What's new

Which is the hardest pitch to score on? Bouncy, Spinning or Seaming

liaqat

liaqat

First Class Star
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Runs
3,597
What would you consider as hardest wickets to score on

We tend to have three kinda pitches in the world ,

Australia with bouncy pitches,

India and Srilanka+Uae with rank turner's

New Zealand .England and SA with seem friendly pitches.

We all have seen how Australia pile up score's on bouncy track's and really struggle else where.

What do you think is the hardest place to score,:dalmiya

For me it's harder to score on turning pitches then compared to bouncy and seaming pitches as batsmen can slog and get edge's to fly over slip's etc and score runs.Where as slogging against spinner's on turning pitches doesn't work.:misbah

What's your opinion
 
It depends on the bowlers you are facing. Against Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood pitches with bounce will be very difficult.

But overall I would say that the pitches like in South Africa are the most difficult.
 
If pitches are prepared true to their nature, then SA is the most difficult for Asian batsmen and India for Non-Asian batsmen.
 
Bouncy would be the easiest. For the other two, it depends on the bowlers and the batsmen.
 
Bounce is enjoyable once you get used to it. Class batsmen love the ball coming on to the bat. Swing/Seam and dustbowl spin are far bigger challenges.
 
Lets take the batsmen out of the equation and bowler's for argument's sake,

Its just feel's these days cricket has become one way traffic, Every one is a home bully and useless abroad,

That seems to be the trend recently,
 
Pakistani batsman struggle immensely against bounce and pacey wickets (e.g. Australian conditions) - even more so than seaming green wickets (which explains our somewhat respectable record against England). Contrary to popular belief, we do not play rank turners exceptionally well either and our strategy of batting first on UAE wickets when the pitch is still hard often masks this weakness.

Indian batsman imo struggle more on green tops.

Sri Lanka batsman cannot cope with bounce and are similar in that aspect to pakistani batsman (Sanga's 192 in Hobart aside - SL batsman have a very poor record in Australia)

English/Australian/NZ end even SAF batsman to some extent struggle the most on rank turners as expected

Last but not least - WI struggle everywhere! :gayle
 
Whichever surface you're least familiar with.
 
As a batsman if I have to face Zahid, shoaib, irfan, ambrose,Walsh, Morkel,holding,harmison,Roberts in their peaks on Headingly,Perth,Kingsmeed that would be most difficult.
 
msb314 said:
Pakistani batsman struggle immensely against bounce and pacey wickets (e.g. Australian conditions) - even more so than seaming green wickets (which explains our somewhat respectable record against England). Contrary to popular belief, we do not play rank turners exceptionally well either and our strategy of batting first on UAE wickets when the pitch is still hard often masks this weakness.

Indian batsman imo struggle more on green tops.

Sri Lanka batsman cannot cope with bounce and are similar in that aspect to pakistani batsman (Sanga's 192 in Hobart aside - SL batsman have a very poor record in Australia)

English/Australian/NZ end even SAF batsman to some extent struggle the most on rank turners as expected

Last but not least - WI struggle everywhere! :gayle
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten Harmison's 11 wickets hall ?
 
For Asian batsman especially Pakistani batsmen, bouncy pitches. For non Asian teams, spinning pitches.
 
Seam without doubt, if it seams it generally spins cause it grips, and a seamer seaming all over is virtually unplayable
 
TalentSpotterPk said:
Pakistan in England where harmison tore us apart. It might have been 2005-2006.
Click to expand...

Ahhh yes - the game you are referring to was Pakistan vs England 3rd Test at Old Trafford in 2006.

That pitch was truly a green mamba and so I would like to call that more of an exception rather than the rule. In all the three other tests - our batting did fare much better during that tour.

Yousuf had a rare off Test as did YK whilst Inzy and Kammy were always poor in foreign conditions. The less said about Farhat, Faisal Iqbal etc. the better lol
 
It really depends on pitch-bowler combo.

Facing Panesar/Jaddu on a rank turner is no less tougher than facing McGrath/Wasim in Aus.
 
