Your ideal ODI pitch?

[PhoenixFire]

A nice sticky dog.



Edit: No Brumby, I'm not a Zooaphile..........

 

[Dick Rockett]

Agree mostly with Richard here (and yes i used to be a bowler capable of some lusty hitting at #6-7) - I'd like to see atleast 75% of ODIs where 240-270 are winning scores against a decent bowling side, with the occasional ripper ( 200-ish or under) and belter ( 300-ish) pitches around.
I certainly don't like the plethora of 300+ scores and cricket should be about balance.
It isnt balanced currently and i think balancing a sport as well as keeping that balance is a very hard thing to do - ODI cricket, IMO was the best in the mid/late 90s and early 2000s.

I can't believe it. I agree 100% with something C_C has posted.

 

[open365]

Variation as faaipdeooidad said.

The lower scoring games are sometime some of the most thrilling(1999 WC semi final, Eng Australia tie in 05).

In lower scoring games, i think there is more scope for an interesting contest as a side can be 40-4 but there's still room for someone to play a matchwinning innings(like Bevan) so the game is always in the balance, sometimes the fielding side are winning, sometimes they're losing.

With big scoring games, especialy in chases(though today is a brilliant exception) the whole game all too often seems to be a one way road, the team batting first makes a massive score with no real set backs then the chasing team does the same, there no part in the game where the bowlers are winning.

 

[Neil Pickup]

In lower scoring games, i think there is more scope for an interesting contest as a side can be 40-4 but there's still room for someone to play a matchwinning innings.

You can still make 350 from 40-4...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Turning-up at the ground nice and early, surveying the boundaries, ensuring this conversation takes place:
Me: "Bit short, that isn't it?"
Jeff: "Er, oh, is it?"
Me: "Yeah, could do something about that."
Jeff: "Er, OK, er make sure you keep the boundary the right shape, eh-huh!"

(You can't really imagine that properly unless you know Jeff's voice, though)

Actually, somewhat randomly, did I get round to telling everyone the fish story?

 

[Jono]

One day I want to tune into a ODI and see 350 chased down, then next I want to see a team defend 209, winning by 14 runs. I'd like to then see a 250 score defended as well, and perhaps a 275 score chased down comfortably. And yes, on the odd occasion I'd like to see 150 all out loses to 7/151.

Obviously, variation is the key. If we keep pitches changing from match to match some what, the pyjama game will benefit.

 

[Fiery]

Well said Jono.

 

[thierry henry]

Question- is there really such a thing as a 350 pitch? I mean, a pitch can be very bad, but there's a limit to how good a pitch can be. I mean, most of the basic theories of batting and bowling assume a "perfect" batting pitch- there's no "just bowl the ball slowly and roll the fingers over it and wait for it to grip and bounce on the dustbowl you're playing on", or "just bowl a gentle medium pacer in the right area and watch it seam all over the place" in the coaching manuals. By the same token, as a general rule, simply because a ball fails to seam or swing or do something unusual, it doesn't mean as a rule of thumb that it's going to be easy for the batsman to hit it wherever he likes regardless of line, length, and other variations. Furthermore, regardless of how flat a pitch is, if you put cut or spin on the ball, it's still possible that the ball will cut or spin- you can cut and spin a ball on a concrete pitch. The pace and bounce will be routine, but you can still vary the amount of turn you put on the ball, etc.

I guess what I'm rambling about is that, imo, if a game of ODI cricket is played on a perfect pitch, a competent international bowling attack should be able to bowl with requisite control and penetration to keep a competent international batting line-up to around about 290-300, right?

 

[FRAZ]

I want a fast bowlers paradise with a smaller ground . Much more excitement level is in this combo .
Kiwi pitches and grounds of mid and late 90's are my favorite where Waqar Younis , Wasim Akram and a few kiwi bowlers + hard hitting batsmen from both sides always presented a good show .
The best match example of such a combo is the 1992 WC semi final b/w Pak and NZ . What a match that was . And given the element of grass on a certain pitch ,spinners might extract the desired results .

 

[Jono]

Question- is there really such a thing as a 350 pitch? I mean, a pitch can be very bad, but there's a limit to how good a pitch can be. I mean, most of the basic theories of batting and bowling assume a "perfect" batting pitch- there's no "just bowl the ball slowly and roll the fingers over it and wait for it to grip and bounce on the dustbowl you're playing on", or "just bowl a gentle medium pacer in the right area and watch it seam all over the place" in the coaching manuals. By the same token, as a general rule, simply because a ball fails to seam or swing or do something unusual, it doesn't mean as a rule of thumb that it's going to be easy for the batsman to hit it wherever he likes regardless of line, length, and other variations. Furthermore, regardless of how flat a pitch is, if you put cut or spin on the ball, it's still possible that the ball will cut or spin- you can cut and spin a ball on a concrete pitch. The pace and bounce will be routine, but you can still vary the amount of turn you put on the ball, etc.

