said something?

If that journalist had credible information, reputed publications would have published it before a tabloid.

 

[Ahmed216]

We know how much a used surface aids the team batting first. It gets more and more sluggish as the game progresses.To say that it played the same for entire 100 overs is incorrect. Last 20 overs in NZ innings it was extremely difficult to time the ball

 

[cricketjoshila]

We know how much a used surface aids the team batting first. It gets more and more sluggish as the game progresses.To say that it played the same for entire 100 overs is incorrect. Last 20 overs in NZ innings it was extremely difficult to time the ball

Yet Glenn Philips scored a 33 ball 41.

If it was a 350 run chase, NZ were on their way to win it.

And which sluggish surface allows a fast bowler to pick 7 wickets?

And how did BCCI know Rohit will win the toss?

 

[OMB]

Maybe he wasn't happy with the pitch being changed from 7 to 6?

Regardless , I'm just happy we didn't play NZ on this rank turner of an Eden pitch.

Every one and his dog would be accusing India of rigging pitches to aid India.

Not a peep about Eden pitch because IND is not involved.

exactly. look how Travis head has bcome warney...where are the spin doctors and their yarn about pitch doctoring now?

 

[HitWicket]

Regardless, the controversy was pretty much ado about nothing. It was a very good surface

The issue isn't really around the specific surface, it's the email from the ICCs head groundsman suggesting that the BCCI are influencing the selection and preparation of pitches given this is a world event.

 

[Ahmed216]

Yet Glenn Philips scored a 33 ball 41.

If it was a 350 run chase, NZ were on their way to win it.

And which sluggish surface allows a fast bowler to pick 7 wickets?

And how did BCCI know Rohit will win the toss?

Sluggish surface does help both fast bowlers and spinners. Cutters bring a lot of wickets for pacers too.
India did gamble by playing on a used surface. If they had lost the toss it could have backfired

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The issue isn't really around the specific surface, it's the email from the ICCs head groundsman suggesting that the BCCI are influencing the selection and preparation of pitches given this is a world event.

Ultimately it's the local curator's call . If the prepared pitch had blatantly favoured India , his comments would have had some merit .

As it turned out, there's no evidence of it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Sluggish surface does help both fast bowlers and spinners. Cutters bring a lot of wickets for pacers too.
India did gamble by playing on a used surface. If they had lost the toss it could have backfired

So now India gambled? A 50-50 gamble?

How many of Shami's wickets were because of cutters?

If cutters were bringing wickets, why did spinners struggle?

 

[HitWicket]

BCCI made no comments.

ICC released a small statement.

Why will they talk about the privileged conversation between them and their employees because some tabloid said something?

If that journalist had credible information, reputed publications would have published it before a tabloid.

A BCCI spokesperson responded directly as part of the article itself.

It's not a privileged conversation if it didn't exist. If you're commenting on an article that brings the game into disrepute the first thing you'd do if you could is state that the email that specifically brings the game into disrepute is fake.

Once again you're making the mistake of looking at what website it's on rather than the fact the information came from (given his other roles) one of the best connected cricket journalists in the world.

 

[Ahmed216]

This was just 1 instance where Indian team management were caught cheating. A thorough and genuine investigation would reveal a lot more but we all know its not gonna happen. Anyways outside of India this WC will be remembered for pitch rigging throughout the tournament in favour of India and Afghanistan.

 

[HitWicket]

Ultimately it's the local curator's call . If the prepared pitch had blatantly favoured India , his comments would have had some merit .

As it turned out, there's no evidence of it.

The email was in reference to the pitch for the final.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The issue isn't really around the specific surface, it's the email from the ICCs head groundsman suggesting that the BCCI are influencing the selection and preparation of pitches given this is a world event.

ICC doesn't have any heads groundsman.

Atkinson is a consultant.

The email exists only on daily mail. So its daily mails opinion not ICC or Atkinson's.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

We know how much a used surface aids the team batting first. It gets more and more sluggish as the game progresses.To say that it played the same for entire 100 overs is incorrect. Last 20 overs in NZ innings it was extremely difficult to time the ball

We don't . CT 2017 semifinal PAK v ENG . World T20. 2022 semifinals were all played on used surfaces and they were all won by chasing sides with the pitch getting easier

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The email was in reference to the pitch for the final.

