***Official*** South Africa in India 2015

[Pratters]

I always go back to the Sahara Cup ODIs India and Pakistan played in the 90s. Those games were low scoring games in challenging conditions. Produced some of the best cricket. However, they didn't have inconsistency like this which created so much doubt.

I do like different kind of pitches. However, I stop at ones where you can never really 'settle' yourself. Generally, as one bats on a wicket, one gets set to some extent. One adopts to the bounce, turn, etc. In this, while you could bat for some time if you had certain skills which Elgar and Vijay displayed, you are likely to be sent packing the next ball despite using all your nouse. That's not good enough for me with careers on the line. It's not a village game. We criticise slow pitches which end up leading to really boring draws. So why this double standard when criticising pitches which are at the other end of the spectrum as well.

 

[harsh.ag]

OK, have read different people’s opinions and spoken to some people that actually understand batting at higher level than I do. I’ve come to the following conclusions.

First let me get this out there, a few more runs could have been scored on this pitch. But everybody keeps talking about the spin on the pitch, the fact the pitch spun was not an issue. However it was slow low and inconsistent from practically the first ball bowled. So survival required elements of luck particularly against spin bowlers. Quality batsmen with good technique can cope with consistent bounce, seam, swing and turn. No batsmen, without luck, can survive against inconsistent anything for a long time. This is why you see batsmen getting out playing uncharacteristic and “poor” shots (or no shot) in this first test match, basically because they did not have a “good” shot to play in their mind, due to uncertainty. Thus, what makes the pitch poor was not because it was turning from day one, but because it was inconsistent from the first session of play and it just got worse. Variation from bowlers makes a difference but most of the variation came from the pitch not the bowlers in this match.

Good point. This uncertainty is also, too an extent, a product of inadequate practice for such conditions. Batsmen practice far more for banana swing style inconsistent pitches, by following mantras like "be forward on the third stump and play for the in-swing".

 

[Contra]

Not necessary, but this pitch yes. Look how the Indian batsmen crumbled against the might of Dean Elgars spin. That clearly shows they would have struggled if they had lost the toss even if the Proteas squeaked 250.

Nope, this pitch turned from day one, which if anything is a lot better for SA than to see India bat on a flat deck for 2 days and then having to bat last when it actually does spins.

 

[harsh.ag]

Contra
Winning toss and batted first on certain pitches in Asia, seal the series with proper planning
Probably dose not matter in other than Asia.

India have won 126 tosses in India, and won 45 times.
Australia have won 216 tosses in Australia, and won 126 times.

Go figure.

 

[OverratedSanity]

OK, have read different people’s opinions and spoken to some people that actually understand batting at higher level than I do. I’ve come to the following conclusions.

First let me get this out there, a few more runs could have been scored on this pitch. But everybody keeps talking about the spin on the pitch, the fact the pitch spun was not an issue. However it was slow low and inconsistent from practically the first ball bowled. So survival required elements of luck particularly against spin bowlers. Quality batsmen with good technique can cope with consistent bounce, seam, swing and turn. No batsmen, without luck, can survive against inconsistent anything for a long time. This is why you see batsmen getting out playing uncharacteristic and “poor” shots (or no shot) in this first test match, basically because they did not have a “good” shot to play in their mind, due to uncertainty. Thus, what makes the pitch poor was not because it was turning from day one, but because it was inconsistent from the first session of play and it just got worse. Variation from bowlers makes a difference but most of the variation came from the pitch not the bowlers in this match.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a pitch asked for by the Indian team management, (which I have no problem with) I think the look of sheepishness/relief on Kohli’s face when he won the toss said it all, in that they realized it had been overdone. If he had lost that toss and SA had put 250 on the board, the shoe could very much have been on the other foot! I do not think that the curator wanted to produce this bad a pitch, I think he was asked to produce a turner and went a bit over board, India has not produced this sort of pitch in a long time.

My point though is that the argument seems to be around whether the pitch spinning from day one is bad... not it’s not, just like a green pitch where the ball seams day one is not bad. However day 5 pitches are difficult not because they spin or seam but because they tend to have inconsistent bounce and movement. And a day one pitch should not be comparable to a day 5 pitch.

I did enjoy the match because it was exciting and I always had hope SA could maybe do something special. I am very much looking forward to the next test.

Fair points, although I don't agree that the toss made as much of a difference as is being made out.

 

[honestbharani]

Good point. This uncertainty is also, too an extent, a product of inadequate practice for such conditions. Batsmen practice far more for banana swing style inconsistent pitches, by following mantras like "be forward on the third stump and play for the in-swing".