Last edited:
msb314 said:
Ahhh yes - the game you are referring to was Pakistan vs England 3rd Test at Old Trafford in 2006.

That pitch was truly a green mamba and so I would like to call that more of an exception rather than the rule. In all the three other tests - our batting did fare much better during that tour.

Yousuf had a rare off Test as did YK whilst Inzy and Kammy were always poor in foreign conditions. The less said about Farhat, Faisal Iqbal etc. the better lol
Click to expand...
It was the second tes.
3rd one was played at headingly
 
Bouncy is easiest. If by bouncy you mean equal bounce. Because equal bounce is best for batsman. Hit through the line with easy and ball will come onto bat. Un-even variable bounce is toughest.

And then for sub-continent seaming/swinging is toughest. And others spinning.
 
Bullet Drive said:
Bouncy is easiest. If by bouncy you mean equal bounce. Because equal bounce is best for batsman. Hit through the line with easy and ball will come onto bat. Un-even variable bounce is toughest.

And then for sub-continent seaming/swinging is toughest. And others spinning.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Track with bounce like old WACA and Gabba are really tough to face. No matter how great a batsman you are, you will always struggle balls bouncing more than your shoulder. We hardly see real bouncy track these days. So it is the toughest for me.

Next I would put seam/swinging and spin conditions as the same level of toughness. Unlike bouncy tracks, these 2 requires skills of bowlers to exploit them. A bowler who can swing in both ways are much tough to face than conventional swing. Similarly a spinner who gives more loop to a ball has more chances of getting more grip from the surface.
 
It depends with lots of factors. If we hypothetically pick 3 attacks -

1. Warne, Muraly & Bedi on a rank turner
2. McGrath, Hadlee & Asif on a green top (with even bounce)
3. Marshall, Holding & Ambrose on a rock hard surface (but very little live grass)

I think, easiest will be to play at the bouncier wicket - because a quality batsman can leave lot of ball trusting the true bounce. Once set, a good back-foot player can enjoy the bouncy wicket.

Of the other 2 wickets, I think it might be a bit easier in seeming wicket from tactical point. If bowlers are to maximize the advantage of green top, they 'll need to pitch it a bit up, which gives the batsman to drive on front foot. On rank turners, for quality spinners, all it takes them is to bowl at a very tight length & line - batsmen have to take initiative to score or the bowlers 'll hunt them one by one without the scoreboard moving much. Also, against quality spin - batsmen have to go through 2 options - play it o leave it. Those 3 that I have picked could have turned 2 feet, at the same time could drift in & keep it dead straight - and they knew exactly how much they are going to turn, would have picked the perfect spot to hit the timber within few overs.

Obviously, it depends lot on how the batsmen are groomed - Indians 'll always opt the turner; Aussies 'll pick the bounce (& avoid the turner), English 'll decline all 3, but at least won't mind a bit of grass; rather than facing MoJo, Lillee or Thmmo at WACA & not to mention spin.

For someone like Brian - a brilliant player of seem, one of the best ever against bounce & probably the best spin player I have ever seen; I think his preference (to face the attack) 'll be 3, 2, 1.
 
This thread deserves a [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] who can present historical data on how teams have performed in various types of pitches.
 
Spinning pitches with any kind of variable bounce are the toughest. There's a lot going on if there's a good spinner on the other end, you have to read the action from the hand, judge the flight, deal with the spin and the bounce.

You misjudge even one of them, and could find yourself out very easily. Real test of concentration, because spinners get through their overs a lot quicker. So it just keeps coming back, not a lot of time to gather yourself in between balls.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
This thread deserves a [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] who can present historical data on how teams have performed in various types of pitches.
Click to expand...

I am not going to look into any data, but I feel the combination of bounce and seem gives batsmen most trouble. Case in point, sub 50 scores in SA in recent past with not just one team. So it can't be simply about batsmen being inept.

