• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

'No Doctoring' of the pitch at the Oval

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
A pitch that is tough for Batsmen to bat on is not a bad pitch. When there were 3 scores > 300, I don't understand how it is a bad pitch. Bad pitches would be the ones in Kanpur (2008), Mumbai (2004), all of NZ (2002-03).

Earlier curators were blamed for no-result pitch, now a pitch that promises a result but is not too tough to score on also gets him blamed.
It was a terrible wicket. The ball was taking chunks out of it after tea on the first day. If the teams had had proper bowling attacks with two quality spinners you would have a very short match. In fact if Shane Warne had been playing it would have been a very uneven contest between bat and ball. Though you have to assume that the curator wouldn't have done what he did if Australia still had Warne and McGill.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It was a terrible wicket. The ball was taking chunks out of it after tea on the first day. If the teams had had proper bowling attacks with two quality spinners you would have a very short match. In fact if Shane Warne had been playing it would have been a very uneven contest between bat and ball. Though you have to assume that the curator wouldn't have done what he did if Australia still had Warne and McGill.
Moan moan moan. It brought a result, it was a good pitch.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
Moan moan moan. It brought a result, it was a good pitch.
It's not actually possible for anyone to be thick enough to believe that any wicket that brings a result is automatically a good one, so I'll assume there's an ulterior motive behind that post.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There is. All the whining that goes on after surfaces like these are prepared is the reason there are so many flat pitches and bore draws in test cricket these days. Anything other than rank flatties I'm happy with.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
The fact that groundsman aren't capable of preparing proper wickets that gradually deteriorate within the timespan allowed for the game doesn't make a wicket that falls to pieces on Day One a good one. It might be preferable to one that stays flat for the duration but it's still not a good wicket.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
There is. All the whining that goes on after surfaces like these are prepared is the reason there are so many flat pitches and bore draws in test cricket these days. Anything other than rank flatties I'm happy with.
This. It wasn't an unplayable wicket and if Ponting and Clarke hadn't been run out Australia would have got even closer to 500. Give us results and we wont have talks about test cricket dying out.
 
Last edited:

tooextracool

International Coach
It's always considered to be a 'bad' pitch by players if they cannot trust the bounce on the wicket especially as early as Day 1. I can understand their point, I've batted on pitches where the ball could either die or jump and hit you on the head and it could be potentially dangerous. However, its important to point out that not that many balls misbehaved during that test and that the pitch didn't deteriorate that much over the course of the game. If that meant that they were playing on a day 4 pitch on day 1 and a day 5 pitch on day 2 so be it, with all the protection that batters have these days and with the game already been loaded in favor of the batters, cannot see how this pitch was bad for the game.
 

wpdavid

International Coach
It's always considered to be a 'bad' pitch by players if they cannot trust the bounce on the wicket especially as early as Day 1. I can understand their point, I've batted on pitches where the ball could either die or jump and hit you on the head and it could be potentially dangerous. However, its important to point out that not that many balls misbehaved during that test and that the pitch didn't deteriorate that much over the course of the game. If that meant that they were playing on a day 4 pitch on day 1 and a day 5 pitch on day 2 so be it, with all the protection that batters have these days and with the game already been loaded in favor of the batters, cannot see how this pitch was bad for the game.
Agreed. All the talk about how better bowlers woud have cleaned up ignores the fact that the groundman knew that none of them were playing.
 

Lillian Thomson

International Coach
Agreed. All the talk about how better bowlers woud have cleaned up ignores the fact that the groundman knew that none of them were playing.
I don't know if that was in direct response to my post about how better bowlers would have meant a very short match, or some other discussion. If it's in response to my post I didn't ignore that fact, I said precisely the same thing in the line "Though you have to assume that the curator wouldn't have done what he did if Australia still had Warne and McGill."
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowling teams weren't that bad, they just look like it often when bowling on pitches that give no assistance whatsoever.

Happy with this pitch, and like others here, hope there are more like it in test cricket, rather then the snore-fest anaemic monsters that are becoming commonplace.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well the balls were swinging miles and test matches gt over in 2 or 3 days. Actually in the 1st or second test India got all out for 99 and got a lead :laugh:
There was fair seam movement from what I remember too, which was what got everyone so hot-and-bothered. Seam + largely overcast days = awesome but short Tests.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
Oz lost the 5th test because they lost the toss AND because they picked the wrong attack

IF they had picked the right attack AND lost the toss, the game would've been closer

IF they had picked the right attack AND won the toss, the game would've been a no contest

In other words, it was a crap pitch because the toss decided the result

ECB took a punt, came up trumps and anyone that says differently is simply talking crap
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
160ao lost you the match. Nothing else. No coins, no stars aligning against you, no selectorial decisions. 160ao.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
160ao lost you the match. Nothing else. No coins, no stars aligning against you, no selectorial decisions. 160ao.
Oz were ****ed from the time they exchanged team sheets AND lost the toss

I've been one of Broad's few supporters on this forum but he benefitted from perfect bowling conditions and managed to move the ball for just about the only time in his career

As I said BEFORE lunch on day one, Oz were gone and it was just a matter of time before Eng won the match

The game was a farce but of more concern to Oz's short term future is whether CA regard the series as such or a symptom of a far greater problem
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Oz were ****ed from the time they exchanged team sheets AND lost the toss

I've been one of Broad's few supporters on this forum but he benefitted from perfect bowling conditions and managed to move the ball for just about the only time in his career
Interesting that none of the other England bowlers during that inning and none of the Australian bowlers that bowled thereafter where able to extract that kind of movement then. If you ask me, Broad's spell was about the only time anyone was able to extract any movement all game. There was no one else who looked remotely as good as he looked that spell and the fact that it happened in the 2nd inning rather than the 4th seems to suggest that it has little to do with the toss.
 

social

Hall of Fame Member
Interesting that none of the other England bowlers during that inning and none of the Australian bowlers that bowled thereafter where able to extract that kind of movement then. If you ask me, Broad's spell was about the only time anyone was able to extract any movement all game. There was no one else who looked remotely as good as he looked that spell and the fact that it happened in the 2nd inning rather than the 4th seems to suggest that it has little to do with the toss.
Jeez, pelted down with rain leading to a sweating pitch producing ridiculous sideways movement and uneven bounce = PERFECT BOWLING CONDITIONS

Judging on Broad's career to date, does he look more like a 5/37 bowler or a 1/70 bowler as he produced in the 2nd innings?
 

Top