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

[bunny]

The subcontinet (at least India) was seeing lot many more results in 90s than 2000s. The reason was that we used to prepare spinning wickets then. For some reason, the English, Saffies and Aussies would always crib after losing (saying that we prepare a dustbowl etc).
Ponting, is such a hypocrite that he criticized the Mumbai 2004 pitch after losing.

ICC bought into that and pressurized BCCI.
So, now we produce more batting beauties which tend to produce lesser results.

Get back to the dustbowls, I say.

 

[NasserFan207]

The subcontinet (at least India) was seeing lot many more results in 90s than 2000s. The reason was that we used to prepare spinning wickets then. For some reason, the English, Saffies and Aussies would always crib after losing (saying that we prepare a dustbowl etc).
Ponting, is such a hypocrite that he criticized the Mumbai 2004 pitch after losing.

ICC bought into that and pressurized BCCI.
So, now we produce more batting beauties which tend to produce lesser results.

Get back to the dustbowls, I say.

Pitches don't have to bounce between extremes. Why can't India produce more pitches which offer a balance between batting and bowling?

That said, I'd sooner they produced dustbowls than the current crop.

 

[Uppercut]

Surely NZ and Australia can't be grouped together?

I'd have said grouping SL and India/Pakistan is just as bad.

Although those stats were all looked at already earlier in the thread

 

[Sir Alex]

He singled out subcontinent...yes. But there is little inference he is merely talking about his own country. In fact, the context suggests the wider 'cricket' involving everybody. That really is kinda obvious.

wide range of cricket? then we ought to check figures in england and west indies as well.. in fact west indies has reputation of producing most run feast boring draws. why he did not touch on that point?

 

[Ikki]

England is fine. WIndies and India have the worst pitches, with regards to getting a result.

 

[Sir Alex]

Ponting makes sense to me but then again I'm not looking for excuses to abuse him.

Read what he has actually said and not what the writer has made up, ask yourself why only 7% of Indians regard test matches as the best form of cricket.

Because perhaps hardly 20% really appreciate cricket? There are several hundred million still struggling for a square meal and the last thing on their mind would be choosing between their favorite form of cricket. Anyways that 7% would outnumber perhaps WI and NZ's population.

 

[Sir Alex]

I don't mind draws as long as they are draws like today's NZ vs Pakistan match. But I do if they are draws like Ahmedabad test or Adelaide test. I dont buy argument test cricket is dying because of draws in subcontinent because one just needs to look up the scorecards in 80s to ascertain that there were much more boredraws back then. Actually that and the 90s was one of the main reasons why Oneday cricket became so popular in india. People were starving for results whether it be loss or win. Then there was Tendulkar.Ponting's claim has merit in the sense that draws are more in subcontinent than other parts perhaps except Wi. but his claim that that is killing cricket is absurd.

 

[aussie]

The subcontinet (at least India) was seeing lot many more results in 90s than 2000s. The reason was that we used to prepare spinning wickets then. For some reason, the English, Saffies and Aussies would always crib after losing (saying that we prepare a dustbowl etc).
Ponting, is such a hypocrite that he criticized the Mumbai 2004 pitch after losing.

ICC bought into that and pressurized BCCI.
So, now we produce more batting beauties which tend to produce lesser results.

Get back to the dustbowls, I say.

Agreed overall. But that Mumbai 04 pitch was a disgrace for test cricket, thas was a minefield that was too bowler friendly haha. You compare that Mumabi 04 pitch to the Mumbai 01 pitch where AUS played on & that was much more even between bat & ball.

 

[Sir Alex]

Agreed overall. But that Mumbai 04 pitch was a disgrace for test cricket, thas was a minefield that was too bowler friendly haha. You compare that Mumabi 04 pitch to the Mumbai 01 pitch where AUS played on & that was much more even between bat & ball.

If that is a disgrace so are NZ pitches of 2003 and every Perth pitch before 2000 eventually calmed it down.

 

[Manee]

No, he is simply trying to hide the fact that a majority of the batsmen from teams outside the subcontinent lack the skill to force the pace on subcontinental tracks... That is why they always play for survival and draws... And to come out criticizing the same then is a bit rich.

That too, certainly. I think we can agree on the fact that he has numerous views which I don't think that he is willing or able to vocalise. To say that batsmen lack the skill to force the pace on subcontinental tracks is an interesting one but I do think that the main issue is the boredom that very slow tracks, which are frequent in the subcontinent and are becoming more frequent worldwide, is the primary concern.

 

[aussie]

If that is a disgrace so are NZ pitches of 2003 and every Perth pitch before 2000 eventually calmed it down.

