You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[Richard]

Fair noof. I didn't know about the hampered preparations in Mumbai in 2004\05, and everything I've read about the Trinidad Test on that famous tour suggests West Indies got exactly the sort of pitch they wanted and that the Australians were none-too-happy with that. No mention of hampered preparations.

And there undoubtedly is evidence that preparations were hampered at Darwin in 2004. I'm very much with you on being annoyed at people making-out Australia as victims of this-and-that conspiracy, of course.

 

[Burgey]

Just like with Mumbai (not Chennai) 2004. Anyway, I have about as much evidence that the Darwin 2004 was deliberately "under-prepared" as anyone else does about Mumbai or Trinidad, which is just about zero. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of his rant - it grinds my gears when people try to make out like Australia is the poor victim.

Poor victim of what? They've won everything there is to be won. I was doing no such thing mate. I cited those two as examples which spring to mind because they were 2 tests which I watched. The fact that they involved Australia hardly means I'm saying they were the "poor victim" - please - they won both of those series.

Re Darwin 2004 - I think there was a fair bit of rain around, but you may well be right. If you are, it's just as bad. Tbh, it's not a match or series which really sticks in my memory as I was probably watching the footy at that time of year.

I didn't know about the hampered preparations in Mumbai in 2004\05, and everything I've read about the Trinidad Test on that famous tour suggests West Indies got exactly the sort of pitch they wanted and that the Australians were none-too-happy with that. No mention of hampered preparations.

And there undoubtedly is evidence that preparations were hampered at Darwin in 2004. I'm very much with you on being annoyed at people making-out Australia as victims of this-and-that conspiracy, of course.

But I'm not saying they were the victims, I cited those two as examples which stick in my mind - I can't help it if most of the cricket I watched pre-2005 when I got Foxtel was cricket involving Australia.

I'd love to hear how they plan on enforcing that ban? Do they propose mouth-police?

It's the point of this thread, yes, but that's not to say people can't discuss things like pitch preparation and why it grinds the gears. Me, I don't have a problem with any technique used to prepare a pitch, or (and this strikes me as being the most important thing) when it's done to favour the home side. If people want a turning pitch, it's up to them IMO. Do whatever you want to attain it. Who is to say when a pitch has been under- or over-prepared? Does that mean it's not been made as good for batting as it could have been? I'd just say that suggests it's not turned-out how the curator was aiming. If someone was aiming to produce a turner and succeeds, I'd not say they'd over-prepared it, I'd say they've got it spot on. They could have made it a better batting surface, but why would you want to do that if it's better for your home team to have a turner?

The teams these days have so many support staff that an ICC or Board appointed orthodontist would probably not go astray. It would have the added benefit of stopping a number of players from all countries putting their feet in their mouth.

Which brings me to another bug-bear - grounds around the world will soon have to build new pavilions with 4 dressing sheds - 1 for each team, and another 1 for each of their support staff.

On the test in India, there was a test earlier in that series (which the Aussies won) where the groundsman basically told the BCCI to get nicked and that he would prepare a pitch how he wanted, which was with grass on it, despite their "encouraging" him not to. IIRC the BCCI was none-too-pleased but he went ahead anyway.

So, as i said earlier, it doesn't happen very much, but it ****s me when it does. There is of course nothing wrong with home town advantage - it makes your wins away from home far sweter, but it's my view that there is a line which ought not be crossed. That line is probably where a groundsman doesn't do everything they can to prepare a wicket within the weather contraints around at the time, and imo it is definitely crossed when a groundsman wants to prepare a certain type of pitch and is influenced not to. In other words, he's not allowed to do his job properly due to an outside influence.

 

[Dasa]

And there undoubtedly is evidence that preparations were hampered at Darwin in 2004. I'm very much with you on being annoyed at people making-out Australia as victims of this-and-that conspiracy, of course.

I meant evidence of "pitch-doctoring", in that the pitches were deliberately prepared to benefit one team over the other. Preparations being hampered because of rain etc. doesn't count in that.

