Why is no one complaining that the conditions at Lord's are ruining cricket?

[Adil_94]

When you get day one turners in the subcontinent and a touring team is inevitably bowled out cheaply, you get all the complaints about doctored pitches and these being bad for cricket and poor pitches.

But when it comes to swinging conditions or greentops nothing from the powers that be or the usual moaners.

Why the double standards when it comes to green tracks and turners?

 

[HitWicket]

when u get day one turners in the subcontinent and a touring team is inevitably bowled out cheaply. you get all the complaints about doctored pitches and these being bad for cricket and poor pitches.

But when it comes to swinging conditions or greentops nothing from the powers that be or the usual moaners.

why the double standards when it comes to green tracks and turners.

So who are you going to fine for some dark clouds...?

 

[sachin100]

Absolutely. Hypocrisy at its finest.

When green tops or seaming conditions make batting a lottery they say it looks good viewing and exiting but when spinners are on top they cry about the pitches.

Eng team, commentators and their press is the worst hypocrites. Aussies are far better than them

 

[Buffet]

why the double standards when it comes to green tracks and turners.

Since Eng was old country they set the trend for what is acceptable and what's not acceptable. It will change in coming decades. Also swinging conditions are a bit out of hand for anyone, but point stands about the green tracks with low scores.

I personally think all kinds of surfaces are good for cricket. That's what makes it interesting. Seeing SA doing well in India or SL doing well in Eng makes it interesting.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] im not saying anyone should be fined and i like swinging conditions n turners but one is always overtly criticised than the other.

 

[sachin100]

Nobody moans like them by saying in these conditions in every interview, article by captain, commentators

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] agreed i like the diversity of pitches it is exciting cricket but turners are always looked down upon as these impossible pitches to bat on and doctored but swinging conditions n green tops are always hyped as wonderfup cricket and redressing the balance between bat and ball.

but turners are bad pitches apparently.

 

[Convict]

Actually the Australian media constantly implies that the Poms doctor pitches.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] im not saying Aussies are doing this hypocrisy. the Bothams of this world though ....

 

[sachin100]

Except last ind tour of sa every pitch india played in sa is a green top with exaggerated seam movement where toss is a lottery and team batting first folds invariably.

Graeme Smith was laughing like anything after winning toss again in the second test thinking india will fold in first innings like the first test but it back fired and they lost second test.

Atleast turners dont change but green mambas become batting paradise in the second and third innings when grass dries out

 

[sachin100]

Actually the Australian media constantly implies that the Poms doctor pitches.

What i mean to say is that aus doesn't moan like english particularly with regard to turners

 

[Buffet]

Actually the Australian media constantly implies that the Poms doctor pitches.

Eng does it consistently.

 

[troodon]

OP is missing the point here.

If it swings and seams on Day-1 and Day-2, its fine. Just like if the ball starts turning square on Day-4 and Day-5, it is fine.

If the ball is still swinging and seaming on Day's 4 and 5 with no sign of spin, then we can complain.

Similarly, if the ball starts turning square on Day's 1 and 2, then there is something seriously wrong with the pitch.

I have to agree that difficult batting conditions always makes it interesting to view. Really tests the skills of the batsman. It is much better than total roads where scoring 400 a day is easily done.

 

[Thomaskutty]

I kinda agree .. there were a lot of articles yesterday praising Ben Stokes for 'coming of age ' with his 6 wkt haul .. on a day when 14 wkts fell lol

 

[HitWicket]

I kinda agree .. there were a lot of articles yesterday praising Ben Stokes for 'coming of age ' with his 6 wkt haul .. on a day when 14 wkts fell lol

Stokes didn't get the new ball and got on average way more swing than any other England bowler and over twice as much swing as any of the West Indian bowlers, he was clearly doing something right and bowled some absolute beauties. Swinging it both ways as well.

Not to forget he's currently hitting the ball around in practically identical challenging conditions.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Hypocrisy at it's finest is what it is.

