'No Doctoring' of the pitch at the Oval

[wpdavid]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

It's always considered to be a 'bad' pitch by players if they cannot trust the bounce on the wicket especially as early as Day 1. I can understand their point, I've batted on pitches where the ball could either die or jump and hit you on the head and it could be potentially dangerous. However, its important to point out that not that many balls misbehaved during that test and that the pitch didn't deteriorate that much over the course of the game. If that meant that they were playing on a day 4 pitch on day 1 and a day 5 pitch on day 2 so be it, with all the protection that batters have these days and with the game already been loaded in favor of the batters, cannot see how this pitch was bad for the game.

Agreed. All the talk about how better bowlers woud have cleaned up ignores the fact that the groundman knew that none of them were playing.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

Agreed. All the talk about how better bowlers woud have cleaned up ignores the fact that the groundman knew that none of them were playing.

I don't know if that was in direct response to my post about how better bowlers would have meant a very short match, or some other discussion. If it's in response to my post I didn't ignore that fact, I said precisely the same thing in the line "Though you have to assume that the curator wouldn't have done what he did if Australia still had Warne and McGill."

[grecian]

Bowling teams weren't that bad, they just look like it often when bowling on pitches that give no assistance whatsoever.

Happy with this pitch, and like others here, hope there are more like it in test cricket, rather then the snore-fest anaemic monsters that are becoming commonplace.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Cruxdude

Well the balls were swinging miles and test matches gt over in 2 or 3 days. Actually in the 1st or second test India got all out for 99 and got a lead

There was fair seam movement from what I remember too, which was what got everyone so hot-and-bothered. Seam + largely overcast days = awesome but short Tests.

[tooextracool]

Yep Jacob Oram was pretty close to unplayable that series.

[social]

Oz lost the 5th test because they lost the toss AND because they picked the wrong attack

IF they had picked the right attack AND lost the toss, the game would've been closer

IF they had picked the right attack AND won the toss, the game would've been a no contest

In other words, it was a crap pitch because the toss decided the result

ECB took a punt, came up trumps and anyone that says differently is simply talking crap

[Uppercut]

160ao lost you the match. Nothing else. No coins, no stars aligning against you, no selectorial decisions. 160ao.

[social]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

160ao lost you the match. Nothing else. No coins, no stars aligning against you, no selectorial decisions. 160ao.

Oz were ****ed from the time they exchanged team sheets AND lost the toss

I've been one of Broad's few supporters on this forum but he benefitted from perfect bowling conditions and managed to move the ball for just about the only time in his career

As I said BEFORE lunch on day one, Oz were gone and it was just a matter of time before Eng won the match

The game was a farce but of more concern to Oz's short term future is whether CA regard the series as such or a symptom of a far greater problem

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by social

Oz were ****ed from the time they exchanged team sheets AND lost the toss

I've been one of Broad's few supporters on this forum but he benefitted from perfect bowling conditions and managed to move the ball for just about the only time in his career

Interesting that none of the other England bowlers during that inning and none of the Australian bowlers that bowled thereafter where able to extract that kind of movement then. If you ask me, Broad's spell was about the only time anyone was able to extract any movement all game. There was no one else who looked remotely as good as he looked that spell and the fact that it happened in the 2nd inning rather than the 4th seems to suggest that it has little to do with the toss.

[social]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Interesting that none of the other England bowlers during that inning and none of the Australian bowlers that bowled thereafter where able to extract that kind of movement then. If you ask me, Broad's spell was about the only time anyone was able to extract any movement all game. There was no one else who looked remotely as good as he looked that spell and the fact that it happened in the 2nd inning rather than the 4th seems to suggest that it has little to do with the toss.

Jeez, pelted down with rain leading to a sweating pitch producing ridiculous sideways movement and uneven bounce = PERFECT BOWLING CONDITIONS

Judging on Broad's career to date, does he look more like a 5/37 bowler or a 1/70 bowler as he produced in the 2nd innings?

[TT Boy]

Rain, what are you talking about?

Weather was good in the build up to the test and during it.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by social

Jeez, pelted down with rain leading to a sweating pitch producing ridiculous sideways movement and uneven bounce = PERFECT BOWLING CONDITIONS

Judging on Broad's career to date, does he look more like a 5/37 bowler or a 1/70 bowler as he produced in the 2nd innings?

Broad's wickets were got through swing in the air and cut off the pitch, not uneven bounce. His performance came out of the blue for most of those who have followed his career but it doesn't make him any less deserving or take away the varnish from that spell.

Regarding the 'ridiculous sideways movement', you and I both know that no other bowler was able to get that kind of movement all game. He bowled cutters off the pitch and got the ball to move in the air, there isn't much more to it than that. You could argue that the pitch was made to suit his and Swann's style of bowling but whatever it is, it doesn't change the fact that the toss made no difference to the result. 3 out of 4 innings produced scores of 300+ including the last 2 innings of the test match. Like it or not the Aussie 2nd innings performance had very little to do with the toss.

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Rain, what are you talking about?

Weather was good in the build up to the test and during it.

There was a hour rain delay before the evening session on Day Two.

[TT Boy]

Yes, an hour. Not sure how that would dramatically change the wicket as the no water got on the surface, it was already bone dry and cracking due to the lack of water.

[Son Of Coco]

I personally don't agree with curators dramatically changing the playing characteristics of a surface dependent on what the home team requires. When a wicket has played a certain way for a while and then it is worked on to produce something totally different I don't think that's an ideal scenario.

I would think the English hierarchy would have enjoyed a game where the toss had some affect on the match (how much is debatable) as it gave England their best chance of winning. In the end England needed a result wicket in the 5th Test and they got it. They also played better and won the match, so they should get credit. There's no real excuse for Australia being bowled out for 160. Broad bowled a good spell and we collapsed like he was Malcolm Marshall at the height of his powers.

It'll be interesting to see if the same starts happening in Oz now as we don't have the likes of Warne and McGrath, players who could get us a result on most surfaces. Unfortunately our strengths are also most other team's strengths too, with a pitch that negates spin being our best option.