Are you saying his concerns were only for the final ?

And had nothing to do with yesterday's pitch?

 

[cricketjoshila]

A BCCI spokesperson responded directly as part of the article itself.

It's not a privileged conversation if it didn't exist. If you're commenting on an article that brings the game into disrepute the first thing you'd do if you could is state that the email that specifically brings the game into disrepute is fake.

Once again you're making the mistake of looking at what website it's on rather than the fact the information came from (given his other roles) one of the best connected cricket journalists in the world.

Which BCCI spokesman responded? Can you quote it please?

communication between ICC and its employees isn't open for public discussion. Any comments on it will mean you are opening yourself to a full disclosure of all communications.

 

[HitWicket]

Are you saying his concerns were only for the final ?

And had nothing to do with yesterday's pitch?

The article suggested he had concerns around other pitch changes and the reasoning and communication over them. The directly quoted email is specifically about his concerns of BCCI influence over the selection and preparation of the pitch for the final.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The article suggested he had concerns around other pitch changes and the reasoning and communication over them. The directly quoted email is specifically about his concerns of BCCI influence over the selection and preparation of the pitch for the final.

ICC leaves pitch preparation to local curators. Those curators are employees of the host board. So ofcourse all host boards have influence over their employees.

 

[OMB]

We know how much a used surface aids the team batting first. It gets more and more sluggish as the game progresses.To say that it played the same for entire 100 overs is incorrect. Last 20 overs in NZ innings it was extremely difficult to time the ball

I saw the NZ batsmen sluggish at the start and towards the end. Only reason they were not sluggish in the middle overs was due to Mitchell taking the fight out of Indian spinners. This pitch had nothing for spinners. On paper, IND pacers are better than NZ pacers whereas Santner a spinner was the standout bowler from NZ. And so this pitch switch is a non-issue as far as cricket match was concerned.

Pitch 7 in fact, if used, would have troubled NZ even more. As far as the issue of deviation from norms is alleged, it was informed as per ICC and is anyway a moot point as there was no benefit to any team due to the pitch change.
The pitch change happened before the toss.

 

[HitWicket]

Which BCCI spokesman responded? Can you quote it please?

The fact you've jumped in to fulfill your usual role as BCCI PR lapdog despite now admitting you haven't even read the article the entire discussion is about is staggering.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The article suggested he had concerns around other pitch changes and the reasoning and communication over them. The directly quoted email is specifically about his concerns of BCCI influence over the selection and preparation of the pitch for the final.

That may be the case but it was directly informed by the change of pitch for this particular match .

Until then, it looks like he wasn't even aware of other pitches that were changed and those that didn't even involve India in Ahmedabad.

So , unless the surfaces have played badly or favoured India excessively , there's no reason for anyone, even Atkinson, to suggest that this was home specifically for India.

And the evidence of the Wankhede suggests that it didn't favour the home side.

 

[JaDed]

I think I may have actually confused/mixed up numbers but I think the actual numbers prove my point even more. It’s not the last 4 out of 5 ODI WC’s, it’s the last 3 out of 3 and, most likely, soon to be 4 out of 4. This was not the case in cricket historically - it’s clear that the advantage in ODI WC’s has shifted decisively towards home teams in recent times.

It was the case before too just other teams were better prepared due to county cricket.

Majority of the WCs were in England who were not a great team.

Everyone knows India or Pakistan were expected to win 1987 and 1996 but blew it.

 

[Mesozoic]

So now India gambled? A 50-50 gamble?

How many of Shami's wickets were because of cutters?

If cutters were bringing wickets, why did spinners struggle?

Bro the guy has completely ignored this and ran away from the discussion only to go on a separate moaning spree. Take the clue. Why are you expecting answers for such questions?


Just enjoy the salt , laugh and move on.

 

[Ahmed216]

So now India gambled? A 50-50 gamble?

How many of Shami's wickets were because of cutters?

If cutters were bringing wickets, why did spinners struggle?

By gamble I meant it could have backfired. If India were so confident in their abilities why did they opt to change the pitch. They knew they have a better chance on a used pitch.
Toss outcome cannot be controlled every1 knows that

 

[Ahmed216]

Bro the guy has completely ignored this and ran away from the discussion only to go on a separate moaning spree. Take the clue. Why are you expecting answers for such questions?