How many sub 50 scores we have seen in rank turners or in bouncy pitches in recent years? I don't recall any right now. Sure, Steyn was there for those sub 50 scores but it's not just about Steyn. SA doesn't have that kind of pitches in all tests, but batsmen normally struggle to score when you have those two combinations.

It makes sense as well. Some batsmen are comfortable with bounce, some with turners and some with seem. Now when we combine two of these then most batsmen will find it very hard because they have to be good/decent in both. That's not easy to do.

I don't think that it's easy to put together various type of pitches and runs scored. Nature of pitches keep changing a lot in same venues. NZ has sometime produced unplayable green mamba and now they produce mostly flat tracks. Eng keep changing the nature of pitch based on who is playing. India used to produce many flat tracks and now most venues are rank turners. SA used to have more spice but now it's bit flatter. So you get the idea. It's not easy to put any data based on nature of pitch. We can just go by what we think here.
 
Last edited:
Folks who are saying turners are most difficult - Can you give me some examples of low scores on rank turners in recent years? Turners can be combined with variable bounce or whatever you want.

Can we take those examples and compare it with some low score produced in pitches having sideways movement with good bounce. We can talk about the last 25 years because I didn't see much cricket before that or too young to really realize all details.
 
Buffet said:
Folks who are saying turners are most difficult - Can you give me some examples of low scores on rank turners in recent years? Turners can be combined with variable bounce or whatever you want.

Can we take those examples and compare it with some low score produced in pitches having sideways movement with good bounce. We can talk about the last 25 years because I didn't see much cricket before that or too young to really realize all details.
Click to expand...

A turner becomes more difficult as the match progresses whereas a bouncy seamer eases out. The seamer is most likely to have lower 1st innings scores and the turner in the 2nd.
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
Folks who are saying turners are most difficult - Can you give me some examples of low scores on rank turners in recent years? Turners can be combined with variable bounce or whatever you want.

Can we take those examples and compare it with some low score produced in pitches having sideways movement with good bounce. We can talk about the last 25 years because I didn't see much cricket before that or too young to really realize all details.
Click to expand...
http://m.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/64102.html
 
Depends on your batting style. Current Indian and English batsmen for example have contrasting batting styles. While Indians find the bounce in Australia quite easy to handle, the English have run scared of it.

Same is true for spin. While Cook and company handled spin quite well in Asia, Aussies looked clueless always all the time. So, imo, there is no hardest pitch. It is more about what exposes your weakness more, and it varies for everyone.
 
Imo it's bouncy pitches, because seamers can work to extract seam movement off of it (if good enough), and a quality spinner can get some turn (if good enough)...if you can couple the extra bounce with whatever your main weapon is seam/spin you double your threat level as a bowler.
 
If you are born and bought up on tracks that are NOT bouncy then it is hard to adjust to bouncy tracks. Its easier to adjust to lower bounce having been used to higher bounce.
 
Turning pitches. You could end up looking like a 10 year old playing cricket when you face a quality spinner on a turning pitch.
 
Zak_Fan said:
Depends on your batting style. Current Indian and English batsmen for example have contrasting batting styles. While Indians find the bounce in Australia quite easy to handle, the English have run scared of it.

Same is true for spin. While Cook and company handled spin quite well in Asia, Aussies looked clueless always all the time. So, imo, there is no hardest pitch. It is more about what exposes your weakness more, and it varies for everyone.
Click to expand...

ok if thats true why have we won series in india and elsewhere in asia while india haven't got even a single series win over here.

We generally aren't great in asia but were still better over there than the asian teams are over here.
 
trogger said:
ok if thats true why have we won series in india and elsewhere in asia while india haven't got even a single series win over here.

We generally aren't great in asia but were still better over there than the asian teams are over here.
Click to expand...

India doesn't have the fast bowlers to take 20 wickets.
 
We don't have the spinners to take 20 wickets right now either, reality is last years series isn't a great example of india playing bounce well they were given 1 turning track and 3 of the flattest pitches we have ever produced and they still managed to bat poorly enough to lose 2 tests and still nearly lose the others.

