What to do about tour matches

[Victor Ian]

Time to **** with the home team and send in a second string team to play the tour matches while you go about your own preparation wherever best suits.

I'm of the thinking that when Australia plays subcontinental teams they should warm up with Afghanistan. When they play in England they should warm up with Ireland. That way you will get teams that will be trying. A good preparation for South Africa is the Australian summer so long as they do not prepare pathetic pitches like they have been doing recently. For New Zealand....**** em - don't need a warm up.

 

[SteveNZ]

The issue is that Pakistan intentionally decided not to play a spinner in the XI to deny Australia preparation against spin. I really don't think that part is debatable.

What's more interesting is whether this is a problem or not. I believe Dan and a few others don't think so.

I'm personally with Starfighter - why have tour games at all if they're not for the principle purpose of helping the away team to acclimatise? If we're going be ok with not giving the opposition a spinner to play against, when they're obviously going to play a buttload of it in the tests, on the basis that the away team should have come prepared/look for alternative ways to acclimatise, what's next? Are we then ok with crap teams, alien conditions and what SL did? Maybe even go one big step further and give them poor facilities to train in. Book nets for them that have pitches that are the complete opposite of what they'll face in a match.

I'll admit I can't think of a good solution but I'd hate for cricket as a whole to do down this path.

I'll admit this post completely changed my viewpoint on the matter.

I think we'd all agree being given poor facilities to train in would be an absolute disgrace for a touring side, so we probably can expect that preparation in terms of warm-ups should be exactly the same. Certainly in terms of the pitches offered in warm-ups, you'd expect them to be as encountered on that ground as a rule. And not picking a spinner, now that I think of it, does seem disingenuous. I still think touring teams need to be prepared to be hosted very poorly and to have their own provisions around how they facilitate warm-up fixtures, but there should still be an expectation as a whole - with an edict from the ICC - that the local Board doesn't go out of their way to roll out the red carpet but nor do they roll out a carpet with sticks, stones and valleys under it and expect touring sides to bat on it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And not picking a spinner, now that I think of it, does seem disingenuous.

you think?

 

[SteveNZ]

you think?

Try not to make it too easy to return to my usual 'schtick'.

Yes, I do think - I previously thought **** it, they have no real obligation. But when I thought of it in the context of providing **** practice facilities, yelling outside hotel rooms or setting off alarms to keep players up, generally making life a misery for touring sides...I thought warm-up games fell in the same vicinity.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Try not to make it too easy to return to my usual 'schtick'.

Yes, I do think - I previously thought **** it, they have no real obligation. But when I thought of it in the context of providing **** practice facilities, yelling outside hotel rooms or setting off alarms to keep players up, generally making life a misery for touring sides...I thought warm-up games fell in the same vicinity.

I can't help but be a dick about this because, as Daemon said, it is absolutely not debatable that this was unacceptable, and some of the reactions here have just baffled me

I do give you credit for coming to your senses though

 

[Starfighter]

Maybe even go one big step further and give them poor facilities to train in. Book nets for them that have pitches that are the complete opposite of what they'll face in a match.

I saw it rumoured (by someone on here I think) that SL actually did this. Gave the Australians green pitches in the nets.

 

[SteveNZ]

I can't help but be a dick about this because, as Daemon said, it is absolutely not debatable that this was unacceptable, and some of the reactions here have just baffled me

I do give you credit for coming to your senses though

I'm not trying to be a dick but I guess it is debatable, because there's been a lot of to and fro in this thread. I can see how one side thinks the locals are under no obligation to roll out the welcome mat, and in fact should do the opposite because everyone else does. But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As I said, I now think the touring side should be given ENOUGH opportunity to prepare, which as you'd argue includes getting pitches that somewhat resemble the international decks and warm-up sides that in fact resemble cricket sides.

Just FYI, in case you need material on me in the future if I go back to Captain Anti-Australia mode, I used to put-on an Aussie accent in job interviews when I lived there, and apparently still have it at times.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not trying to be a dick but I guess it is debatable, because there's been a lot of to and fro in this thread. I can see how one side thinks the locals are under no obligation to roll out the welcome mat, and in fact should do the opposite because everyone else does. But that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. As I said, I now think the touring side should be given ENOUGH opportunity to prepare, which as you'd argue includes getting pitches that somewhat resemble the international decks and warm-up sides that in fact resemble cricket sides.

Just FYI, in case you need material on me in the future if I go back to Captain Anti-Australia mode, I used to put-on an Aussie accent in job interviews when I lived there, and apparently still have it at times.

This isn't just about not going out of their way to "roll out the welcome mat", it's going out of their way to provide bad practice. And no, this isn't something that "everyone else does". As far as I'm aware this is almost unprecedented, the only other occasion I'm aware of was Australia's tour to SL in 2016. (Of course it's very possible, and even likely, that similar things may have happened at some stage in the past that I'm unaware of).

This is nothing like having weak teams for tour games because stronger players aren't available. It's deliberate sabotage.

 

[Victor Ian]

I read in the tour thread that Khawaja got out to the spinner. How did he manage this when there is no spinner?

 

[harsh.ag]

I read in the tour thread that Khawaja got out to the spinner. How did he manage this when there is no spinner?

For Khawaja, Pakistan's part time spinners = Ravi Ashwin

 

[morgieb]

For Khawaja, Pakistan's part time spinners = Ravi Ashwin

TBF, didn't said part-timer actually play for Pakistan as an all-rounder?

 

[stephen]

The second coming of Mitch Marsh is a wonderful thing. I hope he carries this form into the tests.

 

[Starfighter]

TBF, didn't said part-timer actually play for Pakistan as an all-rounder?

51 wickets in 56 FC matches is a minimal allrounder at best.

 

[stephen]

51 wickets in 56 FC matches is a minimal allrounder at best.

Yeah it's basically half of Kallis' test output.

 

[Bolo]

It's not debatable that they didn't pick their strongest xi. It's pretty implausible that they didn't try to screw AUS with their picks, but it's definitely worth questioning. Do they have spinners pushing towards the main side? Their quicks are in a state of flux- it definitely makes more sense for them to play more quicks here to test the bench than if their primary goal was to win.

 

[Daemon]

I can't help but be a dick about this because, as Daemon said, it is absolutely not debatable that this was unacceptable, and some of the reactions here have just baffled me

I do give you credit for coming to your senses though

Hold up, that's not what I said lol.

It's not debateable that Pakistan actively tried to deny Australia preparation against spin. The debate is about whether that's acceptable or not. I don't think it is, some others here think otherwise.

I should note that the detractors have since disappeared though.

Once again an emphatic victory for Daemon.

 

[Dan]

I'll admit this post completely changed my viewpoint on the matter.

I think we'd all agree being given poor facilities to train in would be an absolute disgrace for a touring side, so we probably can expect that preparation in terms of warm-ups should be exactly the same. Certainly in terms of the pitches offered in warm-ups, you'd expect them to be as encountered on that ground as a rule. And not picking a spinner, now that I think of it, does seem disingenuous. I still think touring teams need to be prepared to be hosted very poorly and to have their own provisions around how they facilitate warm-up fixtures, but there should still be an expectation as a whole - with an edict from the ICC - that the local Board doesn't go out of their way to roll out the red carpet but nor do they roll out a carpet with sticks, stones and valleys under it and expect touring sides to bat on it.

Eh, I think these hypotheticals are operating at different scales.

Not interfering with travel or team hotels and providing access to adequate training facilities is hitting a really basic level of hosting. I'd say the warm-up match equivalent is ensuring the deck holds together safely for four days and the opposition features eleven professional cricketers, and not making anybody go to Rooty Hill RSLBlacktown International Sports Park ever. Of course that's the expectation.

But if we start mandating levels of quality beyond that, what's the baseline? Taking the Sri Lankan example (because Pakistan here have zero control over the decks), is the minimum expected standard a dustbowl, or just not-greentop? Is it acceptable for them to pick a 17yo FC second string spinner and a batting all-rounder rather than pulling two specialists out of the FC comp, or does it have to be a genuine A side featuring two specialist spinners in decent form? Who judges whether or not the element of hosting meets the required standard?

And how much difference does it really make anyway? Usman Khawaja isn't going to magically improve his ability to face Yasir Shah and Shadab Khan after being dismissed for 3 and 12 by a journeyman FC leggie in a proper FC game any more than he will from belting 212* against an attack of 16yo offies in a 16-per-side two day centre wicket practice. Ultimately successful teams are successful independent of tour matches, bad teams are bad independent of tour matches.

 

[Dan]

None of the things you pose are necessarily better than practice against a decent XI in more or less the correct conditions, they all have problems with resourcing and that's ignoring the fact that, for example, replicated 'away' pitches will behave differently in a different climate, coaching can only do so much, and getting players to play overseas doesn't always yield the desired results, like Pujara this year, and rather concedes the point that practice in the correct conditions against the correct sort of opposition is vital. This also ignores the way the modern game is played, with players playing less FC cricket due to T20 (and central contracting even) and also changes in techniques. One can only play so much cricket, and since only money puts bread on the table most players will forgo the more nuanced things you bring up in favour of leagues, thus making tour matches even more important, and turning out a decent opposition isn't really altruism, it was the standard for 140 years. If you look back to the time when Australia was less fazed by overseas conditions you'll also see top flight players playing more FC cricket, and more tour matches against full strength or nearly full strength sides. If we look back really far, back to when JBMAC was a little tyke or earlier, we can see that Australia could come over from flat, faster wickets to soft damp English ones and actually play themselves in and acclimatise against strong opposition to very alien conditions without having any of the resources you describe, and compete in and sometimes even win test series. We could ask about boards who don't have the resources like WI or NZ, are they supposed to go to the dogs? When experienced ex-players like Rahul Dravid opine that there may be a problem, there may be a problem.
\

I'll try to address each of the points in this gigantic paragraph in turn.

• The idea that meaningful preparation is important has never been in doubt. The debate has surrounded the degree to which the host nation ought to contribute to that preparation. You think they have a moral obligation to actively help the touring team prepare, I don't think they do.
• If modern cricketers are ill-prepared for playing cricket overseas, whether that be through systemic (e.g T20 scheduling) or personal (e.g. technical) failings, IMO that isn't the host nation's problem to fix (and nothing they do for any given team on any given tour can fix it).
• Strong opposition from counties and states (and extended schedules) existed because they made shitloads of money for the county/state boards and made the whole tour worthwhile. I'm honestly surprised that tour games involving full-strength teams held out as long as they did, as money drained out of the domestic game at a scary rate and the only remnants are cornered in white ball cricket. Six month tours and well-attended FC games are dead -- it's an entirely different operating environment.
• The resourcing point is a fair one, and that's where I think the ICC has a role as a governing body to ensure each board is adequately resourced. But that isn't going to help NZ if David White blows all of that cash on the third Sri Lankan ODI tour in as many years instead of running an NZA tour in the off-season, or if the West Indies alienate the three guys who actually can bat overseas.

 

[Daemon]

Not interfering with travel or team hotels and providing access to adequate training facilities is hitting a really basic level of hosting. I'd say the warm-up match equivalent is ensuring the deck holds together safely for four days and the opposition features eleven professional cricketers, and not making anybody go to Rooty Hill RSLBlacktown International Sports Park ever. Of course that's the expectation.

And I think a basic level of hosting a tour game is to provide reasonable opposition in reasonable conditions.

Reasonable does not need to be defined in black and white. We have decades of precedence.

Like I said earlier though, I'm not sure if this needs to be regulated. There are other, arguably better ways to prepare, so if boards like SLCB are going to do this, you have the option to just straight up refuse to play.

As a cricket fan though I'd much rather we see the touring party get a good chance to acclimatize, especially in today's context.

 

[Starfighter]

• The idea that meaningful preparation is important has never been in doubt. The debate has surrounded the degree to which the host nation ought to contribute to that preparation. You think they have a moral obligation to actively help the touring team prepare, I don't think they do

This is the crux of the matter, you think that it's alright for teams to actually go out of their way to sabotage a hosts preparation, and a great proportion of use do not.

The rest of what you say isn't worth addressing, being generally irrelevant to the original premise of the thread or disingenuous in the way you've swung things away from this point.