That is the thing. ON any track, the swing and seam movement is just as inconsistent as the spin in this track was. A seaming pitch does not mean every delivery is going to move the same amount. But batsmen around the world are a lot more used to playing that than varying degrees of spin off the pitch. Which is very basically the lack of cricket skill. If all pitches in the world had consistent pace, bounce, swing, spin and movement, where the hell is the skill in batting? Batting skill has always been about handling these "inconsistencies" in test match cricket.

 

[StephenZA]

That is the thing. ON any track, the swing and seam movement is just as inconsistent as the spin in this track was. A seaming pitch does not mean every delivery is going to move the same amount. But batsmen around the world are a lot more used to playing that than varying degrees of spin off the pitch. Which is very basically the lack of cricket skill. If all pitches in the world had consistent pace, bounce, swing, spin and movement, where the hell is the skill in batting? Batting skill has always been about handling these "inconsistencies" in test match cricket.

I felt I needed to answer this one. Firstly, without being to pedantic, swing is through the air and thus has nothing to do with the pitch itself. In combination with seam it can cause a nightmare for batsmen. The number of bowlers in the world that can swing the ball both ways at speed enough to trouble top quality batsmen can be counted on one hand, it is not an easy skill. Most often the thing that initially gives batsmen from the subcontinent problems in Eng, Aus, SA etc is the bounce off the pitch, where they are not used to a "length" ball still getting to chest height and higher sometimes, similarly most Eng, Aus, SA etc. batsmen struggle initially with the lower bounce of subcontinent pitches. Neither of these is a problem if the bounce is consistent.

Now seam comes from the pitch (and seam on ball, but we won't go there) and can be better analogized to spin. Now a 'green' pitch that allows lots of seam and continues to offer seam throughout will results in a low scoring match, particularly when combined with other things such as bounce or swing it is almost impossible to deal with (ask Philander and McGrath). Having the ball nip both ways unpredictably is not a good thing for an entire test match.
And that is why a dry pitch gets more complaints than a seaming pitch. Because with a seaming pitch the minute the seam gets old and the grass drys a little the pitch becomes flatter and batsmen can get on with it, a pitch that spins from day one does not stop spinning it just gets more erratic. So If you asked me is a seaming pitch that continues to seam and give erratic movement off the pitch for the entire match bad the answer is yes, it was probably left to green and probably has also resulted in dried ball `divets' in the wicket that will enhance dodgy bounce. Thus my comment about the current pitch under discussion.

Finally your comment where is the skill for the batsmen, the best skilled batsmen have the techniques and coordination to deal with all the above conditions to a varying degree. Lots of batsmen only have a limited ability to deal with all the mentioned conditions, hence the difference in skill levels. Adapting from a seaming to spinning to bouncing pitch around the world is not easy. However, no batsmen, no matter how skilled, will survive without luck for a long length of time on an erratic moving/bouncing pitch whether faced with seam bowling or spinning.

 

[marc71178]

India have won 126 tosses in India, and won 45 times.
Australia have won 216 tosses in Australia, and won 126 times.

Go figure.

Historically Australia has been a lot stronger side than India so this sort of stat is meaningless.

 

[harsh.ag]

Historically Australia has been a lot stronger side than India so this sort of stat is meaningless.

Yup, so is the "win the toss on certain pitches in Asia, and you've won" thing.

 

[marc71178]

Oh I'd agree and I certainly don't think it the case in this game.

 

[aussie]

From a SA perspective, the situation with Dane Vilas will be a interesting one to watch as the series progresses. Never saw Vilas before the 1st test, all I would say is that his technique looked a bit shaky in general & based on that evidence QDK certainly looks a better player. But its only 1 test

Will be interesting to see how he goes for remainder of series, because its obvious QDK is back in good batting form & it seems like only reason CSA selector stuck with Vilas instead going back to QDK immediately, was because Vilas didn't get much of a chance to show his batting worth in rain affected series in Bangladesh.

 

[aussie]

SA have definitely been way better than Australia and West Indies and competed very well. Thought the margin flattered us a bit... the game was as tight as it gets until the 4th innings. Let's not pretend we couldn't easily have lost this.

Ignoring West Indies in decline since 1995, actual good Windies teams touring India when IND became strong at home from lets say 1966-1994 were superb in India, only loss was in 78/79 (i think) when the main WI players were away for World Series cricket.

 

[G.I.Joe]

There's no 'real' WI team. You are what you put out. This is one area where windieweathers was actually a better poster, because he doesn't live exclusively in the past.

 

[Daemon]

There's no 'real' WI team. You are what you put out. This is one area where windieweathers was actually a better poster, because he doesn't live exclusively in the past.

His sig to disagree. WW had no redeeming feature besides his knowledge of domestic cricket there. Even that had to be taken with a pinch of salt because he loved to hype up every single upcoming player.