On a tour to india just give us a bouncy track followed by 3 highways and our tale of woe might just improve slightly.
 
trogger said:
We don't have the spinners to take 20 wickets right now either, reality is last years series isn't a great example of india playing bounce well they were given 1 turning track and 3 of the flattest pitches we have ever produced and they still managed to bat poorly enough to lose 2 tests and still nearly lose the others.

On a tour to india just give us a bouncy track followed by 3 highways and our tale of woe might just improve slightly.
Click to expand...

I was speaking historically.
 
ChachaCricket said:
I was speaking historically.
Click to expand...

On many past tours though the indian batting has been just as big an issue as the bowling attack though, the tour before last india struggled badly on pitches that really weren't that difficult.
 
trogger said:
On many past tours though the indian batting has been just as big an issue as the bowling attack though, the tour before last india struggled badly on pitches that really weren't that difficult.
Click to expand...
They aren't the best players of bounce but they've had some good batting tours but their bowling was never able to put them over the line.
 
ChachaCricket said:
A turner becomes more difficult as the match progresses whereas a bouncy seamer eases out. The seamer is most likely to have lower 1st innings scores and the turner in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

I get the point now. Some of you were talking about entire test and I was just thinking about one inning. For inning by inning, turners are surely not the most difficult but for entire test, turners can be the most difficult.


Acricketfan said:
http://m.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/64102.html
Click to expand...

A good example.
 
trogger said:
ok if thats true why have we won series in india and elsewhere in asia while india haven't got even a single series win over here.

We generally aren't great in asia but were still better over there than the asian teams are over here.
Click to expand...

Because previous Aussie sides were good here, current one is not.

My point is about teams having their weaknesses exposed in certain conditions and the Aussie or English reference is with respect to their current squads.
 
trogger said:
We don't have the spinners to take 20 wickets right now either, reality is last years series isn't a great example of india playing bounce well they were given 1 turning track and 3 of the flattest pitches we have ever produced and they still managed to bat poorly enough to lose 2 tests and still nearly lose the others.

On a tour to india just give us a bouncy track followed by 3 highways and our tale of woe might just improve slightly.
Click to expand...

India batted well for a very long time overseas on that tour. The MCG and the SCG were flat, but the Adelaide provided great assistance to the spinners and the Gabba though was a bit flat than normal, aided bounce very well, similar to the track played vs the kiwis. In fact, the Indian top order arguably performed better than the Australian top order in that series. Apart from Smith and Rogers, none of the Australian batsmen had a "consistent" performance throughout the series. The biggest difference in the batting was that Australia had a very good tail miles better than the Indian tail. And the Australian bowlers are the best bowlers on flat decks in the world. Spin it what way you will, but India competed a lot better that series mainly due to their good batting performance. Yes, Australia were undoubtedly the better team and deserved to win 2-0, but you make it sound like a thrashing which was far from the truth.
 
It is hard to play spinners on dust bowls and pacers on bouncy/green wickets. But...

The lowest test scores generally resulted on pace friendly wickets. Great pacers when they run through a side, shoot out their opponents for sub 50 and sub 75 scores. These are very rare with spinners. When spinners run through a side, they usually bowl out the opponent for a score around 100.

Conclusion:
Great pacers on very helpful wickets can dismiss the opponent for less than 50 runs sometimes.
Great spinners on very helpful wickets can dismiss the opponent for 75-100 runs sometimes.

There have been nineteen sub 50 completed scores in history, and each and every instance occurred in SA, Australia or England. A sub 50 score has never been recorded on a dust bowl regardless of the quality of bowlers or teams involved. Only thirty four out of 194 sub 100 scores in history happened in Asia, so it is clear that pacers can bowl out the opposition more cheaply compared to spinners.

Spinners use guile and deception to run through sides. Which is why they are unable to dismiss any opposition for two digit scores easily. Pacers in great form are unstoppable and can simply rout the opposition for scores like 30 or 40.
 
IndianWillow said:
It is hard to play spinners on dust bowls and pacers on bouncy/green wickets. But...