In fact I would say greentops can sometimes be even worse than dustbowls. True dustbowls start off bad from ball one and keep getting worse, so the advantage of the toss is present, but compare it to the toss advantage of a pitch which is greentop on day 1 and then flattens out on day 2 and 3. If you bowl first you can bowl the opposition out cheaply, bat in prime conditions and win the game almost purely on the basis of the toss. Yet those kid of pitches are never described in manner spinning pitches are eg : using words 'lottery for batsmen' etc.

 

[Markhor]

It's not really a greentop though, the conditions have been very murky and the floodlights have been on even during the day so the ball has swung lavishly.

This is what happens when you schedule a Test in England in September.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Stokes didn't get the new ball and got on average way more swing than any other England bowler and over twice as much swing as any of the West Indian bowlers, he was clearly doing something right and bowled some absolute beauties. Swinging it both ways as well.

Not to forget he's currently hitting the ball around in practically identical challenging conditions.

I saw yesterday's play. Everybody was getting swing and bounce including the windies bowlers , maybe Stokes a slight bit more.. ultimately that wicket/conditions is a pacer's dream.

 

[HitWicket]

I saw yesterday's play. Everybody was getting swing and bounce including the windies bowlers , maybe Stokes a slight bit more.. ultimately that wicket/conditions is a pacer's dream.

Average swing figures yesterday (degrees) :

Stokes - 2.79
Anderson - 2.16
Roland Jones - 1.83
Broad - 1.73
Roach - 1.28
Holder - 1.23
Gabriel - 0.57

Clearly you didn't watch very much....

Add to that that Stokes bowled more with the older ball than any of the bowlers above and it's even more impressive.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Add to that that Stokes bowled more with the older ball than any of the bowlers above and it's even more impressive.

I don't think it's impressive at all . Like I said , these are very helpful conditions and he happened to come out looking good.
It's a bit like how Michael Clarke took 6-9 on a Mumbai dustbowl pitch ahead of the frontline spinner in the team.

 

[R0H1T]

So who are you going to fine for some dark clouds...?

Hence the meme Clouderson

Take away his clouds & he's like a Kryptonian feeling the effects of Kryptonite!

 

[sachin100]

Anderson is better version of ashwin in that he had one good series outside of England like India, Australia.

More than 300 of his wickets came in England

 

[Robert]

When u get day one turners in the subcontinent and a touring team is inevitably bowled out cheaply. You get all the complaints about doctored pitches and these being bad for cricket and poor pitches.

But when it comes to swinging conditions or greentops nothing from the powers that be or the usual moaners.

Why the double standards when it comes to green tracks and turners.

What greentop? This is a standard English slow seamer. Must better than those paceless, seamless, bouncers, turnless crusty puddings that the County groundsmen were serving up in a bid not to get fined just a couple if years ago.

And I don't think the weather is under the control of the MCC groundsmen either.

 

[Robert]

Lloyd, Greenidge, Richards, Lara and for that matter Gavaskar, Vengsarker, Azhar, Tendulkar would all get tons on this deck. Modern batters can't play the moving ball.

 

[shaz619]

They didn't prepare a green top, folk have found the level of movement surprising at Lords but it has been attributed to the dark clouds; however [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] Scientists and experts have found no concrete link between overcast conditions and movement through the air.

 

[shaz619]

Lloyd, Greenidge, Richards, Lara and for that matter Gavaskar, Vengsarker, Azhar, Tendulkar would all get tons on this deck. Modern batters can't play the moving ball.

Younis Khan and Dravid have always been pretty decent in England and Azhar Ali helped his country draw level last summer. Virat Kohli tends to give subcontinent / modern batsman a bad name

 

[CanadianG00se]

OP is missing the point here.

If it swings and seams on Day-1 and Day-2, its fine. Just like if the ball starts turning square on Day-4 and Day-5, it is fine.

If the ball is still swinging and seaming on Day's 4 and 5 with no sign of spin, then we can complain.

Similarly, if the ball starts turning square on Day's 1 and 2, then there is something seriously wrong with the pitch.

I have to agree that difficult batting conditions always makes it interesting to view. Really tests the skills of the batsman. It is much better than total roads where scoring 400 a day is easily done.

