OK, here's a few pitch descriptions:
Edgbaston: in the last 2 or 3 years it's generally been a batting paradise - easy pace, no seam-movement and no significant turn. One of them started damp so inevitably there was a bit of seam and unevenness early on, one was slightly uneven at unexpected times throughout the match - in other words it was perfect for everything but an England-Australia match where England had their best chance. For at least 6 years prior to these years it was a perfect English wicket; some seam-movement, which lasted for 2 or 3 days, not that much unevenness, and not much turn, though more than most grounds in England (two spinners regularly played for Warks). Hence, given it generally hosted the first Test of a series, it wasn't surprising that it was England's best ground result-wise.
Lord's - another one which recently has produced little but batting paradise. To the credit, there was a little seam-movement early on in both last summer's Tests, but not really enough. In 2002 it was terrible - not a blade of grass in sight. It was at least very good so far as consistency of bounce is concerned. Rarely has a ball turned off the straight for a fingerspinner here in 33 years, even if he spun the ball as much as he could. In years prior to 2002, it was again a good English pitch - very similar to Edgbaston. However, given that it often hosted the second Test of a series, opponents had made use of their Edgbaston experiances and England lost a lot there. Since 2000, when it has hosted a First Test and a Second Test, results have been better.
Trent Bridge - last season it provided the worst wicket I've seen for a long time. From the end of day three it was cracked as a pavement, and sideways and up-and-down movement off the cracks (without even the real need to pitch on the seam) was commonplace. Somehow the match lasted five days. In 2002 it was one of the typical no-seam sights. No turn, again, has been seen here really since 1970.
Headingley - a seam-bowler's paradise. The wicket is almost invariably slow and seaming, often with uneven bounce. Last year it was, like Trent Bridge, so poor as to be unacceptible for Test-cricket. In both games, the toss effectively decided the match (at least the tosses went one to each team). However, the perfect Headingley wickets were seen in 2000 and 2001; both saw sensational English victories, easily the second and third most exciting I've ever seen (Lord's 2000 clearly outstrips everything). Headingley is also, strangely, notoriously a spinner's graveyard. It may seem obvious - spinners do little bowling sometimes - but even Warne has struggled there.
Old Trafford - in 2002 it was typical (and it took matters one year in advance, too - in 2001 it was almost identical) - no seam, no turn. Old Trafford wickets typically offer more turn than all but two places in England (neither Test grounds). However, it hasn't offered much in the last few years. Not much seam has been seen here in recent years, except 1999, when weather severely hampered preparation (and even then the notoriously peverse sun cooked it to perfection just in time for the end of England's innings). Old Trafford wickets are generally very good for lack of uneven bounce.
The Oval - easily the best batting wicket in England, no matter what anyone may say about Taunton - Taunton is misleading because it's too small for a First-Class ground. There has barely been a blade of grass seen since - well, even in the '70s the wickets didn't look much different, though they sometimes offered a little more bounce than they do now. Some people misunderstand them and say they're spin-friendly. Perhaps I have been guilty of the same regarding West Indies. Just because they offer sod-all to seamers doesn't make them spin-friendly. Ian Salisbury did brilliantly in 1999 and 2000 on them, but he's been disappointing in the following 3 seasons. Saqlain has exploited it less than the poor batting that is regularly seen in England (surprisingly not so much from 2001 onwards).
In England, people often talk about "when the clouds come over such-and-such ground, the ball often swings". This is really very silly - anywhere, the ball will swing more under overcast skies than it will under blue skies in bright sunshine. Just the same way it swings more at night than at day. However, it is true that the ball swings more in England than anywhere else except New Zealand, a fact exaggerated by the fact that Duke balls - which swing slightly more than the Global-standard Kookaburra - are used in England. In England or New Zealand under overcast skies, any new Duke ball will swing more than a new Duke ball under overcast skies in the subcontinent, Australia or southern Africa. Under clear skies in England, a new Duke ball will swing more than it will in the aforementioned places.
There are, of course, regional variations in the larger countries, but very little in England.
The best conditions for swing-bowling are under overcast skies, at night, in England or New Zealand, with a Duke ball. The worst are probably under clear skies, during the day, in West Indies, with a Kookaburra ball (incidentally, could someone - Liam would be my best bet - tell us what balls are used in West Indies).
English outfields are also generally the best at preserving the condition of a cricket-ball - a Duke will generally last 40 overs while swinging conventionally. A Kookaburra would last about 100, as it lasts about 20 in Australia (hence, a Duke in modern Australia would probably be reversing in the 15th over). That is why Kookaburras aren't used in England - if they were reverse-swing would never be neccessary and no-one would learn to bowl it (not that anywhere near enough bowlers can bowl it anyway), as up to 2002 there was too much seam and uneven bounce in the wickets.
There are many other grounds around The World that I could tell you about, but I think I've done my share, don't you?