The lowest test scores generally resulted on pace friendly wickets. Great pacers when they run through a side, shoot out their opponents for sub 50 and sub 75 scores. These are very rare with spinners. When spinners run through a side, they usually bowl out the opponent for a score around 100.

Conclusion:
Great pacers on very helpful wickets can dismiss the opponent for less than 50 runs sometimes.
Great spinners on very helpful wickets can dismiss the opponent for 75-100 runs sometimes.

There have been nineteen sub 50 completed scores in history, and each and every instance occurred in SA, Australia or England. A sub 50 score has never been recorded on a dust bowl regardless of the quality of bowlers or teams involved. Only thirty four out of 194 sub 100 scores in history happened in Asia, so it is clear that pacers can bowl out the opposition more cheaply compared to spinners.

Spinners use guile and deception to run through sides. Which is why they are unable to dismiss any opposition for two digit scores easily. Pacers in great form are unstoppable and can simply rout the opposition for scores like 30 or 40.
Click to expand...

Partially true IW, but I have few notes to add.

1. Spinners come into play after few overs - because it's tough for them to grip with new ball. On Green top shockers 2/3 pacers starts to hunt on ball 1, but often spinners need few overs to settle. I agree with that range (50-60 for pacers, ~100 for spinners), but if you do a bit in depth analysis, you 'll see that on turners often teams had been blown for 120, even from a position of 70/1. Take that Bangalore Test - Manider took 7/27 & after 20 overs, of the innings - he was absolutely unplayable. IND once was 129/2 replying PAK's 114 - were blown by Qadim & Tauseef for 147. In very few cases we have seen spinners coming with new ball on rank turners & they did blew teams for 70-80. ENG @ Abu Dhabi, SAF recently at Mohali comes to mind.

2. Now days, we play on covered wickets, therefore the "sticky dog" doesn't come into equation. If you check score 70-80 years & previous, you 'll see even on the highest scoring era of 1920s to 1940s (those were time less Test era, over 650 overs were common in a Test), on rain affected wickets, spinners had ran through sides in an hour - it was near impossible to survive a full over against Verity, O'Reilly or Grimmet on a Sticky dog.

3. Gradually, the average scoring of the game has improved. Also, spinners are less predominant in modern (after WW 1) era. Between 1876 to 1913, there were lots of Test where teams were blow. For sub 75 totals, often by spinners - Peel, Briggs, Petet, Ranji Horsen, Blythe, Emmet, the Aussie Offie (can't recall name now - had 2 hat tricks in MCG Test) all of them rattled batting sides for 50-60 almost alone. Besides, those days, often you would have seen pacers bowling 'cutters', which is basically fastish finger spin on sticky dogs. Lots of Barnes, Lohmann, Turner, JJ Ferris & Spofforth's wickets were actually taken on cutters on sticky dog.

It's definitely challenge to play seemers like Hadlee, Bedsar, McGrath, Snow or Asif on a green tops; but I don't think, we have hardly seen that equivalent spinners wicket - few times I can recall when Clarke got 6/9, Rehman got 6/26; Manindet 7/27.... Laker 19/90....
 
it depends on where you are from. Subcontinental batsmen struggle on bouncy aussie and safrican wickets most.

England and NZ will struggle on subcontinental spinning wickets with low bounce because their pitchees are green and seam friendly.


I think Seaming green wickets of England and NZ are still easier for subcontinental batsmen to negotiate because they are soft and the ball comes slow but it swings in the air a lot which can be countered with proper technique.

But playing bounce is the most difficult for them since they are not good with horizontal bat shots.

Similarly most Aussies/English/Safrican and Kiwis and are not accustomed to low bounce and turn so it depends on where you are from.
 
Bounce for Pakistan batsman. Many of our greats like inzamam and yousuf struggled with it.
 
MMHS said:
Partially true IW, but I have few notes to add.

