• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The disparity becomes even bigger. I think you're going to have to back down on this one mate :p
Not at all. The quality of opposition and their ability to play in particular conditions is an enormous factor. That's what home field advantage is. India wins matches in India because they know how to win on these "dead" pitches. They just comprehensively defeated Sri Lanka on such pitches.

West Indies lost the first Test to Australia on, for all intents and purposes, a flat pitch.
 
Last edited:

gwo

U19 Debutant
Yeah but,

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

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But I'm factoring other points that have been brought into discussion:

- why subcontinental batsmen do well on subcontinental pitches
- many foreign batsmen struggle on subcontinental pitches
- why batting averages are so high in Australia and yet results so, apparently, abundant

Which are valid reasons for why two teams, thoroughly accustomed to playing cricket well in particular conditions would naturally produce highscoring matches. As for results in Australia, they did have a pretty decent (best in the world) bowling attack for a long time, which goes a fair way to explaining it perhaps. I don't see subcontinental pitches as any less conducive to results as the majority in the world. And this tends to be proven when non-subcontinental teams play on them.

If you want to talk about dead pitches that kill cricket, look at the West Indies.
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.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
Maybe to do with the quality of bowling on the pitches than the pitches themselves though. That and the ability of batsmen to play certain types of bowling. And the disparity between the type of conditions on the subcontinent and the rest of the world. That is, knowing how to play and win on the subcontinent certainly does not translate to knowing how to do so in South Africa or Australia. And vice versa. Australia doesn't have a stellar record in India, but when they go there, amazingly enough, results tend to happen.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Would be interested to see a more recent timeframe.
Since 01 Jan 2007:

Australia: 2/14 - 14%
England: 33%
India: 7/15 - 47%
NZ: 4/11 - 36%
Pakistan: 3/4 - 75%
S.Africa: 0/12 - 0%
Sri Lanka: 3/11 - 27%
W.Indies: 5/10 - 50%
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
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.
How many of those matches involve Pakistan or India playing another subcontinental side?

Like I said, matches like the First Test between India and Sri Lanka can and will happen occasionally, because the batsmen in both teams are playing in conditions that they're used to.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Frankly I would like to see more bowler friendly conditions in India for the good of Indian cricket and the same around the world for better quality of cricket but here it seems like Ponting is just miffed by the ranking system.

He should either ignore it because without a world championship of Test cricket the ranking, particularly in the kind of scenario that India has got it in is nothing much to bother about. Or, if he is so much bothered by the way the rankings are worked out he should say so explicitly. There is definitely a case for giving a win three times the weight-age over a draw. Its silly to talk of these draws hurting the game.

1 point for draws and three for a win is a much better system and people should insist on it.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Since 01 Jan 2007:

Australia: 2/14 - 14%
England: 33%
India: 7/15 - 47%
NZ: 4/11 - 36%
Pakistan: 3/4 - 75%
S.Africa: 0/12 - 0%
Sri Lanka: 3/11 - 27%
W.Indies: 5/10 - 50%
And now how many of those subcontinental games have involved subcontinental teams exclusively?
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Like I said, matches like the First Test between India and Sri Lanka can and will happen occasionally, because the batsmen in both teams are playing in conditions that they're used to.
Exactly. As highlighted when teams visit the subcontinent.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe to do with the quality of bowling on the pitches than the pitches themselves though. That and the ability of batsmen to play certain types of bowling. And the disparity between the type of conditions on the subcontinent and the rest of the world. That is, knowing how to play and win on the subcontinent certainly does not translate to knowing how to do so in South Africa or Australia. And vice versa. Australia doesn't have a stellar record in India, but when they go there, amazingly enough, results tend to happen.
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.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Draws also depend upon the relative batting and bowling strengths of a side. South Africa and Australia are not just two of the world's best sides but they also have had the best bowling attack in these years. So the matches involving them are bound to be more likely to end in a result. A side like India on the other hand with a fabulous batting side and a weak bowling is always going to have more draws. This cant be helped and in any even it is not in India's interest.

