Test cricket shouldn't be so easy for batsmen

[Black_Warrior]

Last time a test match was played @ Kanpur, it lasted 3 days and the pitch maker was criticized for preparing a so called dustbowl.

Neither is good for cricket..not when both teams score over 600, and not when the match ends in 3 days. Its called balance

 

[Jono]

But why Black Warrior? Why can't we have one match a test end on day 4, and another match it go for all 5 days.

**** balance, how about variety?

Sure we don't need extremes like bore draws or tests finishing in 2 1/2 days, but the same pitch every test (even if its 'fair' and does a bit for everyone) would be equally ****.

The unique thing about cricket is the big factor conditions play. Moreso than most if not all sports.

 

[Black_Warrior]

A test ending during the later part of day 4 is still better than a test match finishing within 3 days. A good test match pitch should last and not act wierd for 5 days at least

 

[Sir Alex]

A test ending during the later part of day 4 is still better than a test match finishing within 3 days. A good test match pitch should last and not act wierd for 5 days at least

Of course I agree with that. However it is just improbable to make that happen on a regular basis unless match fixing is involved.

 

[Burgey]

But why Black Warrior? Why can't we have one match a test end on day 4, and another match it go for all 5 days.

**** balance, how about variety?

Sure we don't need extremes like bore draws or tests finishing in 2 1/2 days, but the same pitch every test (even if its 'fair' and does a bit for everyone) would be equally ****.

The unique thing about cricket is the big factor conditions play. Moreso than most if not all sports.

This

A test ending during the later part of day 4 is still better than a test match finishing within 3 days. A good test match pitch should last and not act wierd for 5 days at least

Not necessarily - the test in Brisbane finished in three days. The only way it would have gone longer was if Ponting delayed the inevitable and batted again. Would not necessarily have made it a better match.

 

[Black_Warrior]

^ thats because the teams were not balanced.

 

[Burgey]

^ thats because the teams were not balanced.

Indeed. But how often are they?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Quite often infact. The first test match between New Zealand and Pakistan is being hailed as a great test match by all and sundry! The only reason it was such a great test match was because the teams were evenly balanced for once. The upcoming Pak-Aus test series might well see test matches finished within 3 days but that has more to do with inability of Pakistani batsmen to play Australian fast bowlers.
What I was talking about when I was talking about quality of the pitch was this and this

The teams were relatively well balanced in both the cases and yet the matches ended within 3 days. Thats not the sign of a healthy pitch.

 

[Furball]

Neither is good for cricket..not when both teams score over 600, and not when the match ends in 3 days. Its called balance

The reason both teams score highly is because subcontinental batsmen are used to subcontinental conditions.

If batting in the subcontinent is so eay, then why don't more non-subcontinental batsmen score mases of runs on such easy batting wickets?