"Doctored" pitches

[SquidAU]

The full list of the England debutants:

542 N Hussain v West Indies Kingston 1989/90
543 AJ Stewart v West Indies Kingston 1989/90
544 CC Lewis v New Zealand Birmingham 1990
545 JE Morris v India Lord's 1990
546 NF Williams v India The Oval 1990
547 PCR Tufnell v Australia Melbourne 1990/91
548 GA Hick v West Indies Leeds 1991
549 MR Ramprakash v West Indies Leeds 1991
550 SL Watkin v West Indies Leeds 1991
551 RK Illingworth v West Indies Nottingham 1991
552 H Morris v West Indies Birmingham 1991
553 DA Reeve v New Zealand Christchurch 1991/92
554 IDK Salisbury v Pakistan Lord's 1992
555 TA Munton v Pakistan Manchester 1992
556 NA Mallender v Pakistan Leeds 1992
557 JP Taylor v India Kolkata 1992/93
558 RJ Blakey v India Chennai 1992/93
559 AR Caddick v Australia Manchester 1993
560 PM Such v Australia Manchester 1993
561 MC Ilott v Australia Nottingham 1993
562 MN Lathwell v Australia Nottingham 1993
563 MJ McCague v Australia Nottingham 1993
564 GP Thorpe v Australia Nottingham 1993
565 MP Bicknell v Australia Leeds 1993
566 SJ Rhodes v New Zealand Nottingham 1994
567 C White v New Zealand Nottingham 1994
568 D Gough v New Zealand Manchester 1994
569 JP Crawley v South Africa Lord's 1994
570 JE Benjamin v South Africa The Oval 1994
571 PJ Martin v West Indies Leeds 1995
572 DG Cork v West Indies Lord's 1995
573 JER Gallian v West Indies Birmingham 1995
574 NV Knight v West Indies Manchester 1995
575 M Watkinson v West Indies Manchester 1995
576 AP Wells v West Indies The Oval 1995
577 RC Irani v India Birmingham 1996
578 AD Mullally v India Birmingham 1996
579 MM Patel v India Birmingham 1996
580 MA Ealham v India Nottingham 1996
581 SJE Brown v Pakistan Lord's 1996
582 RDB Croft v Pakistan The Oval 1996
583 CEW Silverwood v Zimbabwe Bulawayo 1996/97
584 MA Butcher v Australia Birmingham 1997
585 DW Headley v Australia Manchester 1997
586 AM Smith v Australia Leeds 1997
587 AJ Hollioake v Australia Nottingham 1997
588 BC Hollioake v Australia Nottingham 1997
589 SP James v South Africa Lord's 1998
590 AF Giles v South Africa Manchester 1998
591 A Flintoff v South Africa Nottingham 1998
592 AJ Tudor v Australia Perth 1998/99
593 WK Hegg v Australia Melbourne 1998/99
594 A Habib v New Zealand Birmingham 1999
595 CMW Read v New Zealand Birmingham 1999
596 ESH Giddins v New Zealand The Oval 1999
597 DL Maddy v New Zealand The Oval 1999
598 CJ Adams v South Africa Johannesburg 1999/00
599 GM Hamilton v South Africa Johannesburg 1999/00
600 MP Vaughan v South Africa Johannesburg 1999/00
601 CP Schofield v Zimbabwe Lord's 2000
602 MJ Hoggard v West Indies Lord's 2000
603 ME Trescothick v West Indies Manchester 2000
604 RJ Sidebottom v Pakistan Lord's 2001
605 IJ Ward v Pakistan Lord's 2001
606 U Afzaal v Australia Birmingham 2001
607 J Ormond v Australia The Oval 2001
608 RKJ Dawson v India Chandigarh 2001/02
609 JS Foster v India Chandigarh 2001/02
610 SP Jones v India Lord's 2002
611 SJ Harmison v India Nottingham 2002
612 RWT Key v India Nottingham 2002
613 JM Anderson v Zimbabwe Lord's 2003
614 A McGrath v Zimbabwe Lord's 2003
615 RL Johnson v Zimbabwe Chester-le-Street 2003
616 RJ Kirtley v South Africa Nottingham 2003
617 ET Smith v South Africa Nottingham 2003
618 Kabir Ali v South Africa Leeds 2003
619 GJ Batty v Bangladesh Dhaka 2003/04
620 R Clarke v Bangladesh Dhaka 2003/04
621 MJ Saggers v Bangladesh Chittagong 2003/04
622 PD Collingwood v Sri Lanka Galle 2003/04

A good team is a settled team, and the figures back that up. [/B][/QUOTE]

It looks as if they blooded 2 new players every test match in that list.......thats really strange, like what Australia did with Ricky Ponting and Stuart Law, give them one test together and see how each one goes, and drop theone that makes less runs/tkaes less wickets!

 

[Richard]

So, like to provide some evidence to the contrary?
The most commonly used evidence is that Croft has been totally ineffectual on pitches nothing like the dreambowls Laker and those of his time benefited from.