Poor victim of what? They've won everything there is to be won. I was doing no such thing mate. I cited those two as examples which spring to mind because they were 2 tests which I watched. The fact that they involved Australia hardly means I'm saying they were the "poor victim" - please - they won both of those series.

That point was more about what you said about Australia being accused of being "worst behaved side in cricket history" and your paragraph about the swing obtained by the English bowlers and what it had to do with mints.

So, as i said earlier, it doesn't happen very much, but it ****s me when it does. There is of course nothing wrong with home town advantage - it makes your wins away from home far sweter, but it's my view that there is a line which ought not be crossed. That line is probably where a groundsman doesn't do everything they can to prepare a wicket within the weather contraints around at the time, and imo it is definitely crossed when a groundsman wants to prepare a certain type of pitch and is influenced not to. In other words, he's not allowed to do his job properly due to an outside influence.

I'm saying this without any evidence but I would guess that that happens all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if groundsmen everywhere over the last few years have been asked to prepare flat batting tracks to ensure Tests last 5 days. It doesn't equate to "pitch-doctoring" though.

 

[Burgey]

I meant evidence of "pitch-doctoring", in that the pitches were deliberately prepared to benefit one team over the other. Preparations being hampered because of rain etc. doesn't count in that.

Agreed. The WI pitch in 95 though was not rain affected. Steve Waugh recounts in his diary of the tour how he and others went down to the ground to look at it the day before the test, it was dry, but you couldn't make out the pitch from the rest of the ground, or words to that effect.

That point was more about what you said about Australia being accused of being "worst behaved side in cricket history" and your paragraph about the swing obtained by the English bowlers and what it had to do with mints. .

Gotcha. Well, there is a double standard re. behaviour of some players/ sides over others. Those double standards are not limited to any one group of supporters though. People tend to place higher standards on others than they do on their own, it's a human frailty.

I'm saying this without any evidence but I would guess that that happens all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if groundsmen everywhere over the last few years have been asked to prepare flat batting tracks to ensure Tests last 5 days. It doesn't equate to "pitch-doctoring" though.

Depends on your definition of pitch doctoring I suppose. And I lament the flat tracks as much as anyone else because they take away from the contest between bat & ball.

 

[honestbharani]

I read last year that the governing bodies had actually banned that particular brand of mints from dressing rooms.

In relation to pitches, I was not using the term doctoring in the context of altering its state mid-match. Rather, tdeliberate under-preparing or over-preparing of pitches so that they are either minefields or complete bunsen burners. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it grinds my gears, which I thought was the point of the thread. Two examples which spring to my mind are Chennai when Australia last toured India - the pitch was a disgrace, and even by the standards of that square which usually turns big, was regarded by those who saw it as such; and the third test at Trinidad in 1995 which was way under-prepared when the Windies were 1-0 down inthe series and had to win.

HOw was the Chennai pitch a disgrace? It produced the best match of the series. It had help for both pacers and spinners. And the only reason Aussies were bowled out on the first day was because the pitch had a bit of pace or zip in it and in those conditions and with the traditional chennai bounce, Kumble was difficult to play for guys used to playing with hard hands. As time went on, because it was pre-season, the pitch got slower and slower and thus ended up being an easy paced pitch to bat on in the 3rd and 4th innings. Honestly, to call that pitch as not upto international standards is a disgrace, NOT that pitch.

 

[honestbharani]

Poor victim of what? They've won everything there is to be won. I was doing no such thing mate. I cited those two as examples which spring to mind because they were 2 tests which I watched. The fact that they involved Australia hardly means I'm saying they were the "poor victim" - please - they won both of those series.

Re Darwin 2004 - I think there was a fair bit of rain around, but you may well be right. If you are, it's just as bad. Tbh, it's not a match or series which really sticks in my memory as I was probably watching the footy at that time of year.



But I'm not saying they were the victims, I cited those two as examples which stick in my mind - I can't help it if most of the cricket I watched pre-2005 when I got Foxtel was cricket involving Australia.




The teams these days have so many support staff that an ICC or Board appointed orthodontist would probably not go astray. It would have the added benefit of stopping a number of players from all countries putting their feet in their mouth.

Which brings me to another bug-bear - grounds around the world will soon have to build new pavilions with 4 dressing sheds - 1 for each team, and another 1 for each of their support staff.

On the test in India, there was a test earlier in that series (which the Aussies won) where the groundsman basically told the BCCI to get nicked and that he would prepare a pitch how he wanted, which was with grass on it, despite their "encouraging" him not to. IIRC the BCCI was none-too-pleased but he went ahead anyway.

So, as i said earlier, it doesn't happen very much, but it ****s me when it does. There is of course nothing wrong with home town advantage - it makes your wins away from home far sweter, but it's my view that there is a line which ought not be crossed. That line is probably where a groundsman doesn't do everything they can to prepare a wicket within the weather contraints around at the time, and imo it is definitely crossed when a groundsman wants to prepare a certain type of pitch and is influenced not to. In other words, he's not allowed to do his job properly due to an outside influence.

The pitch u are talking abt is Nagpur and it wasn't because the groundsman wanted to prepare a "sporting" wicket. The Nagpur pitch was a disaster whichever way u want to look at it, the same pitch in England would have been called an unfair one.... Martyn was astounding on that track, but it was honestly too friendly to the seamers. All you had to do was run in and hit the ball at 80-85 mph and u get something out of it. And the reason it was prepared so was because it was a political game then. And it was Pawar's way of getting back at Dalmiya by making it difficult for his "boy" Ganguly. It was a poor track by any standards, although not an unplayable one.

 

[Richard]

On the test in India, there was a test earlier in that series (which the Aussies won) where the groundsman basically told the BCCI to get nicked and that he would prepare a pitch how he wanted, which was with grass on it, despite their "encouraging" him not to. IIRC the BCCI was none-too-pleased but he went ahead anyway.

That, if anything, annoys me more than the Mumbai one. The groundsman in question was under orders to deliberately damage his own national team's prospects. The president of the relevant cricket assocation had beef with Dalmiya, the BCCI President, and wanted to see India beaten. So he ordered a green pitch.

So, as i said earlier, it doesn't happen very much, but it ****s me when it does. There is of course nothing wrong with home town advantage - it makes your wins away from home far sweter, but it's my view that there is a line which ought not be crossed. That line is probably where a groundsman doesn't do everything they can to prepare a wicket within the weather contraints around at the time, and imo it is definitely crossed when a groundsman wants to prepare a certain type of pitch and is influenced not to. In other words, he's not allowed to do his job properly due to an outside influence.

IMO the groundsman's job is to prepare the sort of pitch he's asked to prepare. He's not paid to decide what pitches are like, he's paid to do what he's told. And when the coordination between national and regional associations (the groundsman being employed by the local assocation) is done properly, that means the national team gets the pitch which is best for them.

I don't see any line myself, TBH - the groundsman should always do everything he can to prepare the wicket, but that doesn't mean the wicket should always be prepared to be the best batting surface it can be. If a pitch could have been made better for batting but the people in charge of the orders for the pitch said to ensure there was plenty in it for seamers\spinners, that's fine by me.

 

[Jono]

HOw was the Chennai pitch a disgrace? It produced the best match of the series. It had help for both pacers and spinners. And the only reason Aussies were bowled out on the first day was because the pitch had a bit of pace or zip in it and in those conditions and with the traditional chennai bounce, Kumble was difficult to play for guys used to playing with hard hands. As time went on, because it was pre-season, the pitch got slower and slower and thus ended up being an easy paced pitch to bat on in the 3rd and 4th innings. Honestly, to call that pitch as not upto international standards is a disgrace, NOT that pitch.

