'No Doctoring' of the pitch at the Oval

[Richard]

In Australia I always thought it was more a case of the 4 or so years of drought having an effect.

It could, of course, be the case - all I know is that in Australia, like everywhere else, pitches became routinely flat and lifeless in 2001/02, with most of the grounds rapidly losing their traditional characteristics (except Adelaide Oval, which was always flat anyway). Certainly in England there's no doubt that the cause was the authorities knowing that the plethora of three- and four-day Tests in 2000 and 2001 simply had to stop because it was costing all sorts of people lots of money. So they went for a quick-fix. The situation may or may not have been similar in other countries.

[huxleypig]

Did anyone else hear Alec Stewart on the radio the other day? He said he'd only ever once asked for a particular pitch in his tennancy as captain and England lost by over an innings to Sri Lanka with Murali taking 14 wickets. If he asked for a dry turner against a team with Murali in it then that's just idiotic and he deserved what he got!

In this case I reckon a green seamer would be our greatest prospect of a win. We don't have the spinners to excel on a dustbowl but then again, neither do they. Hauritz has been the best spinner in this series by a mile though so a green seamer it is.

At least the weather forecast looks better now...

[Uppercut]

England don't want a green seamer. Siddle and Johnson are much more effective off the pitch than Jimmy and Onions. I'd make a pitch fast enough to ensure that every edge carries then hopefully get the ball to swing one way or another (if it doesn't go orthodox it'll probably reverse).

And don't pick Harmison.

[oitoitoi]

Well I reckon the only conditions that would possibly favour England (and then only just) is if it swings round corners (and they then pick sidearse, please oh please not harmison), which is unlikely and not something the groundsman can control anyway. A seamer would bring Stuart Clark into the picture and then it would be lights out England IMO. They tried the dust bowl theory in cardiff and it went horribly wrong. I don't rate Hauritz at all, Swann is definitely a better bowler IMO, however the Australians are much better players of spin than this English side so it balances out in favour of the Aussies.

Personally I hope the groundsmen does something to ensure a result regardless of who it favours, a high scoring draw would be such a damp squib.

[huxleypig]

I take it there is no further news from the Oval curator on the type of pitch being developed then? A high scoring game would indeed be a real damp squib, especially if the Aussies win the toss. They could get 600 or so and then its bye bye ashes. If the England captain can ask for a type of pitch then he should certainly do so but knowing Strauss (who I really don't rate as a captain) then he won't.

[oitoitoi]

I take it there is no further news from the Oval curator on the type of pitch being developed then? A high scoring game would indeed be a real damp squib, especially if the Aussies win the toss. They could get 600 or so and then its bye bye ashes. If the England captain can ask for a type of pitch then he should certainly do so but knowing Strauss (who I really don't rate as a captain) then he won't.

Indeed, can't see Strauss asking for a type of pitch, and anyway who's ever heard of a batsman asking for a greentop?

[Debris]

A groundsman should always be aiming to prepare a pitch which gives a result, ideally around tea-time on day 5. This is, of course, a lot harder to do than it sounds.

[Richard]

Did anyone else hear Alec Stewart on the radio the other day? He said he'd only ever once asked for a particular pitch in his tennancy as captain and England lost by over an innings to Sri Lanka with Murali taking 14 wickets. If he asked for a dry turner against a team with Murali in it then that's just idiotic and he deserved what he got!

That pitch wasn't a dry turner at all - it was as flat as any wicket you could wish to see, and not surprisingly it reduced every bowler other than Murali to rubble. Murali has an ability to succeed on just about anything, and that game was the ultimate demonstration of said fact.

He took 16 wickets, not 14, BTW.

[Richard]

England don't want a green seamer. Siddle and Johnson are much more effective off the pitch than Jimmy and Onions. I'd make a pitch fast enough to ensure that every edge carries then hopefully get the ball to swing one way or another (if it doesn't go orthodox it'll probably reverse).

Yeah, that's the thing. It's far from easy to prepare a guaranteed-result deck without said deck favouring the Australians. England's best chance is swing, and that depends completely on the ball, not the pitch.

[GIMH]

^And the conditions

[Richard]

Quality swing bowlers will swing a good-quality ball in the right condition regardless of atmospheric conditions, but yes, nice overcast skies are helpful.

[fredfertang]

This Test should be timeless

[oitoitoi]

no timeless tests were universally regarded as awful, the teams batted incredibly defensively and it was awful viewing

[fredfertang]

I'd settle for a game like the last timeless test at the Oval

[Richard]

no timeless tests were universally regarded as awful, the teams batted incredibly defensively and it was awful viewing

When the game was the last of a series with said series still at stake (which was UIMM the only occasions they were ever used in England), IMO they very much had their merits. Nonetheless, clearly they're untenable in the current climate, and in any case it's arguable that it's a little unfair to the leading side to take the draw out of the equation in the final match having not done so previously. When the series is level, however, there's a considerable case indeed for it.

BTW I haven't checked but I'm guessing the last timeless Test at The Oval was 1938?