1. Spinners come into play after few overs - because it's tough for them to grip with new ball. On Green top shockers 2/3 pacers starts to hunt on ball 1, but often spinners need few overs to settle. I agree with that range (50-60 for pacers, ~100 for spinners), but if you do a bit in depth analysis, you 'll see that on turners often teams had been blown for 120, even from a position of 70/1. Take that Bangalore Test - Manider took 7/27 & after 20 overs, of the innings - he was absolutely unplayable. IND once was 129/2 replying PAK's 114 - were blown by Qadim & Tauseef for 147. In very few cases we have seen spinners coming with new ball on rank turners & they did blew teams for 70-80. ENG @ Abu Dhabi, SAF recently at Mohali comes to mind.

2. Now days, we play on covered wickets, therefore the "sticky dog" doesn't come into equation. If you check score 70-80 years & previous, you 'll see even on the highest scoring era of 1920s to 1940s (those were time less Test era, over 650 overs were common in a Test), on rain affected wickets, spinners had ran through sides in an hour - it was near impossible to survive a full over against Verity, O'Reilly or Grimmet on a Sticky dog.

3. Gradually, the average scoring of the game has improved. Also, spinners are less predominant in modern (after WW 1) era. Between 1876 to 1913, there were lots of Test where teams were blow. For sub 75 totals, often by spinners - Peel, Briggs, Petet, Ranji Horsen, Blythe, Emmet, the Aussie Offie (can't recall name now - had 2 hat tricks in MCG Test) all of them rattled batting sides for 50-60 almost alone. Besides, those days, often you would have seen pacers bowling 'cutters', which is basically fastish finger spin on sticky dogs. Lots of Barnes, Lohmann, Turner, JJ Ferris & Spofforth's wickets were actually taken on cutters on sticky dog.

It's definitely challenge to play seemers like Hadlee, Bedsar, McGrath, Snow or Asif on a green tops; but I don't think, we have hardly seen that equivalent spinners wicket - few times I can recall when Clarke got 6/9, Rehman got 6/26; Manindet 7/27.... Laker 19/90....
Click to expand...

Yes. Pace bowlers too have dismissed teams from healthy starts to almost nothing in no time. Consider Ambrose 7/1 spell at Perth. It is much harder for a spinner to rout the opposition like that. Pre World War II spinners had some sort of parity but since then pacers have the edge. This should follow naturally from average S/R of spinners and pacers. Great pacers uniformly have bowling S/R between 40-60 while great spinners have S/R of 55-90. Great pacers are known for good averages and good strike rates. Great spinners are known for good averages and average strike rates.
 
trogger said:
On many past tours though the indian batting has been just as big an issue as the bowling attack though, the tour before last india struggled badly on pitches that really weren't that difficult.
Click to expand...

India should have won in 08 and 03. australia cheated to win in 08 but ofcourse it would never be mentioned here.

India generally play bounce better than they play swing. 2015 was flat but still offered variable bounce. Australian pitches never offer a completely bouncy track as that would make the match more of a lottery based on toss. It's risky.
 
It depends on type of player.

Players outside of Asia are likely to struggle on spinning pitches.

Asian batsmen are likely to struggle on bouncy pitches.

Players with poor footwork will likely struggle on seaming pitches (doesn't matter whether Asian or non-Asian).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
  • Poll Poll
Which team is favorite to win the Asia Cup 2025?
2 3 4
Replies
240
Views
12K
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
BouncerGuy
"It should be just as tough to beat Pakistan at home as it is for the Pakistan team when they go to Australia or South Africa": Aaqib Javed
Replies
11
Views
746
pakfan54588
P
A
  • Poll Poll
Is Pakistan's decision to rely on just one specialist spinner in the ICC Champions Trophy 2025 a missed opportunity?
2
Replies
91
Views
4K
Aqib_mustafa
A
FearlessRoar
  • Poll Poll
Which team is likely to be the most powerful batting unit in ICC World Cup 2024?
Replies
36
Views
1K
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
FearlessRoar
"It's not right to blame the entire team or system based on a single match": Aaqib Javed
Replies
37
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top