Yes - there was a proposal in the 60's to bring in a rule that the last Test of a series should be six days if the series were level going in to it, but it never happened
Printable View
Yes - there was a proposal in the 60's to bring in a rule that the last Test of a series should be six days if the series were level going in to it, but it never happened
I wouldn't have been in favour of that rule four years ago, though mind you, in the end 3-1 would have looked much nicer
It's a deliberately emotive term which implies illegitimacy. Which is why I say its real meaning is illegal alterations to the pitch during the course of the match. That is illegitimate. Deliberately preparing a pitch to enhance the chances of the home side as much as possible is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burgey
That rule did come in briefly in the early 70's if a series wasn't decided going into the final test. In fact it was the only reason Australia were able to draw the series in 1972.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfertang
He certainly can't be accused of doctoring the pitch. In fact it doesn't appear as though any preparation went into it at all.http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif
They're blaming the weather, I believe. Mike Holding said in '76, when he took 14 wickets, that the summer was hotter yet the pitch was flatter than flat (other tidbits I've read from the other bowlers in the match confirm they were stunned with the zip Holding was getting).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
Looks like the curator started the cutting/rolling part a bit too early and the hot weather dried it out more than he anticipated. There's not much in the way of seam on it from all indications but dry enough for the ball to really grip and cut/turn.
The 1976 wicket was as flat as a pancake and it was only Holding's extreme pace that gave him success, the ball did nothing off the pitch for any type of bowler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Top_Cat
The current pitch is a disgrace. There hasn't been any unexpectedly hot weather since June. He clearly prepared it early in the hope of it deteriorating sufficiently to get a result on days 4 and 5. Instead the pitch lasted two sessions before the ball started taking chunks out of the surface on pitching. A result wicket is one thing, a result decided by the toss of a coin is no use to anyone (except gloating England fans at some stage tomorrow).
Alec Stewart said on Sky Sports News that the groundsman should get a Knighthood.
No point complaining about the pitch.
After the fourth test even the radio commentators said the Oval pitch will be a dustbowl in order to favour England.
Can't any of the Australians look at a pitch and have an idea what it might be like ?
Perhaps they should listen to the radio ?
Pitch like this>>>>flat deck
Think the Mike Selvey quote in my sig is spot on.
I'm not complaining as we're about to win The Ashes. If Australia had won the toss they would win the match even with the current bowling line-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwinter
If Australia had won the toss they'd still be behind, in a better position obviously, but still behind. Broad's spell would have still decimated them whichever day it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillian Thomson
If Australia had batted on the first day, in the first two sessions in particular, Broad's spell wouldn't have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
What a pointless argument. Might as well argue that if England had picked me I'd have taken 7-4. Nobody ****ing knows so what is the point in stating such things as facts?
Not really, it's a little bit different. Australia shouldn't have been bowled out for 160 regardless though.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero