What makes a good test pitch?

[Spark]

Higher physical demands does not make pace bowling better.

"Better" isn't the argument being contested here. What is being argued is that if you bowl 145kmh you have to accept that at any moment you may get one of about three thousand injuries which will rule you out of the rest of the series; this simply isn't the case as a spinner. And so yes, the fact that fast bowling requires you to push your body well beyond what would be called biomechanically sane limits is an argument for it being harder.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

Not at all. Its beyond the point. Fast bowling is more physically demanding. But that alone doesn't make it overall, objectively harder skill to master. What the likes of Ashwin, Mishra, heck even Murali and Warne did in no way resembles what a part-time spinners do. But the perception remains. Spin isnt as physical demanding, therefore it must be easier, therefore we dont want pitches that give spinners an advantage.

What this ignores is that its bloody hard to spin the ball as much as they do. Less demanding physically doesn't automatically make it 'easier'.

 

[harsh.ag]

"Better" isn't the argument being contested here.

Not more difficult either. Just different.

 

[cnerd123]

If all the pitches turned to minefields overnight, I can guarantee you there will still only be a tiny handful of bowlers capable of what Ashwin etc are. Not everyone has the innate ability to be an Elite spinner. But the assumption held is that its easier to be a high quality spinner than fast bowler.

 

[Spark]

If all the pitches turned to minefields overnight, I can guarantee you there will still only be a tiny handful of bowlers capable of what Ashwin etc are. Not everyone has the innate ability to be an Elite spinner. But the assumption held is that its easier to be a high quality spinner than fast bowler.

So what would you say about Clarke 6/9 pitches?

 

[cnerd123]

So what would you say about Clarke 6/9 pitches?

What's wrong with it? Do you think Clarke would continue to average 1.5 runs per wicket had he had a whole career of bowling on pitches like that? You don't think over a larger sample size that Harbhajan and Kumble would end up with better records on those kind of surfaces?

 

[Spark]

What's wrong with it? Do you think Clarke would continue to average 1.5 runs per wicket had he had a whole career of bowling on pitches like that? You don't think over a larger sample size that Harbhajan and Kumble would end up with better records on those kind of surfaces?

No, but is your priority ensuring that bowlers get good figures or actually seeing good cricket? Will expand in a moment.

 

[cnerd123]

No, but is your priority ensuring that bowlers get good figures or actually seeing good cricket? Will expand in a moment.

Obviously seeing good cricket.

I don't see how that is relevant to what we were discussing.

I was making the point that the reason there are so few spinners out there at the highest level who give the ball a massive tweak is because it's bloody hard, just as hard as fast bowling.

The perception of spin being 'easier' than fast bowling, and thus less deserving of helpful pitches, is completely false. Only a small handful of people who posses the innate ability to spin the ball that much, just like how only a small handful of people possess the ability to bowl 140+. To suggest that spin is easier is to suggest that there would be a large number of high-quality spinners going around if the pitches favoured them more. I believe that is completely false. Even if every pitch overnight became a minefield, there would only still be a handful of exceptional bowlers capable of what Ashwin and the like are. It's like if every pitch suddenly favoured quick bowling, there would still be only a small % of individuals capable of bowling past 140.

I don't see what Clarke's 6/9 has to do with this.

 

[Spark]

Obviously seeing good cricket.

I don't see how that is relevant to what we were discussing.

I was making the point that the reason there are so few spinners out there at the highest level who give the ball a massive tweak is because it's bloody hard, just as hard as fast bowling.

The perception of spin being 'easier' than fast bowling, and thus less deserving of helpful pitches, is completely false. Only a small handful of people who posses the innate ability to spin the ball that much, just like how only a small handful of people possess the ability to bowl 140+. To suggest that spin is easier is to suggest that there would be a large number of high-quality spinners going around if the pitches favoured them more. I believe that is completely false. Even if every pitch overnight became a minefield, there would only still be a handful of exceptional bowlers capable of what Ashwin and the like are. It's like if every pitch suddenly favoured quick bowling, there would still be only a small % of individuals capable of bowling past 140.

I don't see what Clarke's 6/9 has to do with this.

I think you have completely misunderstood what actually happens when pitches are excessively helpful for bowlers, which is the root cause of all the later misconceptions here. It's not about the top-line bowlers--the Kumbles and Ashwins etc etc. They can take bags of wickets on pitches with much less assistance--Ashwin has taken plenty of wickets on pitches less helpful than Nagpur, and Anderson doesn't need a greentop to be deadly; that's what makes them top-line bowlers. The problem with excessively bowler-friendly pitches is that they give so much assistance to mediocre bowlers, and because of the discrete "one ball can dismiss a batsman" nature of cricket, what happens on such pitches is that it actually significantly narrows the gap between the really good bowlers and the mediocre bowlers like Clarke, which is why he can rock up and pick up 6/9 simply by bowling fast, loopy darts and allowing the pitch to turn them into unplayable nightmare balls.

This is not a phenomenon unique to pitches with too much turn/uneven bounce. A few years ago we had a serious problem in Australian FC cricket where the average Shield pitch was a bona fide greentop. By your logic, this should have made the really top bowlers--Johnson, Starc, Pattinson--way, way more effective comparatively because they were "better" and hence better placed to exploit the conditions. What instead happened is that we got an entire legion of frankly merely okay medium pacers like Butterworth and Copeland turning out truly absurd figures, consistently averaging around or below 20 despite doing nothing more than strolling up at 125kmh and putting it vaguely on the spot with an upright seam.

So no, if every pitch turned into a minefield overnight, that would not help out genuinely world-class bowlers like Ashwin because they would suddenly be in serious competition with average bowlers for a limited number of wickets, compared to a pitch that merely gives them assistance. Ditto if every pitch became a greentop overnight. Overly bowler-friendly pitchers do not help out good bowlers. They help out mediocre ones, and that is what makes them bad cricket pitches, because they decouple the evolution and result of the actual cricket on display from the quality of the cricket on display, and long-term they lead to **** cricket and **** cricketers. Same obviously goes for overly batsman-friendly pitches.

 

[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.

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.

A few months back on twitter, I saw a fast bowler post his knee all stitched up after knee replacement surgery. Another responded saying he was surprised he took this long to get it done. It's crazy how much physical stress fast bowlers put on their bodies. Have so much respect for them.

 

[cnerd123]

I think you have completely misunderstood what actually happens when pitches are excessively helpful for bowlers, which is the root cause of all the later misconceptions here. It's not about the top-line bowlers--the Kumbles and Ashwins etc etc. They can take bags of wickets on pitches with much less assistance--Ashwin has taken plenty of wickets on pitches less helpful than Nagpur, and Anderson doesn't need a greentop to be deadly; that's what makes them top-line bowlers. The problem with excessively bowler-friendly pitches is that they give so much assistance to mediocre bowlers, and because of the discrete "one ball can dismiss a batsman" nature of cricket, what happens on such pitches is that it actually significantly narrows the gap between the really good bowlers and the mediocre bowlers like Clarke, which is why he can rock up and pick up 6/9 simply by bowling fast, loopy darts and allowing the pitch to turn them into unplayable nightmare balls.

This is not a phenomenon unique to pitches with too much turn/uneven bounce. A few years ago we had a serious problem in Australian FC cricket where the average Shield pitch was a bona fide greentop. By your logic, this should have made the really top bowlers--Johnson, Starc, Pattinson--way, way more effective comparatively because they were "better" and hence better placed to exploit the conditions. What instead happened is that we got an entire legion of frankly merely okay medium pacers like Butterworth and Copeland turning out truly absurd figures, consistently averaging around or below 20 despite doing nothing more than strolling up at 125kmh and putting it vaguely on the spot with an upright seam.

Overly bowler-friendly pitchers do not help out good bowlers. They help out mediocre ones, and that is what makes them bad cricket pitches, because they decouple the evolution and result actual cricket on display from the quality of the cricket on display, and long-term they lead to **** cricket and **** cricketers. Same obviously goes for overly batsman-friendly pitches.

Yea I'm not actually disagreeing with any of this.

What I'm disagreeing with is that albi's initial statement that a pitch is poor if it allows a spinner to bowl short and still be legitimately threatening.

I'm likening a high-rev spinner to a 140 kmph bowler. Both are rare and special skills. If a pitch -like Nagpur- allows a high rev spinner to drop short and still be threatening, then there is nothing wrong with that. If we accept it's a good track if a quick bowler can occasionally bowl short and be threatening, why not the same for a high-rev spinner.

This morphed into the debate where you and albi claimed that spin bowling is easier than fast bowling. I disagreed with this too. I especially don't like comparing part-time spinners to elite, high-rev spinners.

At no point did I disagree with what you've just said though.

 

[Spark]

I'm likening a high-rev spinner to a 140 kmph bowler. Both are rare and special skills. If a pitch -like Nagpur- allows a high rev spinner to drop short and still be threatening, then there is nothing wrong with that. If we accept it's a good track if a quick bowler can occasionally bowl short and be threatening, why not the same for a high-rev spinner.

Because they are fundamentally different disciplines ffs. There is legitimate and serious wicket-taking logic--physical threat to the batsman--in bowling it short for the fast bowlers. Absent special cases like flippers and quick sliders, there is no wicket-taking logic to bowling a half-tracker as a spinner; that's just a **** ball that sometimes gets wickets because of the effects of the other good balls the spinner has bowled, but **** gets wickets is not a phenomenon unique to spin bowlers. There is no equivalence between the two.

 

[cnerd123]

So no, if every pitch turned into a minefield overnight, that would not help out genuinely world-class bowlers like Ashwin because they would suddenly be in serious competition with average bowlers for a limited number of wickets, compared to a pitch that merely gives them assistance

Okay the point I was trying to make was if every cricketer took up bowling spin tomorrow, we would still only see very few bowlers capable of what Ashwin is doing. Because spin bowling is not easy.Just like how very few people can bowl 140, very few people can bowl high-rev spin. I may have articulated it poorly.

 

[Spark]

Okay the point I was trying to make was if every cricketer took up bowling spin tomorrow, we would still only see very few bowlers capable of what Ashwin is doing. Because spin bowling is not easy.Just like how very few people can bowl 140, very few people can bowl high-rev spin. I may have articulated it poorly.

We'd see even fewer because they wouldn't need to. Spin bowling is about a lot more than just being able to spin the ball, but that only matters on pitches which are less helpful. See Lyon, Nathan.

I mean, by making pitches excessively helpful you actually take away completely one of the best things about spin bowling, which is watching a good spin bowler work over a batsman with subtle variations in length and flight and pace to draw them into playing a shot they don't actually want to play. That just goes away if the Jadejas of the world can just give it a rip on a length and turn every third ball into something unplayable.

 

[cnerd123]

Because they are fundamentally different disciplines ffs. There is legitimate and serious wicket-taking logic--physical threat to the batsman--in bowling it short for the fast bowlers. Absent special cases like flippers and quick sliders, there is no wicket-taking logic to bowling a half-tracker as a spinner; that's just a **** ball that sometimes gets wickets because of the effects of the other good balls the spinner has bowled, but **** gets wickets is not a phenomenon unique to spin bowlers. There is no equivalence between the two.

Uneven pitches. Spin it hard, drop it short, some may leap up and some may shoot through. Basically what happened with Mishra and Jadeja's short balls in this game - balls that various people have pointed out as proving the pitch is ****.

 

[Spark]

Uneven pitches. Spin it hard, drop it short, some may leap up and some may shoot through. Basically what happened with Mishra and Jadeja's short balls in this game - balls that various people have pointed out as proving the pitch is ****.

Okay I would agree on its own, because too much uneven bounce is pretty much the one thing that you can't really do an awful lot about as a batsman, and praying and hoping doesn't really make for an interesting contest. I have no problem with significant turn, but uneven bounce throughout a Test is where you have to start to draw the line.

 

[cnerd123]

Okay I would agree, because uneven bounce is pretty much the one thing that you can't really do an awful lot about as a batsman, and praying and hoping doesn't really make for an interesting contest.

Didn't happen every ball. Didn't happen when the quicks bowled. Only happened when spinners giving the ball a real rip operated. With a lot of turn on it, it could occasionally grip and shoot up, or slide though and stay low.

IE; spinners giving the ball genuine turn looked dangerous even when bowling it short.

I think this is good.

 

[Contra]

Why do people not get the fact that regardless of how helpful a pitch is, if you don't have the ability to consistently put the ball in the areas NEEDED to take advantage of the pitch it becomes useless. The reason SA lost, other than their batsmen being largely inexperienced and not having faced true spinning conditions before, is the fact that their bowlers kept bowling full tosses, short wide ones and legside freebies every now and then, something which Ashwin and Jadeja didn't do. This was admitted even by the SA camp.

Saying spinning pitches reduce the gap between good spinners and average spinners is the same as saying a greentop reduces the gap between high quality pacers and your average medium pacer. Automatically assuming that the latter set of bowlers are good enough to consistently pitch the ball up and let it swing or dig it in for steep bounce or w/e the pitch is offering.

Its very simple, the batsmen on BOTH sides played some seriously crap shots for the most part, Rahane was particularly guilty of this, the pitch can't be used as an excuse for getting out to dumbass shots.

 

[Furball]

any pitch where a spinner can drag it halfway down and be legitmately threatening is a poor pitch

Spinners that dragged it down got thrashed. See JP Duminy's 2nd innings figures.

I don't see an issue with the odd ball bouncing inconsistently on day 3.

 

[Spark]

Why do people not get the fact that regardless of how helpful a pitch is, if you don't have the ability to consistently put the ball in the areas NEEDED to take advantage of the pitch it becomes useless. The reason SA lost, other than their batsmen being largely inexperienced and not having faced true spinning conditions before, is the fact that their bowlers kept bowling full tosses, short wide ones and legside freebies every now and then, something which Ashwin and Jadeja didn't do. This was admitted even by the SA camp.

Saying spinning pitches reduce the gap between good spinners and average spinners is the same as saying a greentop reduces the gap between high quality pacers and your average medium pacer. Automatically assuming that the latter set of bowlers are good enough to consistently pitch the ball up and let it swing or dig it in for steep bounce or w/e the pitch is offering.

Its very simple, the batsmen on BOTH sides played some seriously crap shots for the most part, Rahane was particularly guilty of this, the pitch can't be used as an excuse for getting out to dumbass shots.

That is kind of literally what I said...