 

[Swervy]

So, like to provide some evidence to the contrary?
The most commonly used evidence is that Croft has been totally ineffectual on pitches nothing like the dreambowls Laker and those of his time benefited from.

Its not for me to provide evidence that Laker was streets ahead of Giles and Croft, its you who has come up with such an outlandish suggestion.

the fact is Laker was streets ahead of every other off spinner in the world in his prime...can the same be said of Giles and Croft

 

[Richard]

The substandardness of many doesn't make one any better. Lock (who was also a fingerspinner, left-arm or right-arm it doesn't matter) was almost as good as Laker anyway.
It is for you to provide evidence that Laker is any better than Croft, Giles, Harbhajan Singh or Saqlain Mushtaq - because I have already stated that their records in favourable conditions rival his, in order to dispel the notion that it is an "outlandish suggestion".
Therefore, come-up with something to the contrary if you can. The most common tactic, btw, is to bluster on that conditions back then didn't help the spinners as much as everyone thinks. Well, Richie or anyone else will tell you, they certainly did. And check-out some photos and video-footage if you don't believe me. It was frightening how little spin you needed to turn the ball on many wickets back then.

 

[Swervy]

to be honest i cant be that arsed arguing such a ridiculous point...you are in effect completely down grading the ability/skill of one of the great legends of the game...to compare Croft to Laker is like comparing Ganguly(to pluck a name out at random) to Bradman. as I say...cant be arsed

 

[Richard]

Total rubbish.
I am not saying Laker was any less good.
I have never, ever disputed that Laker bowled fingerspin about as well as you can bowl it.
However, the rewards in his day were much greater than those on offer today.
Because of that, people come to the misleading conclusion that fingerspinners aren't as good as they used to be.
If you ask me, the like of Emburey and Croft and Giles, who are the best of the best nowadays, are every bit as good as the best of yesteryear - judged by their figures in conditions which are comparable. Not to mention the fact that it seems a little bit too much of a coincidence that fingerspinners could have suddenly become less good at exactly the time that conditions started to help them less.
If you can't be arsed, I'm afraid that simply indicates you've run out of options. As does your futile comparison of comparing Ganguly to Bradman. We know for a fact that batting was actually much harder in Bradman's day. Far from the gap in likely meaning of averages getting smaller, for batsmen it gets bigger.

 

[Swervy]

we know batting was harder in Bradmans day....so we will forget the huge scores posted around the world in those days.

australias average runs per wicket taken in the 30's was 36.9
england was 37.3 runs per wicket
8 of the the top 50 test scores by individuals occured in the 30's (not only by Bradman) in a time when only a very small percentage of the total number of tests that have been played throughout history were played...loads of the highest scores by teams in tests were made in the late 20's early 30's.....the 20's and 30's are known for the huge scoring that occurred...due to advancements in pitch preparation(it was general policy to not allow the bowler anything when it came to the preparing of a pitch), rule changes such as the LBW rule more in favour of the batsman and in fact I beleive they even reduced the width of the stumps to increase the advantage to the batsman...so what are you on about....i think it is you who is talking total rubbish.

the reason finger spinners arent as good as they used to be is because not so many people are going for that as a skill, because pitches arent suited to it...now with the complete lack of any decent wrist spinners in England, the next best choice is a finger spinner (that is if you feel the need to have a spinner in your team).......finger spinning way back when was considered a huge part of a teams weaponary, coz the pitches suited it....so it was more fashionable to go for that as a kid...it was coached more intensively, and competition for places as an ordothox off spinner was huge.

there is no competition in this country with which player like Croft and Giles etc are pushed to improve, coz they know they can get into the team, or be close to selection by being rather average.

The reason players like Laker and Lock were so good, was beacuse they didnt rest on their laurels, they knew that there was always someone below them ready to take their place...yes the pitches helped, but laker exploited the condition s in a way that it would be impossible for us to imagine Croft ever doing.

Just going back to you mentioning Emburey..did you see him play..if so, you would know he only rolled the ball out of his fingers...apparently laker ripped the ball out of his fingers, so much so he tore the skin on his spinning finger a number of times and suffered from arthritis in that finger. laker by all accounts would spin the ball on ice

 

[Richard]

Sorry to shatter your illusion, but the human hand is simply not formed to make it possible to spin the ball more than is possible.
Laker may have tried more (indeed, there is evidence, like the stuff you named, that he did), but he did not spin the ball any more than Croft or Emburey, believe me. You just need to watch footage of them bowling in Sri Lanka and India respectively. No, I only saw Emburey bowl live once (40 yrs old) but so what? I still know he was very good by a fingerspinner's standards.
A better option than a fingerspinner, btw, would be a seamer, if there are no decent wristspinners. A seamer is always a better option in Engand than a fingerspinner.
None of the fact that fingerspin bowling was done more makes it possible that people could bowl it better now than they used to. In fact, quick, easy study of the amount typical fingerspinners turn it shows exactly that.
The fact that scoring was intense in small periods in the '30s was, if you ask me, simply due to the fact that batsmen were better then than now - because it is not up for dispute, frankly, that pitch conditions back then were generally woeful compared to now. OK, you get examples (eg The Oval '38) of pitches being as good as the best you'll find today. But they're much rarer.
There is no doubting that advances were made in pitch preparation around about 1930 (as there had been around 1900 and there would be again in 1970), but still many pitches were woeful compared to today. "Offering nothing to the bowler" meant different now than it did then, believe me.
The rule change in the lbw law in the '20s in fact made it easier for the bowlers, because for the decision not-out to be made the batsman had to be playing a shot at a delivery which hit him outside the line of off-stump. I do remember something about stumps being narrowed sometime, but I can't remember exactly - if anyone else can, please elaborate.
However, anyone who has studied the matter will come to the conclusion that batting was generally much, much harder in the 1930s than it is now.

