Isn't it Time?

[archie mac]

After watching the scores from the recent India V SL Test match, isn't it time to have a standard drop in pitch for Test match cricket?

A pitch with the following:

Day 1 (weather usually decides swing)

Ist session = speed and bounce and movement for the fast bowlers
2nd sesson= speed a little less bounce and not much movement
3rd session= starting to flatten out

Day 2 & 3

Best for batting

Day 4

pitch breaking up and favouring the spinners

Day 5

low bounce pitch breaking up badly and turning square

This would make it much easier to judge the merits of both batsman and bowlers and stop the shocking flat road pitches

 

[vcs]

The last thing I'd want is for Test cricket conditions to become formulaic and predictable..and that includes wickets. I think there is a place for the odd flatbed along with minefields where matches don't last beyond 3 days.

 

[Shri]

Nah, a standard format of pitch will make the game even more boring. There will be no variety around in different venues in the world. My two cents.

 

[morgieb]

Those sorts of pitches that you suggested archie are boring. Unpredictibility is one of the best things in the game. I don't mind flatbeds, so as long as there's a result. If there's a result 95% of the time, regardless of the pitch, I'll be happy.

 

[Scaly piscine]

They do create result pitches in the sub-continent, so basically you just want more of those.

Bore draws should be penalised by the ICC. The ground itself might actually benefit financially from these 5 day borefests in the short term. That needs to be changed. Because the long term effects for cricket in general are most certainly bad. Good quality Test cricket matches need to be incentivised, even if they sometimes result in a game over in three days and a financial hit for the ground itself.

 

[vcs]

There's an analogy to be made with tennis here.. in the '90s, Wimbledon and some of the quicker courts were dominated by serve-and-volley players with most points ending in 3 shots. In the early 2000s, they decided that the "boring" tennis was bad for the sport and went about slowing down the conditions everywhere (balls, surface). As a result, you have one style of play dominating the tour week in, week out, the art of serve and volley has pretty much died out and the best players today have very ordinary volleying technique.

The point I'm trying to make is that different teams have different strengths and approaches to the game, and prepare wickets accordingly, making it very difficult to win away from home. That is one of the good things about Test cricket which should be encouraged.

But, I agree that grounds should be penalized if they produce wickets that make it a thankless task for bowlers/dangerous for batsmen.

 

[Uppercut]

I like Scaly's idea much better than archie's.

 

[Teja.]

they do create result pitches in the sub-continent, so basically you just want more of those.

Bore draws should be penalised by the icc. The ground itself might actually benefit financially from these 5 day borefests in the short term. That needs to be changed. Because the long term effects for cricket in general are most certainly bad. Good quality test cricket matches need to be incentivised, even if they sometimes result in a game over in three days and a financial hit for the ground itself.

awta

 

[slowfinger]

They do create result pitches in the sub-continent, so basically you just want more of those.

Bore draws should be penalised by the ICC. The ground itself might actually benefit financially from these 5 day borefests in the short term. That needs to be changed. Because the long term effects for cricket in general are most certainly bad. Good quality Test cricket matches need to be incentivised, even if they sometimes result in a game over in three days and a financial hit for the ground itself.

Yesh, some sensical advice.

 

[Furball]

I don't understand why pitches which last the full 5 days are supposedly done at the behest of TV companies - who the hell is going to tune into days 4 or 5 of a Test that patently isn't going to have a result?

 

[pskov]

I don't understand why pitches which last the full 5 days are supposedly done at the behest of TV companies - who the hell is going to tune into days 4 or 5 of a Test that patently isn't going to have a result?

Who is going to tune in to watch days 4 or 5 of a match that finished on day 3?

 

[andyc]

After watching the scores from the recent India V SL Test match, isn't it time to have a standard drop in pitch for Test match cricket?

A pitch with the following:

Day 1 (weather usually decides swing)

Ist session = speed and bounce and movement for the fast bowlers
2nd sesson= speed a little less bounce and not much movement
3rd session= starting to flatten out

Day 2 & 3

Best for batting

Day 4

pitch breaking up and favouring the spinners

Day 5

low bounce pitch breaking up badly and turning square

This would make it much easier to judge the merits of both batsman and bowlers and stop the shocking flat road pitches

No, no, no, no, and no. One of the things that makes Test cricket great is the variability you get between countries and even individual grounds. If every pitch were the same, the home ground advantage would be all but gone and there'd be little point in touring a country in the first place. Besides, we're really only sick of the flat, high scoring pitches because they happen too regularly; if every team were constantly being bowled out for 150 we'd be sick of that too. All we need is a good balance. Flat pitches have their place in terms of testing the skill and mettle of bowlers, but at the same time so do raging seamers and total dustbowls when it comes to testing batsmen.

 

[Furball]

Who is going to tune in to watch days 4 or 5 of a match that finished on day 3?

I'm far more interested in watching a contest where a result is possible than watching a match where a draw is inevitable after 2 days.

 

[Shri]

The only type of result pitch that natural conditions in the sub-continent allow to prepare is a dust bowl. Its difficult to produce green tracks and even then the overhead conditions would never give bowlers movement. The bowlers can only depend on the new ball and reverse swing. When the curators prepare the only possible result pitch in these circumstances(read dustbowls), the pitches are reported by by the match referees. The curator don't take chances that are going to cost them their jobs and go for the safe route and prepare a batting surface. Can't fault them.

 

[social]

Agree with most of the posts here plus Archie's point ignores the fact that drop in pitches, despite the money and technology available to produce them in Oz, are generally all of similar character (slow and low) because the sub-soil has not had years and years to compact

Horrible idea IMO

 

[archie mac]

Agree with most of the posts here plus Archie's point ignores the fact that drop in pitches, despite the money and technology available to produce them in Oz, are generally all of similar character (slow and low) because the sub-soil has not had years and years to compact

Horrible idea IMO

I would like to thank Social and everyone else for the support

I agree that the technology of pitches is not quite ready for my idea, I still think it will happen one day

I also prefer a match over in three days then the joke of 600+ in the first innings of both teams. How can you compare a batsman who plays most of their season in sub.con. to someone who plays most of their season in SA, NZ and England? This year it seems to make averages a joke.

I imagine the negative views in this thread are the same negative View Yallop suffered when he first walked out with his helmet

 

[Jezroy]

Bore draws should be penalised by the ICC.

AWTA - but can't see the ICC doing this because:

A; They don't have the balls
B: What is/isn't a bore draw would then have to be defined
C: If a "bore draw" was defined as a test where first innings weren't completed etc - teams would declare and get the 1st innings out of the way to avoid penalties, making these tests even more of a mockery.

Actually, if you fixed "A", B and C wouldn't be such a big deal...

 

[Jarquis]

Those sorts of pitches that you suggested archie are boring

No. They're not. What would be boring would be every pitch in the world being the same. Regardless of what type of pitch it is.

 

[Jarquis]

As for what constitutes a bore draw. Match aggregates/averages could be used. No?

 

[Furball]

At the same time though, the curator at the SSC has a point.

2 subcontinental sides, plus 2 weak bowling attacks, in the subcontinent is always going to produce a high scoring bore draw.

I'm not defending him, nor am I saying that the bowling attacks should have gotten far more out of the pitch than they did - but there's a case for saying that the bowling attacks made the pitch look worse than it was.

Australian pitches are just as lifeless and flat as subcontinental pitches, yet the reason they aren't universally slated is because Australia have the bowlers to take 20 wickets on Australian decks.