Choose Your Own Pitch

[Matt79]

I saw on the news that the ICC will now be holding member boards responsible if 'sub-standard' pitches are produced. Presumably this means pitches with grass on them, or that might spin earlier than the afternoon of the fifth day.

One thing that continually irritates me is home captains coming out in the media and seeking to pressurise groundsmen into producing pitches that favour the home side. I just think its in unnecessary and leads to all sorts of silliness - witness the first test in South Africa, and it seems to be happening more and more frequently. The onus should be on the groundsmen to produce pitches that provide a reasonable contest between bat and ball and that's all.

Ignoring the fact that it usually comes around to bite the team that spend too much time worrying about getting the 'right' pitch, I'd like to see the ICC introduce a rule prohibiting players and team officials "stating preferences" for pitches in the lead up to matches. Obviously its a rule that would need to be enforced sensibly, but I think it would provide some relief from one of the more tedious aspects of recent cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

I dunno - part of me doesn't want pitches to be regulated by outside agencies. Some of the best contests happen on stickies or bunsens (cue sticky bunsen jokes).

Take the last Test between Aus and SA; on a pitch which was never comfortable to bat on against an attack which actually bowled quite well, guys like Haydos and Ponting had to play very much out-of-character to survive on it and it showed just how good they both are in that they were able to get through it and still bat well (with a fair chunk of luck thrown in). Conversely, the fact the pitch was moving around showed up the techniques of some SA players. Sort of a 'sorting the men from the boys' type thing. Another example was the 3rd Test pitch on the last Indian tour; Australia failed in chasing just over 100 because a few batsmen lost their heads on a pitch which wasn't THAT bad but still had plenty of encouragement for the bowlers. If that sort of thing is legislated against, games like that will cease to exist and that is part of what makes cricket great, in my opinion.

 

[Jono]

^4th test in India you mean, but I agree.

All I know is that test cricket needs varied pitch conditions. We need turners, seamers, flat tracks and everything in between.

 

[Robertinho]

^4th test in India you mean, but I agree.

All I know is that test cricket needs varied pitch conditions. We need turners, seamers, flat tracks and everything in between.

Agreed. Definitely need some more variety in the pitches that get prepared these days.

 

[Matt79]

I certainly wasn't arguing against that - just the reverse. I'm concerned the rule against 'sub-standard' pitches will result in more generic batter friendly wickets.

What I was objecting to was captains/coaches etc waging a campaign against groundsmen along the lines of "we have a good spin attack, so you better produce a turner", or "we have a better pace attack, but they have quality spinners, so plenty of grass or I'll label you a disgrace in the press"

 

[archie mac]

I think it only a matter of time before we have standardised Test match pitches that give the fast bowlers alot of help
before lunch on day one
settle down but still favour seem on the first day.
Are good for batting on day two and three.
Start to take spin on day four
And have variable bounce and turn a lot on day five.

Now I think this would be a shame but believe one day it will happen. (Jono please read this last line and don't miss quote me! )

 

[andyc]

No way should this be introduced. We need different pitches, as Jono and Rob have said. There's nothing wrong with a low scoring test match in which bowlers actually have the advantage for once. If the rule was to get rid of flat tracks, I'd be in support of it. Of course it won't be, though.

 

[Jono]

What the hell is the definition of a 'sub-standard' pitch anyway.

 

[Goughy]

No way should this be introduced. We need different pitches, as Jono and Rob have said. There's nothing wrong with a low scoring test match in which bowlers actually have the advantage for once. If the rule was to get rid of flat tracks, I'd be in support of it. Of course it won't be, though.

Depends on your priorities. Games finished in 3-4 days means a loss of revenue.

I dont agree with it but shortened games may mean more entertainment but a loss of gate receipts and advertising revenue. TV companies and the cricket boards that they finance find this a very important issue.

 

[Goughy]

What the hell is the definition of a 'sub-standard' pitch anyway.

One that does not allow the maximization of revenue and causes the game to finish early.

 

[luckyeddie]

What the hell is the definition of a 'sub-standard' pitch anyway.

One where your (generic term) side struggle.

 

[marc71178]

What the hell is the definition of a 'sub-standard' pitch anyway.

