What's a good pitch?

[dontcloseyoureyes]

No. As usual, you penchant for drawing the specific into a generalisation takes over.

IMO that was a bad pitch because it wasn't capable, no matter who was playing on it, of lasting even close to 5 days. It wasn't a bad pitch because it turned, or because it broke up over time. It was a bad pitch because it fell to pieces inside the first session and was not one which a five day game was capable of being played on.

Of course, if you want to make this an "Us v Them" thing even on the issue of pitches mate, then go ahead. But please bare this in mind. The reason the paragraph you highlighted in the original article is wrong is because neither team coped well with that pitch, as it was impossible to cope with. Australia lost that match by about 10-15 runs IIRC, in circumstances where neither side scored anything substantial on what was a **** house pitch. I mean Michael Clarke took 6 for 9 FFS.

Hypothetically, if India pile on 350-450 on a pitch, and Australia get bundled out for 150-200 on a turner, that doesn't make it a bad wicket, it means they couldn't cope with it. But that Mumbai pitch was a shocker, and most everyone agreed with that assessment of it. Even Imran was moved to write what a terrible pitch it was. Why? Not because it turned, not because one team or the other got beaten, but because it was a **** wicket.

So no, because a pitch turns on day one doesn't make it a bad wicket IMO, despite your best efforts to make it seem that's what I'm saying. Just like a pitch bouncing and seaming doesn't make it a bad wicket. But, and being the thread starter you really should know this, the question was "What's a good pitch?" not "Boo Hoo, the bad old Aussies are whinging coz a wicket turned, isn't that crap?" To which, in fairness, the answer would probably be "yes".

And finally, it will probably come as a shock to the people who prepared the SCG pitches in the 80s that they'd deliberately made them into turners to disadvantage the WI. The SCG always turned in the 80s, no matter who played there. And of course, the same people who presumably gave the order to the groundsman to bring the mighty Windies undone by prearing such a pitch also scheduled the first two tests of each summer back then at Brisbane and Perth, thus ensuring we were 2-0 down after a combined 18 sessions of cricket. How nefarious!!!

The thread should be closed after this post. Speaks the truth.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think that pitch was unplayable, as Tendulkar and Laxman showed, before both got out to stupid shots. It was shoddy batting that did both sides in.

Oh well, opinions I guess.

I remember there was a horrific WACA pitch where Tony Greig did a pitch report and the cracks were so wide he lost his keys in one!! That was a scary and bad pitch IMO, not coz it was sporting and gave the bowlers a chance, but rather it was too much one way, just as so many of the featherbed pitches are too much in favour of the batsmen.

 

[Precambrian]

Oh well, opinions I guess.

I remember there was a horrific WACA pitch where Tony Greig did a pitch report and the cracks were so wide he lost his keys in one!! That was a scary and bad pitch IMO, not coz it was sporting and gave the bowlers a chance, but rather it was too much one way, just as so many of the featherbed pitches are too much in favour of the batsmen.

Yeah. But I am appalled at not the players' attitude, but the ICC's. After the Kanpur match, they asked for an explanation from BCCI regarding the pitch, which was absolutely unwarranted. And inexplicable. Just because it aided spin, the prejudice was apparent.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah. But I am appalled at not the players' attitude, but the ICC's. After the Kanpur match, they asked for an explanation from BCCI regarding the pitch, which was absolutely unwarranted. And inexplicable. Just because it aided spin, the prejudice was apparent.

Yeah, that's very odd for them to do that (well, not for the ICC but odd generally).

It really shouldn't matter if it aids spin or it aids seam, or if for the most part its batsmen friendly. Provided it's not too much one way or t'other then I don't see how there's a drama.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think that pitch was unplayable, as Tendulkar and Laxman showed, before both got out to stupid shots. It was shoddy batting that did both sides in.

I've seen worse pitches than that one but just because one of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game and a bloke considering to be ridiculously talented scored 50's on it (50's mind you, not easy hundreds; eventually even they were undone), doesn't mean it was in any way a fit match wicket. It was a shocker. There have been worse (the WACA pitch Burgey mentions qualifies) but it was still pretty bad.

Oh well, opinions I guess.

I remember there was a horrific WACA pitch where Tony Greig did a pitch report and the cracks were so wide he lost his keys in one!! That was a scary and bad pitch IMO, not coz it was sporting and gave the bowlers a chance, but rather it was too much one way, just as so many of the featherbed pitches are too much in favour of the batsmen.

Think you might be mixing up your pitches, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember two separate incidents. Both were the WACA but Tony Grieg lost his key before a ODI between Aus and SA in 1994, the match where Glenn McGrath hit that crack, the ball spat and fractured Gary Kirsten's cheek. The other one was the shocker in 1997 where Blewwy got that shocking grubber.

My (pendantic) point is that only a couple of balls misbehaved on the first one whereas on the final day of the second one, the match devolved into a shooting gallery.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I think you're right. I always recall that Kirsten (I think it was Peter actually) incident when people say McGrath was never that quick. Early on he was mighty sharp.

 

[Precambrian]

I've seen worse pitches than that one but just because one of the greatest batsmen in the history of the game and a bloke considering to be ridiculously talented scored 50's on it (50's mind you, not easy hundreds; eventually even they were undone), doesn't mean it was in any way a fit match wicket. It was a shocker. There have been worse (the WACA pitch Burgey mentions qualifies) but it was still pretty bad.



Think you might be mixing up your pitches, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember two separate incidents. Both were the WACA but Tony Grieg lost his key before a ODI between Aus and SA in 1994, the match where Glenn McGrath hit that crack, the ball spat and fractured Gary Kirsten's cheek. The other one was the shocker in 1997 where Blewwy got that shocking grubber.

My (pendantic) point is that only a couple of balls misbehaved on the first one whereas on the final day of the second one, the match devolved into a shooting gallery.

Not at all. I am not advocating for Mumbai 04 pitch here, because I personally don't prefer such spin dens, because they horrifyingly skew the match in favor of the home team, and serves the home team no good in the future, when it tours. See Sri Lankan test team, they are absolutely brilliant and hard to defeat at home, but become entirely different team when they tour. The same applies for consistently playing on green surfaces, and bowlers will find it difficult on a different pitch (subcontinental).

Tendulkar and Laxman were playing with no difficulty on that pitch. The devil was mostly in the batsman's minds. Had they stayed on for a few more overs, am sure India would've got a 300+ score in the third innings, which is more than par on any wicket.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah I think you're right. I always recall that Kirsten (I think it was Peter actually) incident when people say McGrath was never that quick. Early on he was mighty sharp.

Haha, there I go correcting someone when I was wrong. Yep, indeed it was Peter. McGrath's bouncer in the early days was terrifying.

 

[biased indian]

One where my team wins.

AWTA

And when my team is not involved a pitch where 300 is a good score !!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

I remember there was a horrific WACA pitch where Tony Greig did a pitch report and the cracks were so wide he lost his keys in one!! That was a scary and bad pitch IMO, not coz it was sporting and gave the bowlers a chance, but rather it was too much one way, just as so many of the featherbed pitches are too much in favour of the batsmen.

Think you might be mixing up your pitches, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember two separate incidents. Both were the WACA but Tony Grieg lost his key before a ODI between Aus and SA in 1994, the match where Glenn McGrath hit that crack, the ball spat and fractured Gary Kirsten's cheek. The other one was the shocker in 1997 where Blewwy got that shocking grubber.

My (pendantic) point is that only a couple of balls misbehaved on the first one whereas on the final day of the second one, the match devolved into a shooting gallery.

Yeah I think you're right. I always recall that Kirsten (I think it was Peter actually) incident when people say McGrath was never that quick. Early on he was mighty sharp.

Haha, there I go correcting someone when I was wrong. Yep, indeed it was Peter. McGrath's bouncer in the early days was terrifying.

And while that Test in 1996/97 was worse in terms of the looks of the pitch, the one between West Indies and England at Sabina Park was comfortably worse in terms of behaviour. The only Test in history to be called-off because of a dangerous pitch, though had the same rules been in force in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, there'd have been a few then as well.

And if it'd been Gary Kirsten being hit and having his cheekbone fractured in 1993/94 he'd have been doubly unlucky, as the same thing actually did happen to him in 2003/04 via Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[Richard]

Must say I agree withthe tenor of the article but can't agree with the issue about the Mumbai pitch being declared substandard because Australia was bowled out by spinners batting last.
It was substandard because it began breaking up from virtually the start and the game was over in about 2.5 days iirc.

This isn't to say it was substandard because it turned from ball one. IMO the same would be said about an identical result on a wicket which did too much for the quicks.

I guess the ideal wicket is one which offers somethign for everyone as a test goes on, but really, those wickets are few and far between, and I suspect in truth they always have been.

I've got nothing against a wicket which offers turn from ball one, or one whic seams around from ball one. But if a wicket is such that a test between two reasonably matched sides finishes inside 3 days when both teams can't post a total, I don't think you can say the wicket is a good one. That situation is different AFAIC from one where a side is totally outplayed and beaten in 3 days - for example, WI smashing Aus inside 3 days in Perth in 1993.

I don't mind the odd pitch like that personally. I don't want pitches where a match is never going to last five days to become a regularity, but I do want to see the odd one - maybe once every two or three series'. Same true of the ARG-esque one, where batsmen can score plenty without massive difficulty. It's all the "variety is the spice of cricket" thing. There's no type of pitch, except the genuinely dangerous one (ie, quick, bouncy, very uneven and going to get worse), which I never, ever want to see.