I would rather have a pitch (seaming/spinning) that behaves the same throughout the test. The biggest critic of green pitch is that, team winning the toss will probably bowl first and get the team bowled out cheaply. The grass on pitch will dry out and make it batting paradise for team batting second. So, toss becomes absolute crucial.

On turner, toss is not so crucial as both teams wil have very same batting conditions. Now i know, which pitch i want to avoid if it depends on luck.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Nothing wrong with the pitch. There's hardly any grass on it. The overcast has kept the moisture in the pitch which helps the ball grip and seam. That's all.

 

[Sachin136]

Lloyd, Greenidge, Richards, Lara and for that matter Gavaskar, Vengsarker, Azhar, Tendulkar would all get tons on this deck. Modern batters can't play the moving ball.

Modern batsmen are not very good players of spin either. That doesn't stop people from whining about turners.

 

[HitWicket]

They didn't prepare a green top, folk have found the level of movement surprising at Lords but it has been attributed to the dark clouds; however [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] Scientists and experts have found no concrete link between overcast conditions and movement through the air.

Source? Surely it's basic scientific principles...

 

[aloo paratha]

Some countries are notorious for producing rank turners test after test, while greentops are much less common.

 

[shaz619]

Source? Surely it's basic scientific principles...

From basic aerodynamic principles when you get overcast conditions and the humidity increases, the air density decreases which isn't in line with the implications of humid conditions resulting in a heavy atmosphere. I can explain the science behind swing bowling but there is no universally accepted consensus on the influence of humid conditions, here are some sources from folk who've dedicated a lot of their time to finding the answer but have found contrasting results:

https://engineeringsport.co.uk/2012/06/14/humidity-doesnt-affect-cricket-ball-swing/

http://www.teacherplus.org/2015/may-june-2015/is-cricket-ball-swing-affected-by-the-weather

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18262145

 

[James]

I am always the first England fan on PP to call out the ECB for dodgy mail ordering behaviour with favourable pitches, but I will actually defend them here. This is nothing more and nothing less than a good sporting wicket, a result pitch which gives an equal chance to both teams - the overhead conditions have simply accelerated the pace of the match.

 

[ExpressPacer]

I think more stuck-up fans need to understand that there isn't a need for an argument to be made out if everything.
1) The pitches have provided equal opportunity for both visitors and the home team.
2) You can't do anything about rain.

 

[English August]

Lloyd, Greenidge, Richards, Lara and for that matter Gavaskar, Vengsarker, Azhar, Tendulkar would all get tons on this deck. Modern batters can't play the moving ball.

Azhar, really? When did he score anything against the moving ball? If you were going add Indian players, I'd say Dravid and Mohinder Amarnath.

 

[Junaids]

When you get day one turners in the subcontinent and a touring team is inevitably bowled out cheaply, you get all the complaints about doctored pitches and these being bad for cricket and poor pitches.

But when it comes to swinging conditions or greentops nothing from the powers that be or the usual moaners.

Why the double standards when it comes to green tracks and turners?

I have no complaint about subcontinental turners or about green pitches.

The danger to Test cricket is boring high scoring matches. In the 1970s and 1980s you might get one Test innings per YEAR over 500. Now it occurs all the time, and the averages of the likes of Smith and Williamson and Kohli only mean anything if you scale them down by 40% to their true value.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

1. Any Test match in which a team scores 450 should be immediately abandoned.

2. Any Test match in which 3 centuries are scored in an innings, or 4 in the match, should be immediately abandoned.

3. The first two of four innings in a Test match should be capped at 110 overs.

 

[MMHS]

I have no complaint about subcontinental turners or about green pitches.