For me it's one that doesn't allow a fair battle between bat and ball.

So if both sides make 600+ or neither side can make 150-200

 

[adharcric]

Situations like the two flat tracks in India vs Pakistan should be avoided, but this sub-standard rubbish would make cricket rather monotonous. Things are good the way they are.

 

[age_master]

Take the last Test between Aus and SA; on a pitch which was never comfortable to bat on against an attack which actually bowled quite well, guys like Haydos and Ponting had to play very much out-of-character to survive on it and it showed just how good they both are in that they were able to get through it and still bat well (with a fair chunk of luck thrown in). Conversely, the fact the pitch was moving around showed up the techniques of some SA players. Sort of a 'sorting the men from the boys' type thing. Another example was the 3rd Test pitch on the last Indian tour; Australia failed in chasing just over 100 because a few batsmen lost their heads on a pitch which wasn't THAT bad but still had plenty of encouragement for the bowlers. If that sort of thing is legislated against, games like that will cease to exist and that is part of what makes cricket great, in my opinion.

yeah i want to see more 'sub standard' or pitches that are good to bowl on, not all pitches but some would be nice, too many pitches these days are too easy to bat on

 

[Sir Redman]

There's a brief article about it here.

Personally, I think this is just rubbish. What do the ICC do if a team gets out for 150 because of crap batting or good bowling? Suspend the ground's international status? If the ICC were consistent with that ruling then there would be no more games in Bangladesh or Zimbabwe for starters.

I don't know why so many people in cricket have the ridiculous idea that a high scoring game is always a good one...sure the average sports fan who occasionally goes to a cricket game might have that idea, but you'd think that ICC board members would be "true cricket fans" and so would know that that's not always the case.

 

[Dasa]

I don't know why so many people in cricket have the ridiculous idea that a high scoring game is always a good one...sure the average sports fan who occasionally goes to a cricket game might have that idea, but you'd think that ICC board members would be "true cricket fans" and so would know that that's not always the case.

It's all about money. The ICC (and the various national cricket boards) want games to go the full 5 days for the broadcasters.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

One that does not allow the maximization of revenue and causes the game to finish early.

Cynical, but probably true.

 

[vic_orthdox]

For me it's one that doesn't allow a fair battle between bat and ball.

So if both sides make 600+ or neither side can make 150-200

Seconded.

I don't know why so many people in cricket have the ridiculous idea that a high scoring game is always a good one...sure the average sports fan who occasionally goes to a cricket game might have that idea, but you'd think that ICC board members would be "true cricket fans" and so would know that that's not always the case.

But the ICC wants to appeal to the "average sports fan".

Good to see you back, BTW, Sir Redman. Haven't seen you post in a while (it's probably just me though...)

 

[Richard]

Anyone attempting to standardise pitches is stupid and will ruin the game of cricket completely.
Home advantage is (usually) all about control of the pitches and similar things.
Of course, a very important consideration these days is a game lasting the course.
As such, many authorities have been keen on pitches which are best for batting in recent years.
But anyone who suggests that someone doesn't have a right to prepare pitches to suit their bowlers is a straw-clutcher in the extreme.

 

[silentstriker]

There's a brief article about it here.

Personally, I think this is just rubbish. What do the ICC do if a team gets out for 150 because of crap batting or good bowling? Suspend the ground's international status? If the ICC were consistent with that ruling then there would be no more games in Bangladesh or Zimbabwe for starters.

I don't know why so many people in cricket have the ridiculous idea that a high scoring game is always a good one...sure the average sports fan who occasionally goes to a cricket game might have that idea, but you'd think that ICC board members would be "true cricket fans" and so would know that that's not always the case.

Thats why the whole 'greatest one day game ever' BS with SA-Aus saddened me. Scoring 860 runs in 100 overs means that it wasn't a cricket game....it was just a Home Run Derby.

Just like a team going 35 all out, and then the chasing team being all out for 34 doesn't mean that it was the greatest game either.

When a bolwer is coming in to bowl, I ought to be able to think "Man, he's going to take a wicket", while you can think "Man, he's going to score a boundry", and someone else thinks, "Man, I hope he bowls a maiden".

If we are all thinking, "Here comes another six", then there is something wrong with the game.


Even contests.