 

[cnerd123]

WW was better entertainment value than aussie tho

 

[honestbharani]

I felt I needed to answer this one. Firstly, without being to pedantic, swing is through the air and thus has nothing to do with the pitch itself. In combination with seam it can cause a nightmare for batsmen. The number of bowlers in the world that can swing the ball both ways at speed enough to trouble top quality batsmen can be counted on one hand, it is not an easy skill. Most often the thing that initially gives batsmen from the subcontinent problems in Eng, Aus, SA etc is the bounce off the pitch, where they are not used to a "length" ball still getting to chest height and higher sometimes, similarly most Eng, Aus, SA etc. batsmen struggle initially with the lower bounce of subcontinent pitches. Neither of these is a problem if the bounce is consistent.

Now seam comes from the pitch (and seam on ball, but we won't go there) and can be better analogized to spin. Now a 'green' pitch that allows lots of seam and continues to offer seam throughout will results in a low scoring match, particularly when combined with other things such as bounce or swing it is almost impossible to deal with (ask Philander and McGrath). Having the ball nip both ways unpredictably is not a good thing for an entire test match.
And that is why a dry pitch gets more complaints than a seaming pitch. Because with a seaming pitch the minute the seam gets old and the grass drys a little the pitch becomes flatter and batsmen can get on with it, a pitch that spins from day one does not stop spinning it just gets more erratic. So If you asked me is a seaming pitch that continues to seam and give erratic movement off the pitch for the entire match bad the answer is yes, it was probably left to green and probably has also resulted in dried ball `divets' in the wicket that will enhance dodgy bounce. Thus my comment about the current pitch under discussion.

Finally your comment where is the skill for the batsmen, the best skilled batsmen have the techniques and coordination to deal with all the above conditions to a varying degree. Lots of batsmen only have a limited ability to deal with all the mentioned conditions, hence the difference in skill levels. Adapting from a seaming to spinning to bouncing pitch around the world is not easy. However, no batsmen, no matter how skilled, will survive without luck for a long length of time on an erratic moving/bouncing pitch whether faced with seam bowling or spinning.

See, that is the point. Swing alone does not defeat good batsmen. It never does. Otherwise Irfan Pathan will still be a world beater. It HAS to be coupled with something off the pitch. Batsmen around the world started playing Irfan easily once they realized the ball was swinging right off his hand. IT would curl away, pitch and then curl even further away for a left hander and if he was bowling the inswinger, it would swing off his hands. And I do not think any bowler can actually ensure swing in the ball and get it go that way AFTER pitching. That is when the shiny side and conventional/reverse swing comes in, when the ball is delivered to aid its swing in a certain way after pitching but honestly, it is not always going to happen and the bowler cannot be sure. So I do not think it is difficult for international class batsmen to counter swing alone.

But everything we are talking about here, is some kind of deviation off the straight. So I kinda agree with you. But what I meant to say was, most of the very good batsmen can handle deviation in line and hence at times, it is the variation in bounce that really, REALLY tests a batsman. Even at the level I played in, I found it really easy if I can predict the bounce in a pitch. It was when the bounce got inconsistent, that the really good batsmen stood out. That was what I was trying to say.


Gotta say, I am enjoying this little debate. You make great points. Did you play cricket at any semi-pro level?

 

[aussie]

There's no 'real' WI team. You are what you put out. This is one area where windieweathers was actually a better poster, because he doesn't live exclusively in the past.

Sorry to disappoint you in the CW popularity contest battle, but it doesn't matter to me who you or others thinks is/was a better poster.

Your assertions makes little sense, that statement was making a simple well known historical fact on how teams and even players are judged. As a Indian fan do you judge and reminisce on what Tendulkar in your your "what you put out" - based on his average end days period from 2011-13 & Tennis elbow affected days from 2002-2007 in tests or his glorious 1990-2002 & old gold 2007-2011 days?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Reminiscing is one thing. We're not making excuses for ****ty performances by claiming that this isn't the 'real' Indian team because the legends are all gone.

 

[aussie]

Reminiscing is one thing. We're not making excuses for ****ty performances by claiming that this isn't the 'real' Indian team because the legends are all gone.

Not one thing, it was the only thing my statement clearly was referring to - reminiscing on what WI of their glory days did in India.

Your tirade about making excuses for WI of recent times *****ty performances and who is real, fake, India, legends etc is you and your wonderful interpretation skills gone haywire.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah right, when you begin your sentence with "ignoring WI in decline since 1995", there's hardly any other interpretation to be made. What the WI may have achieved 20+ years ago has no relevance to the point Pratters and OS were making. WI have been utter crap compared to Aus and SA in India, there's no two ways about it.