I guess what I'm rambling about is that, imo, if a game of ODI cricket is played on a perfect pitch, a competent international bowling attack should be able to bowl with requisite control and penetration to keep a competent international batting line-up to around about 290-300, right?

In theory yes, but add extremely flat pitch + small grounds, and 320-340+ is very very possible with the intent of batsman nowadays and mi****s going for six. Additionally, with what we have learnt about chasing big totals in the last 18 months, 340+ isn't safe, even with a pretty good bowling attack if the conditions aforementioned exist.

 

[Fiery]

mi****s gets censored...(I'm easily amused)

 

[thierry henry]

In theory yes, but add extremely flat pitch + small grounds, and 320-340+ is very very possible with the intent of batsman nowadays and mi****s going for six. Additionally, with what we have learnt about chasing big totals in the last 18 months, 340+ isn't safe, even with a pretty good bowling attack if the conditions aforementioned exist.

320-340 is always possible on a good pitch, what I'm saying is it requires poor bowling. Either that, or unusually outstanding batting.

btw, people keep talking about small grounds, aren't we using the same grounds we always did?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

btw, people keep talking about small grounds, aren't we using the same grounds we always did?

Well, there's ropes on every ground now, which obviously reduces the size somewhat. On some grounds (eg Adelaide, often) ropes are brought in a hell of a long way, and it's also a lot easier to hit a six as you don't have to clear a metre high fence, you just need to clear a rope.

Aside from that, bat technology has come a long way in recent times. It's definitely a lot easier to hit a six than it used to be, relative to batting ability and so on. Even batsmen who aren't exactly huge strikers of the ball like Mike Hussey can clear the rope quite regularly, especially on the smaller grounds.

 

[thierry henry]

Well, there's ropes on every ground now, which obviously reduces the size somewhat. On some grounds (eg Adelaide, often) ropes are brought in a hell of a long way, and it's also a lot easier to hit a six as you don't have to clear a metre high fence, you just need to clear a rope.

Aside from that, bat technology has come a long way in recent times. It's definitely a lot easier to hit a six than it used to be, relative to batting ability and so on. Even batsmen who aren't exactly huge strikers of the ball like Mike Hussey can clear the rope quite regularly, especially on the smaller grounds.

People seem to be talking a lot about NZ grounds where the ropes aren't really very far in. Furthermore, most of the 6s seem to be going halfway up the stands anyway! As for bat technology...at what point do you think these great strides were made? Do you reckon they are markedly better than, say, 10 years ago? When did this happen?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

People seem to be talking a lot about NZ grounds where the ropes aren't really very far in. Furthermore, most of the 6s seem to be going halfway up the stands anyway! As for bat technology...at what point do you think these great strides were made? Do you reckon they are markedly better than, say, 10 years ago? When did this happen?

General consensus seems to be that bat technology has come a long way in the last 10 years, yeah. There's certainly a hell of a lot more sixes hit these days than there was a decade ago, particularly from mi****s and so on.

NZ grounds are just smaller than somewhere like Australia really. It's not that they are any smaller than they used to be, just that the extra distance you get with a normal hit these days makes more of a difference on a smaller ground.

 

[Craig]

Well, there's ropes on every ground now, which obviously reduces the size somewhat. On some grounds (eg Adelaide, often) ropes are brought in a hell of a long way, and it's also a lot easier to hit a six as you don't have to clear a metre high fence, you just need to clear a rope.

Aside from that, bat technology has come a long way in recent times. It's definitely a lot easier to hit a six than it used to be, relative to batting ability and so on. Even batsmen who aren't exactly huge strikers of the ball like Mike Hussey can clear the rope quite regularly, especially on the smaller grounds.

I know it slight off topic but didn't they bring the ropes in for player safety? Like what happened to Brad Young at the SCG years ago?

As for the size of NZ grounds, that what you get when co-share with rugby, whereas cricket and AFL usually co-share so they have to be big. Eden Park is bordering on farcial.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, I'm not saying the ropes shouldn't be there.

 

[Richard]

A pitch that offers good competition and remains steady through-out the game, be they 180 ones or 350+. I hate pitches which exhibit loop-sided characteristics.

Amen to that, too.

Nothing more unfair than a pitch that changes charecteristics over a mere 100 overs.

 

[Richard]

Edit: No Brumby, I'm not a Zooaphile..........

.

Edit: No C_C. Don't do it

(Sorry, found that comparison pretty )

 

[Richard]

Actually, somewhat randomly, did I get round to telling everyone the fish story?

Not me.