 

[Swervy]

go study a video of Emburey then..you will see that he barely gave the ball any turn from the finger at all

 

[Richard]

He mightn't have appeared to spin the ball that much on many, many deliveries (he bowled plenty in his career) but on the India tour in 1991\92 (when he wasn't bowling at Sidhu) he turned the ball sharply - far more, on occasions, than Tufnell or even Salisbury.
And people said there were occasions, when he visited Wantage Road, when he turned it square.

 

[Swervy]

Laker has been described as a bowler who made the ball audibly fizz as it came down the pitch...i certainly havent heard anyone describe Emburey in such terms thats for sure.

 

[Richard]

Yes - ever heard of exaggerations?
I thought a guy who was bowling about 20 mph quicker than everyone else in an U13\14 game was making it whirr through the air - but my Dad didn't. Because I was playing in the game, he wasn't.
Often, people make exaggerations to suit their style.

 

[Swervy]

Yes - ever heard of exaggerations?
I thought a guy who was bowling about 20 mph quicker than everyone else in an U13\14 game was making it whirr through the air - but my Dad didn't. Because I was playing in the game, he wasn't.
Often, people make exaggerations to suit their style.

or maybe to suit your argument

 

[Richard]

No, in this case the exaggeration doesn't suit my argument.
Fortunately, because it's only an exaggeration, that doesn't matter.

 

[prithvi]

So, like to provide some evidence to the contrary?
The most commonly used evidence is that Croft has been totally ineffectual on pitches nothing like the dreambowls Laker and those of his time benefited from.

only 1 question - do they put fear in a batman, irrespective of the pitch? i dont think so, and to count as one of the best in the business now, i think that would have to count. and croft doesnt even hold down a regular place in the eng side.

 

[Swervy]

only 1 question - do they put fear in a batman, irrespective of the pitch? i dont think so, and to count as one of the best in the business now, i think that would have to count. and croft doesnt even hold down a regular place in the eng side.

quite true.

I think if England had a spinner like laker (and Lock), the entire bowling attack would be based around spin....there is no way any spinner in England today is good enough to have an entire attack built around him.

I would hazard a guess (and yes I never saw Laker bowl, I can only go from people who played with or against him) that test pitches in england might be prepared more for the spinner than it is now

 

[Richard]

only 1 question - do they put fear in a batman, irrespective of the pitch? i dont think so, and to count as one of the best in the business now, i think that would have to count. and croft doesnt even hold down a regular place in the eng side.

My point is that Laker would not have put fear in the batsman irrespective of the pitch if spin-friendly wickets were as uncommon as they are now.
No fingerspinner will ever threaten if the conditions are not spin-friendly, and hence to be the best at fingerspin you don't have to offer a threat regardless of the pitch.

 

[Richard]

quite true.

I think if England had a spinner like laker (and Lock), the entire bowling attack would be based around spin....there is no way any spinner in England today is good enough to have an entire attack built around him.

I would hazard a guess (and yes I never saw Laker bowl, I can only go from people who played with or against him) that test pitches in england might be prepared more for the spinner than it is now

Without a question they were - and of course the fact that they weren't covered exaggerated that.
In my opinion it is beyond question that if pitches helped spin as much now as they did in those days that England's attack would have been based around Giles and Croft for the last 7 or 8 years or so, possibly even a bit longer.

 

[Swervy]

Without a question they were - and of course the fact that they weren't covered exaggerated that.
In my opinion it is beyond question that if pitches helped spin as much now as they did in those days that England's attack would have been based around Giles and Croft for the last 7 or 8 years or so, possibly even a bit longer.

but not with the same level of success as Laker (46 wickets in a series, 19 in a match?????)

 

[Richard]

Probably not (though you never know...) but there are plenty of spinners who were IMO better than Laker (Rhodes, Verity, Lock, Underwood) who didn't either.
Series' of freak brilliance happen sometimes. Eg. Marshall in 1989(?). Marshall was IMO the best pacer ever, certainly of the 1930-2004 period but 39 wickets in a series is still something out of the ordinary.
Not to mention the fact that Terry Alderman twice took over 40 wickets in a series! And both of them, naturally, were in England. Other than that, his career wasn't particularly exceptional. And one of them, almost incredibly, still meant he finished on the losing side.