Just enjoy the salt , laugh and move on.

No m still here. Because Indians are yet to offer an explanation why team management got involved in pitch selection

 

[OMB]

The article suggested he had concerns around other pitch changes and the reasoning and communication over them. The directly quoted email is specifically about his concerns of BCCI influence over the selection and preparation of the pitch for the final.

Article suggested that Atkinson had a concern about the pitch changes. 6-8-6-8-7 was what was conveyed to him.
The curator has power to change this with notification to Atkinson and he was apprised, ICC give a clean chit.
Atkisnons concern was more procedural whether this will happen to Ahmedabad pitch too.

I can only guess it is his feedback to ICC about increasing his role. ICC has to look into what to make of it.
Just to extend this discussions (as a what-if scenario),

There are two scenarios :

1) ICC will keep power of the pitch preparation and curation with the ground staff as long as it remains fit for the purpose. This is what it currently is.

2) ICC will take control of the pitch preparations which is essentially wrong as it will set a precedent for all bilateral matches where visitors will request for neutral pitches (and while we can have neutral umpiring, I have no clue what a neutral pitch is). Is this practical?

I fail to see what is all that hulla about?

Regarding Atkinsons concern about Ahmedabad pitch
"Australia captain Pat Cummins said Wednesday he had confidence in the integrity of the ICC's pitch process.
"Yeah, I saw that (the report)...obviously ICC have an independent pitch curator who manages that so I'm sure they are all over making sure it's fair for both teams," Cummins said.
"So far this tournament (on pitches) that we've played on I've not seen any issue."

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...ut-nothing-against-rules-101700041679584.html

 

[Sycamore]

I don't know whether Indians are pretending to not understand the crux of the matter or fail to grasp it for real.

It doesn't matter how the pitch played!

What matters is a cricket board directed the groundsman to switch the pitch at the last moment before a major semi final in a World Cup Event to suit their needs.

Should that be allowed? to give a host nation that kind of power in a World event

 

[Ahmed216]

I don't know whether Indians are pretending to not understand the crux of the matter or fail to grasp it for real.

It doesn't matter how the pitch played!

What matters is a cricket board directed the groundsman to switch the pitch at the last moment before a major semi final in a World Cup Event to suit their needs.

Should that be allowed? to give a host nation that kind of power in a World event

It in tantamount to match fixing in my opinion. There's desperation to win because of no icc trophies in last 10 years.
From now onwards any tournament held in India cannot be taken seriously

 

[jnaveen1980]

Seems like this topic will run until next world cup lol I think NZ already left the country.

 

[RexRex]

What matters is a cricket board directed the groundsman to switch the pitch at the last moment before a major semi final in a World Cup Event to suit their needs.

Should that be allowed? to give a host nation that kind of power in a World event

Correct. This was my main point but everybody ignored it.

 

[MenInG]

Gavaskar on air regarding the pitch change controversy:

"All the morons who were talking about the pitch change. Just stop. Stop taking potshots at Indian cricket. People have said a lot of things to attract eyeballs or whatever. It is all nonsense. The pitch was there and even if it was changed, it was there before the toss for both the teams. It was not changed in the middle of the innings. It was not changed after the toss was done. If you are a good enough team, you play on that pitch and you win. India has done that. So stop talking about pitches. Already they are talking about Ahmedabad and the second semifinal hasn't even taken place. They are talking about the pitch being changed in Ahmedabad. Nonsense,".

More from Gavaskar on this:

"I hope Australia comes through because then we will read some more rubbish about the pitch being shifted. And, then to see to all those stupidos proven wrong with 713 runs scored on this pitch, which was supposed to be a shifted pitch, that is also going to happen. I would love to see that come from Australian and their media. I would love to see those morons being proven wrong once again. Never mind who wins. The runs and the way the pitch behaves.,"

 

[Mesozoic]

No m still here. Because Indians are yet to offer an explanation why team management got involved in pitch selection

Please quote me the ICC rule that says a team management cannot give inputs on the wicket preparation.

 

[HitWicket]

Please quote me the ICC rule that says a team management cannot give inputs on the wicket preparation.

