Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Are today's cricketers spoilt when compared to the guys who player before?

  1. #1
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695

    Are today's cricketers spoilt when compared to the guys who player before?

    We often get these stuff about "that was a bad pitch" and "that pitch was not of international standard".... I mean, they have protective equipment, they have covered wickets and they have the best medical attention and yet, they still moan about pitches. The last straw was people saying that the pitches for the CT were "bad" and that they weren't conductive for "good cricket". I am sorry, but is the bowler getting help off the wicket a bad thing? If the definition of a good pitch is a road, then we do have a problem. Let us take the example of the Mumbai wicket, it was a sub standard one, sure. ONe that allowed more than reasonabl turn, but it wasn't UNPLAYABLE. And it certainly didn't point any physical danger to the batters. My question is why are those pitches tabooed? So, it doesn't quite provide the even contest between bat and ball that everyone harps on, but then again almost 95% of the pitches don't provide such contests.


    We all should probably just accept the fact that certain pitches will help seamers, certain pitches will help batters and certain pitches will help spinners and move on. To make a hue and cry about it (mainly I guess because of TV rights and everyone wanting to get full 5 days of the game) is just plain stupid. What does everyone think of this issue?
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  2. #2
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    I much prefer watching cricket, and especially OD cricket when the conditions are in favour of the bowlers.
    You know it makes sense.

  3. #3
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    This issue has been discussed extensively on here, and I'm sure that pretty much everyone agrees. The interest in flat batting wickets is solely a financial one really. I can understand criticism when a wicket is a lottery or dangerous, but they are fairly few and far between. I can also understand complaints when every pitch in a whole series is a seamer or a big turner. Variety is the key to pitch preperation, and the best viewing comes from a range of tests for players of different types.

    Having said that, my favourite cricket to watch is certainly on bowler friendly wickets.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    That is my point. You see,a green wicket followed by a flat one followed by one that turns are ok in the same series but to have 3 similar pitches in the same series, now that is what I would call boring.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani
    That is my point. You see,a green wicket followed by a flat one followed by one that turns are ok in the same series but to have 3 similar pitches in the same series, now that is what I would call boring.
    It has to happen sometimes, I think. South Africa had 5 or so tests last summer on seamers, presumably because of the weather and so on, and obviously you're going to have the occasional year in which a lot of pitches turn out similar, but it's best to aim for variety. That's one of the things I like about Australian cricket personally, most of the grounds here have their own "identity" so to speak, and tend towards quite different pitch characteristics. Though obviously they've all tended to be pretty flat in the last few years, that's starting to turn around again.

  6. #6
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    It has to happen sometimes, I think. South Africa had 5 or so tests last summer on seamers, presumably because of the weather and so on, and obviously you're going to have the occasional year in which a lot of pitches turn out similar, but it's best to aim for variety. That's one of the things I like about Australian cricket personally, most of the grounds here have their own "identity" so to speak, and tend towards quite different pitch characteristics. Though obviously they've all tended to be pretty flat in the last few years, that's starting to turn around again.
    yeah, weather obviously plays a big part but my gripe is with guys who keep complaining about issues. In INdia's case, for instance, we had both Yuvraj and Kaif complaining and complaining about not getting hundreds because they bat at 6 and 7. Sure we understand that, but what stopped them from scoring no. of not outs and doing well like most other nos.6 and 7 were doing around the world? Guys like Bevan, Hussey, Klusener, even Sarwan to an extent when he was batting at 5 when Hooper, Lara and Chanderpaul were around. They just seem to complain about things that former players always coped with very genially.

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    I still think one day in the future they are going to have a standardised drop in pitch for all Test matches.

  8. #8
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani
    We often get these stuff about "that was a bad pitch" and "that pitch was not of international standard".... I mean, they have protective equipment, they have covered wickets and they have the best medical attention and yet, they still moan about pitches.
    See your quote below:

    Let us take the example of the Mumbai wicket, it was a sub standard one, sure.
    I could laugh at the fact that your own conventions are the same as what you're criticizing, but in reality, we do all accept them. Generally a good pitch is one with minimal disruption on it's surface, that plays "truest" - and the further away from this you get, the "worse" the pitch is regarded. There is a logic to it. I happen to agree with your overall point that variance is way better than a bunch of roads though - the reality is, as Faaip said, most of us probably do, with the exception of pitches that turn part-time trundlers into death beasts, or wickets that are death traps for batsmen facing speedsters.

    So, it doesn't quite provide the even contest between bat and ball that everyone harps on, but then again almost 95% of the pitches don't provide such contests.

    We all should probably just accept the fact that certain pitches will help seamers, certain pitches will help batters and certain pitches will help spinners and move on. To make a hue and cry about it (mainly I guess because of TV rights and everyone wanting to get full 5 days of the game) is just plain stupid. What does everyone think of this issue?
    Yeah, agreed. Also, I'm surprised at people who complain about home pitches being cultivated to favor the home side. I've no problem with that at all - it provides us with a natural encouragement for variety.

