Can any one tell me what the hell Ponting is talking about ?

[Jono]

Yay for Ponting opening his mouth again.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A few questions.

If subcontinental pitches are flatter and easier for batting on, then why do so many non-subcontinental batsmen struggle in the subcontinent?

Australia is just as bad as, if not worse than the subcontinent when it comes to flat, batsman friendly tracks. The only reason we've not seen more draws in Australia is largely down to the fact that Australia for the vast majority of the decade have had an excellent bowling attack.

There aren't simply two types of pitch though. You can get a relatively batsman friendly pitch that has a bit of bounce (like some of the Australian wickets) and you can get a relatively batsman friendly track that is slow (like some of the subcontinental wickets).

I think we all know why pacemen traditionally struggle in India but that's not the case in Australia. Things have changed slightly over the past 5-6 years though with the weather conditions we've had in Australia. I suspect curators may have been told in some cases not to prepare something that sees the game over in 3 days if possible.

I don't think there's a huge problem with the wicket starting off a little flat if it wears late in the game. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to happen, wickets getting better to bat on for the last two days is slightly unusual. Ideally, if the climate allows, I'd like to see the wicket offer a bit the first day or two to the bowlers before becoming a bit easier to bat on and then turning late in the game with a few cracks for the fast men.

Don't think I'll hold my breath though.

As for why batsmen struggle more in the subcontinent (if this is true) then I'd say it's because most wickets there lack the pace and bounce of most other places. The only wicket in Australia that I'd really call 'flat' is Adelaide, where it's a bit of a struggle for pacemen to gain any advantage. I think batsmen find it easier to score runs when the ball's coming on to the bat. In India this doesn't happen. Warne struggled bowling-wise in India too, and he was a very handy bowler to have on flatter tracks.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So the BCCI are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Prepare a pitch that is extremely receptive to spin, and get a good, exciting Test match, and the board responsible will be hauled up in front of the ICC for preparing a "substandard pitch."

Yet a deck in Adelaide, or Leeds, or Johannesburg which sees the ball zip around heaps off the seam won't see anywhere near the same amount of condemnation.

The option isn't prepare a wicket that turns and plays tricks so much someone who rarely bowls can take 6/9 or prepare a road. There's an area in between they can work with.

And I'd love to see the ball zip around off the seam in Adelaide, that'd be wonderful

Add to that the fact there have been games called off due to there being too much in it for the pacemen which makes it too dangerous (Eng vs WI is one such example I think, not too long ago).

The problem lies in whether or not that's normal behaviour for the pitch in question. If it normally turns quite a lot or seams around a bit then no problem. If it's out of character and it's popping, turning, or up-and-down so the seamers are in danger of seriously hurting someone and it's obviously been underprepared then there's a problem.

 

[duffer]

The option isn't prepare a wicket that turns and plays tricks so much someone who rarely bowls can take 6/9 or prepare a road. There's an area in between they can work with.

And I'd love to see the ball zip around off the seam in Adelaide, that'd be wonderful

Add to that the fact there have been games called off due to there being too much in it for the pacemen which makes it too dangerous (Eng vs WI is one such example I think, not too long ago).

The problem lies in whether or not that's normal behaviour for the pitch in question. If it normally turns quite a lot or seams around a bit then no problem. If it's out of character and it's popping, turning, or up-and-down so the seamers are in danger of seriously hurting someone and it's obviously been underprepared then there's a problem.

Yeah, it doesn't take into account the conditions the groundsman is tied to in regards to preparing the wicket (in India I could imagine they would be most unforgiving), the means to prepare the pitch (shouldn't be an excuse with the BCCI so wealthy but unfortunately it still is) and the general margin for error in regards to preparing the wicket.

Regardless of the intentions of a groundsman I could imagine just how hard it is for them to get it "right" in the subcontinent and for a lot of the wickets normal behaviour would be flat or square turning I'd imagine.

 

[social]

I agree with two things one that cricket is not interesting because it isn't even a contest any more and two that his comments have absolutely nothing to do with how he fares/fared as a batsman in the sub-continent or anywhere else.

I too find it impossible to sit through most cricket matches (all cricket matches not just Tests) today and that, my wife will tell you, is something earth shattering. The reason is the same - batsmen are having it too easy and I was moved enough to do this feature on the subject.

My point is why does Ponting single out the sub-continent. I suspect the timing of his statement gives him away. He is upset by India's moving to number one spot in the rankings and he feels this is achieved not through beating the best but by drawing and winning enough games to edge out Australia (and South Africa).