The danger to Test cricket is boring high scoring matches. In the 1970s and 1980s you might get one Test innings per YEAR over 500. Now it occurs all the time, and the averages of the likes of Smith and Williamson and Kohli only mean anything if you scale them down by 40% to their true value.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

1. Any Test match in which a team scores 450 should be immediately abandoned.

2. Any Test match in which 3 centuries are scored in an innings, or 4 in the match, should be immediately abandoned.

3. The first two of four innings in a Test match should be capped at 110 overs.

Just for a curiosity, before writing - have you checked if you implement rule 1 & 2 - how many Tests survive in that 1970 to 1990 period? For that matter, it'll be interesting to see Gary Sobers's career if I do same filter for his 93 Tests.

For rule 3, if ever ICC plans that, Asian teams should boycott Test cricket - I have explained several times why.

 

[Buffet]

In the 1970s and 1980s you might get one Test innings per YEAR over 500. Now it occurs all the time, .

Total 90 Innings were 500+ in those two decades.

 

[Junaids]

Just for a curiosity, before writing - have you checked if you implement rule 1 & 2 - how many Tests survive in that 1970 to 1990 period? For that matter, it'll be interesting to see Gary Sobers's career if I do same filter for his 93 Tests.

For rule 3, if ever ICC plans that, Asian teams should boycott Test cricket - I have explained several times why.

Can I be bluntly honest here?

Scores over 500 are basically an Asian thing. But nobody goes to watch Tests in Asia, because they are boring.

I accept that Cricket Australia in recent years has directed the "curators" to prepare flat, grassless pitches. But that is because they know that T20 has decimated Australia's Test batting, and that on normal pitches their team will be massacred like it was at Perth and Hobart by South Africa last year. So Cricket Australia has adopted the same boring high-scoring formula to protect its batsmen and the team's domestic marketability.

BTW, pretty much everyone agrees that from 1955-1970 cricket was boring because scores were too high. I agree - Sobers' stats would change.

 

[CanadianG00se]

I have no complaint about subcontinental turners or about green pitches.

The danger to Test cricket is boring high scoring matches. In the 1970s and 1980s you might get one Test innings per YEAR over 500. Now it occurs all the time, and the averages of the likes of Smith and Williamson and Kohli only mean anything if you scale them down by 40% to their true value.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

1. Any Test match in which a team scores 450 should be immediately abandoned.

2. Any Test match in which 3 centuries are scored in an innings, or 4 in the match, should be immediately abandoned.

3. The first two of four innings in a Test match should be capped at 110 overs.

England score 450 against India and yet were trashed.

 

[MMHS]

Can I be bluntly honest here?

Scores over 500 are basically an Asian thing. But nobody goes to watch Tests in Asia, because they are boring.

I accept that Cricket Australia in recent years has directed the "curators" to prepare flat, grassless pitches. But that is because they know that T20 has decimated Australia's Test batting, and that on normal pitches their team will be massacred like it was at Perth and Hobart by South Africa last year. So Cricket Australia has adopted the same boring high-scoring formula to protect its batsmen and the team's domestic marketability.

BTW, pretty much everyone agrees that from 1955-1970 cricket was boring because scores were too high. I agree - Sobers' stats would change.

Test cricket isn't popular in Asia, because the culture isn't there, not because Test in Asia is boring. In fact, this summer 6 out of 7 Tests in ENG had been absolute rubbish in terms of boredom - by 2nd day winner was known. Recent times, IND had been so dominant at home that they have made the contest boring - IND doesn't play PAK, so you can say it's the incapability of ENG & SAF that was the reason for such boring contest; AUS did make the series fascinating in IND, SRL & BD. Though they lost 3-0 in SRL, but every Test was worth watching till last ball. It might look boring to you, because you don't get the excitement of batsmen mastering quality spinners on turners while those spinners are attacking with flight & loop, rather than conventional staff of "tightening the screw".

Coming to the Rule 3 of your post, following link should give you a clue of how many Ashes Tests in between 1970 to 1990 could pass your filter of 450+ score in one of 4 innings.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;team=1;template=results;type=team;view=match


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...eam=1;template=results;type=team;view=innings

I don't disagree that there should be a balance between bat & ball - but please stop glorifying past or the period you had been watching the game passionately. Some of the most boring & dullest Tests were played between that era on absolute dead wickets & I am not including Asian venues here. But, overall cricket standard was better because of other factors we discussed several times. And please be more respectful to Asian venues & Asian cricket - from an Englishman, living in Aussie land, it sounds sour grape.

