The wet wicket performance eye opener

[Vijay.Sharma]

Eliciting some thoughts from some of our senior citizens here on this piuece which I shared on rsc some time ago...

This came truly as a surprise...I was watching the Legends of Cricket video on cricinfo about George Headley. At one point in the video some of the interviewees spoke about Bradman's inability to play on wet wickets. I googled for more info and read an article containing this passage..

/--The performance of both batsmen on wet wickets is well worth noting. Ray Robinson compares Headley's scores on wet wickets in 13 innings between 1933 and 1939 to Bradman's scores in 15 innings under similar conditions for the same period. Bradman's average was 16.66, Headley's 39.85! Hence the observation by Neville Cardus, "that Headley has good claims to be considered on all wickets the finest of the inter-war batsmen."--/.

It seems that while Headley had 7 scores of 50+ in 13 innings, Bradman had just 1 from 15 innings on sticky dogs. I also came across this peace at
Bradman Scrapbooks, vol. 31, p. 15 since its an image I cannot copy-paste the text. But here, Cardus seems to have come down pretty heavily on Bradman's inability to play on wet wickets. Whatdya guys think...is Cardus' assessment fair or was it more of a Pom finding something against an Aussie?

In any case how many innings would a batsman have played on wet wickets those days. The way people refer to wet wickets it gives the impression they would've played at least 50% of their innings on sticky dogs. From a quick look at Headley's stats he played around 10% of his innings on wet wickets and he played a lot on the English county circuit. Is that a fair proportion to consider or is it too many or too less?

 

[Hurricane]

Good topic. I don't know any answers but have my own questions on this topic. Specifically - I play all my cricket on uncovered wickets. About once a season possibly twice it will be a wet wicket - if it is too wet it will be called off. I have never played on a sticky wicket though. One day conditions were perfect for it but the ball didn't do anything special - have any members played on a sticky wicket?

 

[zaremba]

From what I understand the wicket when wet begins completely lifeless and then after drying for a while it suddenly it starts to misbehave dramatically. I think this is when the top layer dries but it's still wet underneath, and the ball just goes through the top. Or something. Would be glad of enlightenment from anyone in the know.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

From what I understand the wicket when wet begins completely lifeless and then after drying for a while it suddenly it starts to misbehave dramatically. I think this is when the top layer dries but it's still wet underneath, and the ball just goes through the top. Or something. Would be glad of enlightenment from anyone in the know.

I've experienced the same as well. I think the behavior becomes totally erratic when the pitch dries very quickly.

In India...generally the southern part of the country...we have these summer showers which are passing heavy showers just before the monsoon sets in. A black cloud comes from nowhere and pours down for about 15 minutes and disappears as if it never came. Immediately the blue sky and sun comes out. In such conditions the pitch dries off very quickly but it leaves with some tiny mud blocks clumping together (almost like a small rock...but the moment u touch them they will wither away). When the ball hits such spots it tends to bounce a lot more.

The problem becomes even more when you play on matting wickets...sometimes these mud blocks form on the surface of the mat and they make it behave badly.

All in all the difficulty is not as much as it is made out to be...u know the "o they played on wet wickets" kinda thing. But that's just my experience in grade cricket and club cricket in India. Dunno how it behaves in England or Australia though

 

[Indusriver]

pakistan has the most batting friendly wickets

 

[sumantra]

Eliciting some thoughts from some of our senior citizens here on this piuece which I shared on rsc some time ago...



In any case how many innings would a batsman have played on wet wickets those days. The way people refer to wet wickets it gives the impression they would've played at least 50% of their innings on sticky dogs. From a quick look at Headley's stats he played around 10% of his innings on wet wickets and he played a lot on the English county circuit. Is that a fair proportion to consider or is it too many or too less?

sachin tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time, and that is the the thing that mr. sharma has gone on to prove in his life...and he has a PHD on that...just that the research work already takes into account that fact that tendulkar is the greatest and then sets out to prove it...this wet wicket thing is something that he has to demean, cos he can't otherwise mathematically judge sachin and bradman or hammon in the same circle...he doesn't yet have the clue how to judge a century scored in the similar circumstances in 1930 and in 2010...not only wet pitches...120 overs a day, poor quality of bats, front foot bowling rule, 8 bowl a over, no helmets and so on and so forth...but he has to prove his point...what else can he do!!!

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Quit harping on about it.

