What makes a good test pitch?

[cnerd123]

Exactly.

So you agree being a spinner who spins the ball massively is as rare a talent and as difficult as bowling 140 clicks?

 

[Spark]

So you agree being a spinner who spins the ball massively is as rare a talent and as difficult as bowling 140 clicks?

Again, it's not the amount they can spin the ball under ideal circumstances that determines how "talented" they are. It's their ability to spin whilst maintaining control. There's a qualitative difference between quicks and spinners in this regard.

 

[cnerd123]

Again, it's not the amount they can spin the ball under ideal circumstances that determines how "talented" they are. It's their ability to spin whilst maintaining control. There's a qualitative difference between quicks and spinners in this regard.

Okay let me put it this way:

Being a high rev spinner who can bowl with a degree of control = being a 140 kmph bowler who can bowl with a degree of control

Being able to propel a ball from one end to the other with a high amount of revs = being able to propel the ball from one end to the other at 140 clicks

I suspect you agree with the first but not the second?

 

[Pratters]

Whereas any pitch where a fast bowler can drag it half way down and be legitmately threatening is okay?

No. They are not okay either.

yes because bowling a good bouncer requires athleticism and skill. Any **** can bowl a slow long hop so it shouldn't be rewarded.

If a bowler bowls a long hop because he is ****, its fine. However, if Johnson bowls a short bouncer and it turns into a very low long hop because of the pitch, it's an issue.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah and fast bowlers who can't control their lengths generally get tonked.

Same with spinners.

Exactly.

And there are pitches which widen the margin of error for fast bowlers by being friendly to bounce/seam movement. This was such a pitch for spinners.

 

[Spark]

Okay let me put it this way:

Being a high rev spinner who can bowl with a degree of control = being a 140 kmph bowler who can bowl with a degree of control

Being able to propel a ball from one end to the other with a high amount of revs = being able to propel the ball from one end to the other at 140 clicks

I suspect you agree with the first but not the second?

Sure, but such a spinner would not try and bowl short, which is where I think we all got baffled.

I would still maintain, though, that spinning the ball hard without control is far easier than bowling at 140kmh+, which takes pretty extreme physical capability tbh.

 

[cnerd123]

And there are pitches which widen the margin of error for fast bowlers by being friendly to bounce/seam movement. This was such a pitch for spinners.

I think the assumption everyone works on is that spin bowling is somehow easier than bowling fast.

Therefore, a pitch that gives fast bowlers leeway is considered a 'good' cricket pitch because in provides assistance and encouragement to the practitioners of the 'harder' skill. They would love all pitches to have something in it for the fast bowlers because that keeps them in the game and keeps it interesting.

But a pitch that gives spinners leeway is 'bad' for cricket because spin bowling is supposedly 'easier'. Therefore we need pitches that force spinners to have impeccable control to be successful, because if we allowed them pitches where they can be wayward and still be effective, then that would just break cricket. Since spin is apparently the easier bowling form, such a pitch makes bowling so easy since any **** can just show up and bowl out sides, and no one will ever bowl pace, and cricket will never be the same.

This is flawed.

 

[harsh.ag]

I would still maintain, though, that spinning the ball hard without control is far easier than bowling at 140kmh+, which takes pretty extreme physical capability tbh.

You mean for a regular person. But that's what these people have trained for in their lives. And they have both trained for different things.

 

[Spark]

Spin is the easier bowling form. It's why so many part-time bowlers take it up, because they're too lazy how to bowl fast.

Bowling fast is an absolutely brutal thing to do to your body.

You mean for a regular person. But that's what these people have trained for in their lives. And they have both trained for different things.

Yeah, but what they're training for is control whilst maintaining revs. Not getting more revs on their own.

 

[cnerd123]

I would still maintain, though, that spinning the ball hard without control is far easier than bowling at 140kmh+, which takes pretty extreme physical capability tbh.

Nah, completely disagree.

 

[Spark]

Nah, completely disagree.

How many back stress fractures have spinners ever gotten?

 

[cnerd123]

Spin is the easier bowling form. It's why so many part-time bowlers take it up, because they're too lazy how to bowl fast.

Bowling fast is an absolutely brutal thing to do to your body.



Yeah, but what they're training for is control whilst maintaining revs. Not getting more revs on their own.

The flaw here is classifying what part time spinners do to be the same as what elite spinners do.

No one lumps part time medium pacers with fast bowlers.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, but what they're training for is control whilst maintaining revs. Not getting more revs on their own.

Yeah, and the pacers are training for control whilst maintaining pace too. Not getting pace on its own.

 

[cnerd123]

How many back stress fractures have spinners ever gotten?

How many fast bowlers have ****ed up their shoulders and fingers?

 

[Spark]

The flaw here is classifying what part time spinners do to be the same as what elite spinners do.

No one lumps part time medium pacers with fast bowlers.

I'd absolutely lump in someone like Jadeja with a Trent Copeland tbh.

 

[Spark]

How many fast bowlers have ****ed up their shoulders and fingers?

Uh, a lot?

Come on, are you seriously arguing that there's an equivalence in how often quicks get injured compared to spinners? Look at how many fast bowlers we've had drop like flies over the past four years, and see if you can come up with anything comparable in terms of actual numbers.

 

[harsh.ag]

The flaw here is classifying what part time spinners do to be the same as what elite spinners do.

No one lumps part time medium pacers with fast bowlers.

Yup.

 

[Spark]

Like you can say that spinners have to rely on other, subtler gifts--guile, intelligence, etc--to get their wickets compared to quicks, but to compare the physical demands placed on the body is just silly. They aren't within the same order of magnitude, and it's not like fast bowlers don't gain from those subtler traits too.

 

[harsh.ag]

I'd absolutely lump in someone like Jadeja with a Trent Copeland tbh.

Gtfo

 

[harsh.ag]

Like you can say that spinners have to rely on other, subtler gifts--guile, intelligence, etc--to get their wickets compared to quicks, but to compare the physical demands placed on the body is just silly. They aren't within the same order of magnitude.

Higher physical demands does not make pace bowling better.