 

[MMHS]

Test cricket isn't popular in Asia, because the culture isn't there, not because Test in Asia is boring. In fact, this summer 6 out of 7 Tests in ENG had been absolute rubbish in terms of boredom - by 2nd day winner was known. Recent times, IND had been so dominant at home that they have made the contest boring - IND doesn't play PAK, so you can say it's the incapability of ENG & SAF that was the reason for such boring contest; AUS did make the series fascinating in IND, SRL & BD. Though they lost 3-0 in SRL, but every Test was worth watching till last ball. It might look boring to you, because you don't get the excitement of batsmen mastering quality spinners on turners while those spinners are attacking with flight & loop, rather than conventional staff of "tightening the screw".

Coming to the Rule 3 of your post, following link should give you a clue of how many Ashes Tests in between 1970 to 1990 could pass your filter of 450+ score in one of 4 innings.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;team=1;template=results;type=team;view=match


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...eam=1;template=results;type=team;view=innings

I don't disagree that there should be a balance between bat & ball - but please stop glorifying past or the period you had been watching the game passionately. Some of the most boring & dullest Tests were played between that era on absolute dead wickets & I am not including Asian venues here. But, overall cricket standard was better because of other factors we discussed several times. And please be more respectful to Asian venues & Asian cricket - from an Englishman, living in Aussie land, it sounds sour grape.

This link should give every innings

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...eam=2;template=results;type=team;view=innings

 

[Junaids]

Test cricket isn't popular in Asia, because the culture isn't there, not because Test in Asia is boring. In fact, this summer 6 out of 7 Tests in ENG had been absolute rubbish in terms of boredom - by 2nd day winner was known. Recent times, IND had been so dominant at home that they have made the contest boring - IND doesn't play PAK, so you can say it's the incapability of ENG & SAF that was the reason for such boring contest; AUS did make the series fascinating in IND, SRL & BD. Though they lost 3-0 in SRL, but every Test was worth watching till last ball. It might look boring to you, because you don't get the excitement of batsmen mastering quality spinners on turners while those spinners are attacking with flight & loop, rather than conventional staff of "tightening the screw".

Coming to the Rule 3 of your post, following link should give you a clue of how many Ashes Tests in between 1970 to 1990 could pass your filter of 450+ score in one of 4 innings.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;team=1;template=results;type=team;view=match


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...eam=1;template=results;type=team;view=innings

I don't disagree that there should be a balance between bat & ball - but please stop glorifying past or the period you had been watching the game passionately. Some of the most boring & dullest Tests were played between that era on absolute dead wickets & I am not including Asian venues here. But, overall cricket standard was better because of other factors we discussed several times. And please be more respectful to Asian venues & Asian cricket - from an Englishman, living in Aussie land, it sounds sour grape.

I agree with everything you have written.

I don't think of myself as a traditionalist, funnily enough.

I think that T20 has a future as a game with scores of 230-4, while Test cricket needs to do the following:

1. Cap the first two innings at 110 overs.
2. Become a 4 day match, preferably 4 Day/Night.
3. Allow a second new ball at 70 overs.
4. Encourage greentops outside Asia and square turners in Asia.

To me, the first Day/Night Test at Adelaide was the ideal Test match. Only 3 days long, but a gripping contest that either side could have won.

You can do that with a greentop or with a square turner. But the key is that all four innings should preferably score around the 200 mark, not more.

If you play that game in the western countries from 2 pm to 9 pm on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday you get big crowds and huge TV ratings. It basically makes the white ball game redundant except as a slogfest, which is fine.

You'd end up with high-scoring T20 as one format, and Test cricket as the other, with Tests featuring 13 wickets for 250 runs each day.

My ultimate aim is to condense Tests into 3 day affairs, with 5 match series. Still only 15 days of cricket, but I'd rather see 5 x 3 day matches than 3 x 5 day Tests.

 

[MMHS]

I agree with everything you have written.