For an ICC event the groundsman has to prepare the best pitch they can. If the home board are dictating which pitch is used and how it is prepared then they are not able to do that.

 

[uppercut]

There's no need

Well in that case neither is there any need for me prove the opposite... your word against mine. This is a very easy game to play and I can play that more effectively than you if those are the "rules"

BTW Ind did not even bat first in the 2019 SF despite nz winng the toss .... So much for the pitch induced "trauma" ..

 

[Mesozoic]

For an ICC event the groundsman has to prepare the best pitch they can. If the home board are dictating which pitch is used and how it is prepared then they are not able to do that.

So no ICC rule. Expected ... Have a nice day.

 

[HitWicket]

So no ICC rule. Expected ... Have a nice day.

I've literally just told you how BCCI interference in the pitch preparation means the rules have to be broken. If the BCCI are demanding a certain pitch is used and it's prepared in a certain way then the groundsman is no longer prepping the best possible pitch.

 

[Mesozoic]

I've literally just told you how BCCI interference means in the pitch preparation means the rules have to be broken. If the BCCI are demanding a certain pitch is used and it's prepared in a certain way then the groundsman is no longer prepping the best pitch they can.

And what rules are broken? Lmao... We're going around in circles.

 

[HitWicket]

And what rules are broken? Lmao... We're going around in circles.

As I've already told you:

It is expected that venues that are allocated the responsibility of hosting a match will present the best possible pitch and outfield conditions for that match.

 

[ahmadharis1]

Might was well call it the BCCI Cricket World Cup

 

[Mesozoic]

As I've already told you:

It is expected that venues that are allocated the responsibility of hosting a match will present the best possible pitch and outfield conditions for that match.

And? Weren't they the best possible conditions? What are you even trying to say here?

 

[uppercut]

What matters is a cricket board directed the groundsman to switch the pitch at the last moment before a major semi final in a World Cup Event to suit their needs.

So what were these "needs" and how would BCCI know that changing the pitch would fulfill those "needs" ?

 

[HitWicket]

And? Weren't they the best possible conditions? What are you even trying to say here?

If the groundsmen have to operate on the demands of the BCCI to pick a specific pitch and prepare it as they dictate then they are no longer presenting the best possible pitch for the match. They're presenting the best possible pitch that meets BCCIs demands.

 

[basitmian]

BCCI know that this India team can’t win WC outside of India. And this is last WC for quite a few years so might as well change the pitches before match to do what they can to win the matches.

 

[pillionrider]

Might was well call it the BCCI Cricket World Cup

Just wait for a few days and you can happily call it India's Cricket World Cup

 

[ahmadharis1]

Just wait for a few days and you can happily call it India's Cricket World Cup

This was already India's world cup from the start to be honest, they were far and away the favorites

 

[pillionrider]

This was already India's world cup from the start to be honest, they were far and away the favorites

So then we don't have a problem right

 

[ahmadharis1]

So then we don't have a problem right

Yeah no problem if we ignore the blatant overstepping by BCCI

 

[MenInG]

Mitchell Starc in his post semi-final presser:

A little tongue in cheek about the pitch?


[Reporter:]

Are you a bit surprised given there's been so many runs scored in this tournament, you only had to look at last night when there was more than 700 runs scored in the Mumbai final, that you ended up on a pitch that really didn't showcase the one-day game as it could have been showcased in the major world cricket event?

[Mitchell Starc:]

Yeah, I'm certainly not going to say I'm one to read pitches and know what they do. I mean training here the last few days, the practice wicket certainly turned a lot. From all reports I think the wicket we played on has been used a few times so no surprise that it did turn. Probably a little surprising that it did seam around a little bit whilst I said before it was pretty inconsistent pace wise, I think average first inning scores here have been sort of around 300 mark or a little bit higher. So yeah, a little bit surprising but you know sometimes it's nice to see ball dominate bat sometimes

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yeah no problem if we ignore the blatant overstepping by BCCI

Yeah I agree, instead of making it a fair contest vs NZ, by preparing a pitch with something in it for the bowlers, BCCI created a flat phatta so batsmen can score nearly a 1000 runs in a day.. Dull, boring, pathetic and typical flat track sub continental behavior...