He was probably referring to Mumbai rather than Chennai.

Chennai's pitch was awesome, everything about that test match was awesome... except the rain on day 5.

 

[Richard]

Indeed.

 

[GIMH]

I'm fairly new to this forum so could someone tell me if "shane warne" actually believes what he writes or is he just a troll talking crap to incite comment?

 

[Richard]

'Twas a better summation of SW\BLE than most. Terrifying thing, though, is that he'd been around for a year and more already.

 

[Burgey]

He was probably referring to Mumbai rather than Chennai.

Chennai's pitch was awesome, everything about that test match was awesome... except the rain on day 5.

Yeah, as Dasa pointed out earlier, the Test in question was Mumbai, not Chennai - apologies for confusion caused.

 

[Sanz]

Yeah, as Dasa pointed out earlier, the Test in question was Mumbai, not Chennai - apologies for confusion caused.

And that was because of excessive rain in Mumbai.

 

[Perm]

Bad Light in the Middle of the Day

 

[pasag]

Cricket programming

The fact that they show the same stupid cliche ridden interview with Peter Moores twice, yes twice, when they could be showing old footage of classic matches. And when they did show stuff from the second Test in 2000 it was 2 minutes, done in some sort of glazy fashion with silly 'inspirational' music. It looked more like a music video than a highlight package, tla. Honestly, I don't care about watching Botham, Lloyd and Gower stumbling through the required 30 minutes that they have to fill before the cricket starts again. Old footage of them playing cricket on the other hand....They've got it all on file and it's impossible for any of us peasants to get our hands on it, yet they'd rather show some silly interview twice or worse in Australia, The Cricket Show. Just show old match footage ffs.

 

[Matt79]

or worse in Australia, The Cricket Show. Just show old match footage ffs.

You don't like Ian Healy's "Masterclasses"?

 

[pasag]

Him trying to market that bat with the ball attached with his daughter was one of the low points in Australian television history.

 

[Richard]

Cricket programming

The fact that they show the same stupid cliche ridden interview with Peter Moores twice, yes twice, when they could be showing old footage of classic matches. And when they did show stuff from the second Test in 2000 it was 2 minutes, done in some sort of glazy fashion with silly 'inspirational' music. It looked more like a music video than a highlight package, tla. Honestly, I don't care about watching Botham, Lloyd and Gower stumbling through the required 30 minutes that they have to fill before the cricket starts again. Old footage of them playing cricket on the other hand....They've got it all on file and it's impossible for any of us peasants to get our hands on it, yet they'd rather show some silly interview twice or worse in Australia, The Cricket Show. Just show old match footage ffs.

Abso-God-damn-lutely. I think that soooooooooooooooooo often. Nice indeed to see someone else mention it.

What's wrong with 1975 and 1984? Or 1977 and 1980? Heck, even 1990 or 1992\93.

 

[Mister Wright]

Cricket programming

The fact that they show the same stupid cliche ridden interview with Peter Moores twice, yes twice, when they could be showing old footage of classic matches. And when they did show stuff from the second Test in 2000 it was 2 minutes, done in some sort of glazy fashion with silly 'inspirational' music. It looked more like a music video than a highlight package, tla. Honestly, I don't care about watching Botham, Lloyd and Gower stumbling through the required 30 minutes that they have to fill before the cricket starts again. Old footage of them playing cricket on the other hand....They've got it all on file and it's impossible for any of us peasants to get our hands on it, yet they'd rather show some silly interview twice or worse in Australia, The Cricket Show. Just show old match footage ffs.

Jeez man. What are you saying? Listening to those 3 for 6 hours is surely better than listen to Mark Nicholas for 3 to 6 minutes. I was loving every minute of it. Each minute was a minute without Mark Nicholas, which is something the Australian coverage never goes without.

 

[pasag]

Him trying to market that bat with the ball attached with his daughter was one of the low points in Australian television history.

Just to clarify, his daughter didn't come with the bat