I don't think of myself as a traditionalist, funnily enough.

I think that T20 has a future as a game with scores of 230-4, while Test cricket needs to do the following:

1. Cap the first two innings at 110 overs.
2. Become a 4 day match, preferably 4 Day/Night.
3. Allow a second new ball at 70 overs.
4. Encourage greentops outside Asia and square turners in Asia.

To me, the first Day/Night Test at Adelaide was the ideal Test match. Only 3 days long, but a gripping contest that either side could have won.

You can do that with a greentop or with a square turner. But the key is that all four innings should preferably score around the 200 mark, not more.

If you play that game in the western countries from 2 pm to 9 pm on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday you get big crowds and huge TV ratings. It basically makes the white ball game redundant except as a slogfest, which is fine.

You'd end up with high-scoring T20 as one format, and Test cricket as the other, with Tests featuring 13 wickets for 250 runs each day.

My ultimate aim is to condense Tests into 3 day affairs, with 5 match series. Still only 15 days of cricket, but I'd rather see 5 x 3 day matches than 3 x 5 day Tests.

I'll take every thing from your post - only but 2

1. Test must run for 5 days, if not 6 - otherwise spinners'll extinct from the game & the likes of Woakes will become Keith Miller
2. No limit in any innings - the game is built on score board pressure. If a side can bat for 200 overs & put 700, so it be - they still has 250 overs to get 20 wickets. Also, Test cricket is all about attitude - the option should be open for you. Positive Captain'll ask his team how many overs they'll need to get 20 wickets - and then tell his team at what pace they should bat; negative Captain'll ask his team - at what score they won't lose the game.

The game should be as simple as possible - unlimited time, 40 wickets to get. But, for broadcasting & scheduling, we need to limit the days - 5 days, 96 overs/day; on good, firm wicket on a fast outfield - spin, pace, swing, seem, green, brown ... I don't mind.

 

[CanadianG00se]

I agree with everything you have written.

I don't think of myself as a traditionalist, funnily enough.

I think that T20 has a future as a game with scores of 230-4, while Test cricket needs to do the following:

1. Cap the first two innings at 110 overs.
2. Become a 4 day match, preferably 4 Day/Night.
3. Allow a second new ball at 70 overs.
4. Encourage greentops outside Asia and square turners in Asia.

To me, the first Day/Night Test at Adelaide was the ideal Test match. Only 3 days long, but a gripping contest that either side could have won.

You can do that with a greentop or with a square turner. But the key is that all four innings should preferably score around the 200 mark, not more.

If you play that game in the western countries from 2 pm to 9 pm on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday you get big crowds and huge TV ratings. It basically makes the white ball game redundant except as a slogfest, which is fine.

You'd end up with high-scoring T20 as one format, and Test cricket as the other, with Tests featuring 13 wickets for 250 runs each day.

My ultimate aim is to condense Tests into 3 day affairs, with 5 match series. Still only 15 days of cricket, but I'd rather see 5 x 3 day matches than 3 x 5 day Tests.

I like how you think. 3 day test should be tried not because i care for test cricket but it would just speed up its demise

 

[wrongun]

Funny- could have sworn a western team (Oz) just toured Asia (Bangladesh) on wickets that turned from day 1, kept low, where spinners took all the wickets and no-one spoke negative about the pitches at all. All I heard was talk about the cricket & the teams.

Seems OP has a chip on his shoulder about something and wanted to raise the issue.

 

[Junaids]

I'll take every thing from your post - only but 2

1. Test must run for 5 days, if not 6 - otherwise spinners'll extinct from the game & the likes of Woakes will become Keith Miller
2. No limit in any innings - the game is built on score board pressure. If a side can bat for 200 overs & put 700, so it be - they still has 250 overs to get 20 wickets. Also, Test cricket is all about attitude - the option should be open for you. Positive Captain'll ask his team how many overs they'll need to get 20 wickets - and then tell his team at what pace they should bat; negative Captain'll ask his team - at what score they won't lose the game.