He isn't completely unjustified in thinking that is so but he needs to say exactly that. Criticise the ranking systems which equate two draws to a win and no negative points for a loss. The batting wickets and how the rankings are calculated are unrelated issues even if bothe are valid. That is why his criticism of the sub-continent for draws is strange.

Or it could mean nothing of the sort

Fact is that someone has taken a sound-bite and CW has created 6 pages of speculation

 

[Athlai]

Okay so lets have a look at the figures of the top 8 countries and how often draws result in each continent.

2000s
Asia: 80 results - 38 draws - 32% end in draws
Oceania: 68 results - 20 draws - 22%
Americas 26 results - 19 draws - 42%
Europe 48 results - 16 draws - 25%
Africa 39 results - 7 draws - 15%

Since 2005

Asia: 33 results - 21 draws - 39%
Europe: 22 results - 11 draws- 33%
Americas: 10 results - 10 draws - 50%
Oceania: 35 results - 10 draws - 22%
Africa: 21 results - 2 draws - 9%

Since 2008

Asia: 14 results 8 draws - 36%
Oceania: 14 results 6 draws - 29%
Americas: 5 results 5 draws - 50%
Europe: 10 results 4 draws - 29%
Africa: 5 results 0 draws - 0%

 

[Jono]

Surely NZ and Australia can't be grouped together?

 

[duffer]

Surely NZ and Australia can't be grouped together?

Yeah, was wondering whether I was the only one to think that.

 

[honestbharani]

I think the batting averages are a bit besides the point. Whether an exciting match is 200 plays 200 or 400 plays 400 doesn't matter so much from a "is it killing test cricket?" perspective, and matches in Australia tend to move along very quickly because the pitches have so much pace and bounce (despite being ultimately flat).

Not that I agree with him, but showing the respective batting averages for each countries is disproving a different argument from the one Ponting is making.

I for one think the tests in Australia and the pitches make the game a LOT more boring than the slow and low turning ones in the subcontinent. Juz because Ponting and his side can't handle these conditions, they shouldn't whine about the pitches... Coz their pitches are even worse!!!!

 

[honestbharani]

I hate how Ponting wishes to hide behind a made up facet such as an increase in, or a comparitively large quantity of drawn Test matches in the subcontinent. It is quite simple, Indian fans are turning away from Test cricket and have lower attendences than in England, Australia, South Africa and for good reason - the pitches are slow, the weather hot and draining and conditions are not conducive to exciting cricket. Perhaps I am misinterpreting Ponting, but I believe that what he says it a veil behind his true criticism that cricket in the subcontinent is boring to watch and is of low popularity - a valid point.

No, he is simply trying to hide the fact that a majority of the batsmen from teams outside the subcontinent lack the skill to force the pace on subcontinental tracks... That is why they always play for survival and draws... And to come out criticizing the same then is a bit rich.

 

[honestbharani]

Ponting averages 50+ away from home, you're not counting his neutral games - even discounting them he is 49.77. Anyway, it's clear that Australian batsmen haven't done as well as Indians in India; many of them are renown for their success against us.

But your argument is flawed. The toughest, most liveliest, pitches have usually been in S.Africa. Want to look at the averages there between the two teams?

Exactly.

Juz because it seams and bounces more over in RSA, doesn't mean it is the toughest for Aussies. The toughest for Aussies for years has been India...

 

[honestbharani]

Anyway, assuming that Ponting has had a look at a few matches not involving his side, here's the figures for India/Pakistan as compared to Australia this decade:

India/Pakistan: 79 matches, 51 results, 35% draw ratio.
Australia: 57 matches, 48 results, 16% draw ratio.

I've left out Sri Lanka simply because pitches there are so completely different from those in India or Pakistan that the blanket term "subcontinental conditions" carries no weight. The record there is:

54 matches, 43 results, 20% draw ratio.

So I think, assuming Ponting isn't referring specifically to matches involving his team and no others, that we can conclusively say that he does have a point. Pitches in India and Pakistan are more than twice as likely to fail to produce a result than those in Australia. His main error is simply the common mistake of using the term "subcontinent" to link the much more bowler-friendly pitches of Sri Lanka with those in Pakistan and India.

It is a silly argument because not every other side has had Warne and McGrath.. It would make more sense to take these numbers a couple of years from now and then compare...

 

[pasag]

Look in yer own backyard Punter. Aside from the odd exception pitches in Aus, India, WI and Engand are all equally piss poor.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah but,

"Yeah but, they were worse!" just doesn't cut it as an argument. Ricky was just making a point about "subcontinent" pitches.

yeah but he is basically telling "subcontinent is worse than us".. So in this instance, I think "oh! But they are worse!!" is totally applicable...