 

[sumantra]

Quit harping on about it.

yes i should

 

[sumantra]

Quit harping on about it.

yes, i should wub:

 

[Neil Pickup]

sachin tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time, and that is the the thing that mr. sharma has gone on to prove in his life...and he has a PHD on that...just that the research work already takes into account that fact that tendulkar is the greatest and then sets out to prove it...this wet wicket thing is something that he has to demean, cos he can't otherwise mathematically judge sachin and bradman or hammon in the same circle...he doesn't yet have the clue how to judge a century scored in the similar circumstances in 1930 and in 2010...not only wet pitches...120 overs a day, poor quality of bats, front foot bowling rule, 8 bowl a over, no helmets and so on and so forth...but he has to prove his point...what else can he do!!!

Cut it out. This is your civil warning. The next one contains infraction points.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

From my limited understanding of the great game's history, George Headley and Jack Hobbs were universally regarded as the best bad pitch players.

I am not sure technically what qualifies as a 'sticky wicket' though. Is it something exclusive to damp pitches (a few England, New Zealand sorts)?

Similar to what Vijay Sharma explained, the only experience I have of what could possibly qualify as a wet patch is when a torrential spell of rain occurs on an uncovered matting wickets. Chunks of mud sorta get stuck between the cross-threads of the mat and some deliveries behave very differently. Regular pitches (esp. when covered well) should not have issues.

We had a peculiar problem in my club (around the mid noughties) because two different kinds of soils were mixed to prepare the pitch area. The local black soil was extremely sticky and retains water longer than the loose-grained foreign one it was mixed with. That created a situation where once the sun beats down on a rain-affected strip, deep long cracks could form. There would be soggy areas and firm areas on the same pitch (at different lengths) and playing spinners in particular could be nightmarish.

Not sure if a 'sticky dog' is a right description for it though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Australian wet wickets were/are also notoriously worse than the English ones, the drying out part happened a lot quicker so the period where the ball skids onto the bat nicely barely exists. It's also why you will play on pitches in club cricket in England that you wouldn't play on for two weeks in Aus.

 

[The Sean]

Hobbs and Trumper were always seen as all-wicket masters, able to make runs in seemingly "impossible" conditions. Picking an all-time XI on stickies they'd probably be among my first two picked.

It's a bit of a strange one, Bradman's record on stickies, and has been raised more than once down the years. RC Robertson-Glasgow contended that Bradman had the ability to make big runs on bad wickets, it just so happened that when the few opportunities came, he failed to do so - as opposed to a particular inability to bat in such conditions.

Frank Woolley actually once chose a world XI without Bradman, arguing that it might rain. Ray Robinson, in response, said he'd pick Bradman and take a chance on the weather.

 

[centurymaker]

Hobbs and Trumper were always seen as all-wicket masters, able to make runs in seemingly "impossible" conditions. Picking an all-time XI on stickies they'd probably be among my first two picked.

It's a bit of a strange one, Bradman's record on stickies, and has been raised more than once down the years. RC Robertson-Glasgow contended that Bradman had the ability to make big runs on bad wickets, it just so happened that when the few opportunities came, he failed to do so - as opposed to a particular inability to bat in such conditions.

Frank Woolley actually once chose a world XI without Bradman, arguing that it might rain. Ray Robinson, in response, said he'd pick Bradman and take a chance on the weather.

no one is perfect.

 

[Goughy]

The thing about Bradman averaging far less on sticky wickets is one thing, another thing is that it makes his average on normal wickets even more insane.

Regarding a 'sticky wicket', I can only think of one genuine sticky that I have played on. A university game and this guy was turning it a yard. I couldnt lay bat on ball. Very tough to bat on. I dont think I lasted too long.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Poo on stickies, couldn't play short-pitched pace; bloke was a hack, wasn't he?

 

[JBMAC]

I dp recall Bradman on one occasion reversing his batting order, bringing himself in at about 6th drop, because of a wet wicket. Ashes Test maybe? Do recall he scored over 200. Reason...wicket was wet and sticky

 

[G.I.Joe]

I thought he did so because he wanted to give the teams best batsman the best chances of survival?

 

[Ruckus]

I dp recall Bradman on one occasion reversing his batting order, bringing himself in at about 6th drop, because of a wet wicket. Ashes Test maybe? Do recall he scored over 200. Reason...wicket was wet and sticky

Must be this match:

HowSTAT! Match Scorecard

 

[Days of Grace]

Supposed to be Bradman's best innings.