The game should be as simple as possible - unlimited time, 40 wickets to get. But, for broadcasting & scheduling, we need to limit the days - 5 days, 96 overs/day; on good, firm wicket on a fast outfield - spin, pace, swing, seem, green, brown ... I don't mind.

I don't think my plan for accelerated 3 Day (Night) Tests would hasten the demise of spin bowling at all.

Imagine that England still had Swann and Panesar, and was hosting Australia or South Africa for 5 of these 3 Day (Night) Tests.

First Test: Lords - Greentop
Second Test: Old Trafford - I'd order a dusty square turner
Third Test: Trent Bridge - Greentop
Fourth Test: Headingley - Greentop
Fifth Test: The Oval - dusty square turner

The conditions have to allow 40 wickets to fall in 3 days, or nobody will watch.

But there is a huge advantage to this. Instead of selling tickets for 3 x 5 day Tests at just 3 venues, you get to sell tickets at 5 venues and to optimise attendances, particularly as the games take place at night and on weekends.

 

[sachin100]

Funny- could have sworn a western team (Oz) just toured Asia (Bangladesh) on wickets that turned from day 1, kept low, where spinners took all the wickets and no-one spoke negative about the pitches at all. All I heard was talk about the cricket & the teams.

Seems OP has a chip on his shoulder about something and wanted to raise the issue.

May be u don't follow the discussion happening. The moaning is mainly from eng players, commentators and their writers

 

[Robert]

They didn't prepare a green top, folk have found the level of movement surprising at Lords but it has been attributed to the dark clouds; however [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] Scientists and experts have found no concrete link between overcast conditions and movement through the air.

It's weird - you can have total overcast and the ball goes gunbarrel straight sometimes.

A day/night test in England could have odd conditions at dusk as the dew point is reached and you would expect it to swing, but that could happen under bright blue skies.

 

[Robert]

Modern batsmen are not very good players of spin either. That doesn't stop people from whining about turners.

Which people? English fans expect slow turners in India and decry the lack of skill of our modern batters. Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Botham, even Fowler and Robinson could all score big in India.

 

[Napa]

Which people? English fans expect slow turners in India and decry the lack of skill of our modern batters. Gooch, Gower, Gatting, Botham, even Fowler and Robinson could all score big in India.

I think ICC complained about a pitch when SA toured India.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I don't think my plan for accelerated 3 Day (Night) Tests would hasten the demise of spin bowling at all.

Imagine that England still had Swann and Panesar, and was hosting Australia or South Africa for 5 of these 3 Day (Night) Tests.

First Test: Lords - Greentop
Second Test: Old Trafford - I'd order a dusty square turner
Third Test: Trent Bridge - Greentop
Fourth Test: Headingley - Greentop
Fifth Test: The Oval - dusty square turner

The conditions have to allow 40 wickets to fall in 3 days, or nobody will watch.

But there is a huge advantage to this. Instead of selling tickets for 3 x 5 day Tests at just 3 venues, you get to sell tickets at 5 venues and to optimise attendances, particularly as the games take place at night and on weekends.

Cricket will be boring (after a while) if all games are played on such bowler friendly tracks.

When you start expecting a wicket every 20 runs, it becomes like a lottery. One cameo can change it all.

Moreover, bowlers picking all wickets on green seamers or square turners will have their stats terribly boosted at the expense of batsmen which ain't fair too.

What cricket needs is a mix of all pitches but with predominant focus on good sporting pitches that offer something for all. And definition of a sporting pitch will vary from country to country based on conditions.

 

[Balthazar]

Good point. The kind of wickets the BCCI served them was very cowardly. At least, half of our home Test matches should be played on turners.

 

[Robert]

Actually the Australian media constantly implies that the Poms doctor pitches.

Lords and Headingly are usually shirt-fronts these days, the Oval and Old Trafford take spin later, Trent Bridge is a seamer, Rose Bowl is dead.

But last time Australia were here there were two seamers and three Australian-style no-seam no-spin flatties, so you could argue that the wickets were rigged in Australia's favour overall.