NZ 03 maybe, although i think historically that how NZ conditions are. Almost like playing on a traditional headingley greentop.

But definately not Perth. West Indies may have smoked AUS alot during during the 70s & 80s, but batsmen have been able to score hundreds in Perth over the years alot. See here

Mumbai 04 was crazy. The new ball the was helping the seamers & turning square on day 1. Thats not common for day 1 wicket. As i said Mumbai 01 vs AUS & even Mumbai 06 vs ENG, although it was raging turner those where far more evenly balanced test wickets.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Just looking at statistics, percentage of draws in different regions is not going to help simply because there is a lot behind the blanket term "draw"

There are different kinds of draws. There is a draw where rain plays foul like the Napier test. Surely you cant blame the pitch for that..NZ were going to win that math easily had it not been for rain.
Then there are draws where 5 days are simply not enough like the 2nd test match between Australia and West Indies...there was a decent battle between bat and ball...just didnt finish within 5 days.
Then there are the draws such as this this and this

This is no contest between bat and ball at all. The matches here would probably not even end on the 8th day.

Bringing Bangladesh into the equation is also unconvincing because there are doubts about Bangladesh's competetiveness at this level..if Sri Lanka and India play in Bangladesh, then we can correctly assess the condition of the pitches there.

So dont just look at the statistics and make your arguments here. You need to look beyond the figures and numbers at most times..

 

[Sanz]

NZ 03 maybe, although i think historically that how NZ conditions are. Almost like playing on a traditional headingley greentop.

It is funny how you make excuses and site conditions for the pitches in NZ yet conveniently ignore the fact that has been mentioned countless times that Mumbai had one of the worst rain fall in 2004 and it rained on the first day of the test match as well. Whole first day was washed out from what I remember.

Note :- I went and looked for the test and I am almost right, only 11 overs bowled on day 1.

 

[aussie]

It is funny how you make excuses and site conditions for the pitches in NZ

Yo where did i make excuses for NZ condtions there?. I used the words "MAYBE" & "I THINK". Which clearly suggest uncertainly on my part.

yet conveniently ignore the fact that has been mentioned countless times that Mumbai had one of the worst rain fall in 2004 and it rained on the first day of the test match as well. Whole first day was washed out from what I remember.

Note :- I went and looked for the test and I am almost right, only 11 overs bowled on day 1.

You putting words into my mouth now or what? haaa. Where did i deny this i know all of this i watched the entire test. That first day rainfall didn't change the pitch from being far more bowler friendly than usual.

Which in comparison to other Mumabi tests i have seen live AUS 2001 & ENG 06, SA 00 (vaguely). Those pitches just where ranging turners, but the batsmen had a chance.

 

[honestbharani]

Yo where did i make excuses for NZ condtions there?. I used the words "MAYBE" & "I THINK". Which clearly suggest uncertainly on my part.




You putting words into my mouth now or what? haaa. Where did i deny this i know all of this i watched the entire test. That first day rainfall didn't change the pitch from being far more bowler friendly than usual.

Which in comparison to other Mumabi tests i have seen live AUS 2001 & ENG 06, SA 00 (vaguely). Those pitches just where ranging turners, but the batsmen had a chance.

Then how the hell did the weather change the NZ pitches in 2003 alone???????

 

[aussie]

Then how the hell did the weather change the NZ pitches in 2003 alone???????

I dont know WTF you are talking about...

 

[Sir Alex]

I dont know WTF you are talking about...

Couldn't you have admitted this a while back and save us the typing?

 

[Sanz]

England is fine. WIndies and India have the worst pitches, with regards to getting a result.

And of Course Windies is part of the Subcontinent.

Let me guess how dubya figured that out ? West Indies must be in the west of India.

 

[Sanz]

Yo where did i make excuses for NZ condtions there?. I used the words "MAYBE" & "I THINK". Which clearly suggest uncertainly on my part.

Bold part is the excuse you are trying to suggest in your mind.

You putting words into my mouth now or what? haaa. Where did i deny this i know all of this i watched the entire test. That first day rainfall didn't change the pitch from being far more bowler friendly than usual.

First Day Rainfal didn't change the pitch ? And you know this because you are a pitch expert or soil expert ?

Which in comparison to other Mumabi tests i have seen live AUS 2001 & ENG 06, SA 00 (vaguely). Those pitches just where ranging turners, but the batsmen had a chance.

Once again you forget to include the heavy rains and continue to bring Mumbai pitch as an example of whatever you are trying to argue.

 

[Furball]

Didn't heavy rains prior to the Mumbai Test in 04 mean that the groundsman had pretty much no time to do any preparation on the wicket whatsoever?