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, those are all perfectly valid points, but they don't refute what Ponting is saying. He's saying that, in comparison to Australian pitches, subcontinental pitches don't produce enough results. And whether it's the fault of the ground staff or the fault of the players, they do produce significantly less results, so it's a pretty fair point to make if that's his opinion.

Certainly nothing to warrant the **** being thrown at him here in any case.

Why do draws indicate flat pitches all the time though? And results indicate good pitches? It depends on the quality of the players. And the reason why there are so many draws in the subcontinent is because the players from outside find it very very difficult to force the pace on such tracks and it is easier to play out time on slow and low surfaces than on hard and fast ones... Doesn't mean every track in the world has to be "hard and fast"... The other thing is, even when they get in to winning positions, most teams can't close the games out against home subcontinent teams coz again, we are so much more used to playing on these tracks and it is easier for us to survive...


If he started thinking why his batsmen can't score as quickly in the subcontinent as they do elsewhere (now that the golden generation is gone), he will probably reach somewhere... Till then, crying about "they produce more draws" is juz stupid. The pitches in India are juz as good/bad as the ones in Australia and the results stats only shows the levels of the teams that have played there...

 

[honestbharani]

Ish. Two results in a 4-match series isn't ideal from the perspective of what's good for test cricket.

It might be the quality of the players or their ability to play on the tracks, but whatever you want to blame, it's surely not good for test cricket. I can say that comfortably, because I don't particularly care which side wins, but Ponting has vested interests that mean he can't really get away with making such a point. And there aren't many neutrals around in cricket, so not many people can.

why don't we include stats from BD home games, btw? I believe it is almost 100% results there.. Surely, the wickets there are the best and not even the mighty Aussies led by the awesome Punter can do that well... So obviously, they are no good compared to BD..

 

[honestbharani]

Ish. Two results in a 4-match series isn't ideal from the perspective of what's good for test cricket.

It might be the quality of the players or their ability to play on the tracks, but whatever you want to blame, it's surely not good for test cricket. I can say that comfortably, because I don't particularly care which side wins, but Ponting has vested interests that mean he can't really get away with making such a point. And there aren't many neutrals around in cricket, so not many people can.

If your gripe is that just about every game of test cricket SHOULD produce a win/loss, start giving out Ws and Ls on first innings lead and just about every other way that occurs to you. A draw is a result too in that either the teams are extremely well balanced and one is not better than the other in the conditions given OR a team is slightly better than the other but not good enough to close out the COMPLETE win.

 

[honestbharani]

I didn't go that far into it. It's each team at home, against all bar B/Z. Anyway, your suggestion is a bit of a stretch. Are you saying that because teams play in similar conditions that they'll automatically cancel each other out and that has little to do with flat pitches? I suggest you look at series of Australia vs S.Africa.

This is not really a debatable point. Subcontinental pitches are not as conducive to results, with respect to other countries. Only Sri Lanka has a somewhat low % in draws.

no, include BD in the stats for subcontinent.. then we will talk..

 

[Athlai]

Edited to seperate NZ and Australia

2000s
Asia: 80 results - 38 draws - 32% end in draws
Australia: 43 results - 9 draws - 17%
New Zealand 25 results - 12 draws 32%
Americas 26 results - 19 draws - 42%
Europe 48 results - 16 draws - 25%
Africa 39 results - 7 draws - 15%

Since 2005

Asia: 33 results - 21 draws - 39%
Europe: 22 results - 11 draws- 33%
Americas: 10 results - 10 draws - 50%
Australia: 22 results - 3 draws - 12%
New Zealand 13 results - 8 draws- 38%
Africa: 21 results - 2 draws - 9%

Since 2008

Asia: 14 results 8 draws - 36%
Australia: 8 results 2 draws - 20%
New Zealand: 8 results 5 draws - 38%
Americas: 5 results 5 draws - 50%
Europe: 10 results 4 draws - 29%
Africa: 5 results 0 draws - 0%

If anyone thought that would give Australia more draws than India they were sorely mistaken. NZ seems to have a fair few draws possibly due to a mixture of the roads of Napier and Auckland and the weather factor.

 

[honestbharani]

Ack, the fact that it's always been the case doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

The fact that it hasn't caused whatever "results" that were expected means it doesn't really need to be changed. What needs to be changed is some people's attitude towards cricket in the subcontinent...