 

[Robert]

What cricket needs is a mix of all pitches but with predominant focus on good sporting pitches that offer something for all. And definition of a sporting pitch will vary from country to country based on conditions.

This is indeed sensible from [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION].

The old Oval deck used to be the optimum in my opinion - bouncy and true for three days, then breaking up and taking spin.

 

[HitWicket]

I think ICC complained about a pitch when SA toured India.

Wasn't one of the criteria for it being sanctioned actually uneven bounce? If balls off the same length are coming up at heights ranging from ankle height to chest height then you have a problem.

 

[R0H1T]

Wasn't one of the criteria for it being sanctioned actually uneven bounce? If balls off the same length are coming up at heights ranging from ankle height to chest height then you have a problem.

It was consistently low, Mohali, it wasn't shooting up & down like some other 5th day tracks.

 

[idrizzy]

This is indeed sensible from [MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION].

The old Oval deck used to be the optimum in my opinion - bouncy and true for three days, then breaking up and taking spin.

But then where does "home advantage" come from? I understand that's why England fail to produce spinners, whereas SC have them in abundance. I understand the notion of "fairer pitches" and I'm all for that, but then having no advantage at home may as well mean hosting all cricket games at England/Australia where crowds are at their highest.

 

[Robert]

But then where does "home advantage" come from? I understand that's why England fail to produce spinners, whereas SC have them in abundance. I understand the notion of "fairer pitches" and I'm all for that, but then having no advantage at home may as well mean hosting all cricket games at England/Australia where crowds are at their highest.

England produced a lot of excellent spinners. There was much variation in the wickets due to the different soils. But nowadays the wickets are bland, either slow seamer puddings or dead, because County grounds men are all scared of making a greentop, flier or Bunsen in case the match finishes quickly and the ECB fines them. So spinners are going out of the English game.

We might as well make raging green mambas for every test and play four FM swingers. Len Hutton said we should even sixty years ago. But he didn't get them and neither do modern skippers. The last two tracks have been shirt-fronts chock full of runs, but neither top order can bat.

 

[JibranAnsari]

They con-trolled the weather well.

 

[IndianWillow]

England produced a lot of excellent spinners. There was much variation in the wickets due to the different soils. But nowadays the wickets are bland, either slow seamer puddings or dead, because County grounds men are all scared of making a greentop, flier or Bunsen in case the match finishes quickly and the ECB fines them. So spinners are going out of the English game.

We might as well make raging green mambas for every test and play four FM swingers. Len Hutton said we should even sixty years ago. But he didn't get them and neither do modern skippers. The last two tracks have been shirt-fronts chock full of runs, but neither top order can bat.

Approach has changed, no? Len Hutton could afford to hang in, be very choosy about deliveries and get 200 team runs a day on spiteful wickets. And play out a dull 5 day draw on many occasions. But cricket has gone more aggressive, 300+ runs a day is something many teams aim for. Draws are fewer now inspite of wickets getting batsmen friendlier in general. Modern approach to the game would reduce test matches to 2-3 affairs on tough wickets which demand extreme perseverance, causing revenue loss to the admins of the game. Modern crowds may not want to watch test matches in the pre 90s mode, even if they are test match fans.

 

[Robert]

Approach has changed, no? Len Hutton could afford to hang in, be very choosy about deliveries and get 200 team runs a day on spiteful wickets. And play out a dull 5 day draw on many occasions. But cricket has gone more aggressive, 300+ runs a day is something many teams aim for. Draws are fewer now inspite of wickets getting batsmen friendlier in general. Modern approach to the game would reduce test matches to 2-3 affairs on tough wickets which demand extreme perseverance, causing revenue loss to the admins of the game. Modern crowds may not want to watch test matches in the pre 90s mode, even if they are test match fans.

Funny that you think draws are dull. I can remember several drawn tests which were on a knife edge on the last day, hour, over in the context of the series, some of them in the last ten years.

Anyway it's a redundant point as Hutton didn't get what he wanted. But this summer we have had several low-scoring tests over in three days which were exciting.

 

[Firebreaker]

Because it had alot to do weather.