    I think one of the issues at play here is pure science. Our ability to create pitches that are "flawless" (in the sense of playing well for batsmen) has improved quite a bit over time. But ultimately, I don't think these "perfect" pitches are good for the game overall.
    "Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
    - Linda

    "FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
    - Craig

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Love™
    See your quote below:


    I could laugh at the fact that your own conventions are the same as what you're criticizing, but in reality, we do all accept them. Generally a good pitch is one with minimal disruption on it's surface, that plays "truest" - and the further away from this you get, the "worse" the pitch is regarded. There is a logic to it. I happen to agree with your overall point that variance is way better than a bunch of roads though - the reality is, as Faaip said, most of us probably do, with the exception of pitches that turn part-time trundlers into death beasts, or wickets that are death traps for batsmen facing speedsters.


    Yeah, agreed. Also, I'm surprised at people who complain about home pitches being cultivated to favor the home side. I've no problem with that at all - it provides us with a natural encouragement for variety.

    I think one of the issues at play here is pure science. Our ability to create pitches that are "flawless" (in the sense of playing well for batsmen) has improved quite a bit over time. But ultimately, I don't think these "perfect" pitches are good for the game overall.
    My point is that unless u have the odd wicket like Mumbai or some of those grass courts in New Zealand once in a while, the game does become too boring. Because, let's face it, there will always be the one or two roads in each series. That invariably happens in every series. So why not have the odd pitch which is, for a change, the batsman's nightmare than the bowler's.

  10. #10
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Fair comments from all really.
    I prefer most matches where 350-400 in the first innings and 250-300 are competetive totals for most 'mid-tier' teams with the occasional match where all four innings are sub 250 are extremely entertaining.
    I think this is why i'd rate the 70s to early 2000s period as a superior cricketing period than today.

  11. #11
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani
    My point is that unless u have the odd wicket like Mumbai or some of those grass courts in New Zealand once in a while, the game does become too boring. Because, let's face it, there will always be the one or two roads in each series. That invariably happens in every series. So why not have the odd pitch which is, for a change, the batsman's nightmare than the bowler's.
    I personally just prefer a greater variance within a reasonable parameter of standards. The problem with the really extreme end of the scale is that it's a professional sport, and people's financial livelihoods can be at stake.

    I really don't have a problem with wickets allowing substantially more for the bowlers (and less for the batsmen) than we've been seeing over the last few years. In fact, I think the pitches at the Champions Trophy provided some great cricket, and I don't even mind the odd dustbowl, as long as it doesn't reduce the game to one of randomness. And that's essentially the problem I have with the really extreme examples. I still like to see a battle between bat and ball. What we've seen to frequently in this era is bowlers often being fodder for high-scoring batsmen, of which I'm not really a fan. I don't mind redressing that balance, but going to the opposite extreme (where teams struggle to score more than a hundred) is probably just as bad, if not worse. You're right, in that having conditions favor batsmen so heavily is clearly far more accepted than the other way around.

    One of the things I've liked about test cricket is that a series is generally an excellent indicator of who the better side was. Pitches that are minefields or where the outcomes are more random make the games less meaningful, IMO. If the objective is merely excitement and not knowing who will win, I can see the appeal, but I feel it bleeds some of the skills we like to appreciate demonstrated out of the game. A road doesn't generally give a false indication over a series of the strength of the teams, IMO, though a minefield definitely makes it more likely (it's a bit like aussie football in the rain).

    On the other hand, I have no issue with pitches that favor turn, or pitches that are fast and bouncy and crack up a bit. It's just a matter of maintaining reasonable international standards (which ought to still cater for a fairly wide variance) and mixing it up within those standards.

  12. #12
    International Captain Dravid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New Jersey, United States
    Posts
    5,096
    They want to be the center of attention these days...thats why they complain

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    15,695
    Just to clarify, the complaints about wickets is not what I wanted to discuss. It is just that today's cricketers seem to complain about just about everything that the players of the past didn't complain about. They just took certain stuff on their chins and went on with their jobs but today's guys just seem to be complaining left, right and centre about stuff.

  14. #14
    International Captain Slow Love™'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,080
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani
    Just to clarify, the complaints about wickets is not what I wanted to discuss. It is just that today's cricketers seem to complain about just about everything that the players of the past didn't complain about. They just took certain stuff on their chins and went on with their jobs but today's guys just seem to be complaining left, right and centre about stuff.
    Oh whoops! That was a waste of a few turgid paragraphs, then.

    Not sure I like what you're implying with the taking "certain stuff on their chins" part though.

  15. #15
    PY
    PY is offline
    International Coach PY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    10,736
    Aren't we all a bunch of purists....
    A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06
    "People today have too big a devil and too small a God"

    - Stephen Currie

    "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Brian Lara 2007 Suggestions
    By Manee in forum General
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-08-2006, 07:48 PM
  2. How would the Rugby guys fare in the NFL
    By Pratters in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 03-05-2006, 01:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •