We are not talking about draws per se here.... Draws can also indicate a team's batting being much much stronger than its bowlng and why is that so bad for test cricket again? There have always been times when teams have had stronger batting than stronger bowling.. And I would take 2-0 wins in 4 match series with a couple of high scoring draws any day of the week from my team...
Or to put in another way, he turned his bowling such that he would be more effective away but taking away quite a bit of his effectivveness at home.. He himself has mentioned it in interviews...
Because the aim should be to get results. If you have a very strong batting attack then conditions that are easier for the bowlers should benefit your team than a team with an inferior batting card.
But you can't do that all the time.. The difference between a slow and low track and a sharp raging turner is usually one more day of preparation.. That is all there is... It is very very easy to get it wrong and then get castigated by the same people who are jumping up and down about the draws here...
1 in 4 tracks drawing would make it fine IMO.
Again, you're missing the point. This argument is not limited to Australia and India.
Australian pitches are more than fine, comparatively. England are in the middle. WI and India have just far too many draws.
Why? Are Bangladesh ever going to force a draw? Even on the flattest pitches? Not likely.no, include BD in the stats for subcontinent.. then we will talk..
The same reason why we include when teams take on far weaker teams in their home and show off the records...
Like which teams? The weakest teams by far, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, have been left out. I don't understand your gripe.
What nonsense
I am merely telling when a certain team has a better bowling attack and is facing an inferior batting line up, there is always possibility of results even on the flattest of decks...
u shud know!!!
Yes there are and it is unfortunate. There would have been more if the overall standards around the world had not fallen giving India some wins inspite of not so great an attack.
I already mentioned that this is a legitimate point. Still, bowlers were better in the 90s, pitches were even less flat, and I think this decade actually has less draws. I think that has to do with the approach of modern batsmen as well as the attacking nature of the game as a whole. But with all this, the subcontinent still has a very high draw rate. So I think the bowler's winning matches argument is offset quite a bit, and that the flat-pitch argument is still quite strong.
TBH, that's only because of Sri Lanka. Both Pakistan - whatever little they've played at home - and India have far too many draws IMO.
Most of the pitches over here produce results, it's the weather that puts a stop to this. I can't remember too many Tests in England where games have ground to a draw without the rain's help. Saffa at Lord's last year perhaps.
They did in Sri Lanka and that really shook them up, the whole lot including our super duper stars.
Most of the pitches over here produce results, it's the weather that puts a stop to this. I can't remember too many Tests in England where games have ground to a draw without the rain's help. Saffa at Lord's last year perhaps.
Don't group us in with all of your shambolic pitches