By the way, West Indies and Pakistan have the highest proportion of draws in their home games and South Africa, Australia and Sri Lanka have the fewest. This is for the last six year period excluding Tests involving Bangla desh and Zimbabwe.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
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.
Are Sri Lankan pitches really that much more bowler friendly, or have they just benefitted from having an all time great bowler at his peak for the majority of the decade?
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
And now how many of those subcontinental games have involved subcontinental teams exclusively?
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.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
How many of those matches involve Pakistan or India playing another subcontinental side?

Like I said, matches like the First Test between India and Sri Lanka can and will happen occasionally, because the batsmen in both teams are playing in conditions that they're used to.
Sure, I'll have a look.

Sri Lanka playing in India or Pakistan have drawn 4 games out of 14, or 29% of their games.

Pakistan and India playing one another have drawn 5 games out of 12, or 42% of their games.

Overall you're looking at 9 draws in 26 matches between subcontinental teams in India or Pakistan, or 35% of those games. Which is, incidentally, the exact same proportion of games that are drawn when any other teams play in these countries. No correlation.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Are Sri Lankan pitches really that much more bowler friendly, or have they just benefitted from having an all time great bowler at his peak for the majority of the decade?
Personally, I think so. Last I checked their average-runs-per-wicket was the lowest in the world, lower even than South Africa's, whereas India had the highest in the world.

It's open to debate, but I think that figure is a combination of both. In any case, it's surely enough that the country should be treated as a unique set of conditions rather than being lumped in with Pakistan and India all the time.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
Regarding Australia and South Africa, they obviously have both had better bowling attacks than any subcontinental team for several years. Results tend to be more frequent when you have bowling capable of taking 20 wickets.

As for canceling each other out, of course they don't. But high scoring matches are more likely because batsmen are more capable of countering bowling that may, against teams less familiar, win matches. I'm not saying that pitches aren't flat. I'm West Indian. I know what flat pitches are. I'm saying that Ponting's comments are a bit of a stretch, given that the majority of teams that visit these dead pitches, tend to suffer results one way or another.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
It does not make anysense in comparing draw percentage between teams A and B with those of matches between teams X and Y. That does not prove anything. Thus talking of draws bwtween sub continental teams does not prove anything.

Indian and Pakistani sides may, for example be able to play each other's bowling much more comfortabley and the games between them might. therefore, have a higher proportion of draws. England and Australia may have fewer draws. This does not tell us anything about the relative merits of the wickets.

If we looked at India vs Pakistan in India and then the same two teams in Pakistan then we may be able to draw some conclusion.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe Ponting's got the cause wrong, and it's actually just crap bowling that's resulting in all the draws in India and Pakistan. But ftr I do think he has a legitimate complaint, if he's speaking as someone who wants the best for test cricket. There are far too many draws in those countries, and if we want to address the problem, it's much easier to improve the pitches than it is to improve the bowlers.

Of course, if he's speaking as an Australian batsman, he can have no complaint. At least when Younis Khan went on a rant about a pitch being too flat he scored 300 on it the next day.
 
Last edited:

Dissector

International Debutant
Actually to some extent I agree with Ponting. However I bet if India started preparing more bowler-friendly tracks he and others would start whining about "doctored pitches". Incidentally in the 90's all-results series were quite common in India. You had a 3-0 win over England, 2-1 wins over South Africa and Australia, a 2-0 defeat to South Africa and another 2-1 win against Australia in 2001. In fact you had eight consecutive results in India-Australia games till the washed out game in Madras and then then two results after that. Without rain you would have had 11 consecutive results in India-Australia games in India.

And draws aren't always terrible. A 3 match series with one draw isn't some kind of disaster. Overall in recent years I think India has prepared one road per series on which a result was never likely. Correct that and Indian pitches would be fine. So the problem is much smaller than Ponting seems to think.
 

Top