PwC is no more

[marc71178]

Loathe as I am to agree with Richard, Corky bowled bloody well that game.

Made quite brilliant 33no in 2nd innings to stear us home too, besides the point as that may be.

The 33 was at Lords, so it's definitely beside the point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The 33 was at Lords, so it's definitely beside the point.

Ooops. I stand corrected. Apologies all round.

Age & alcohol is what I'm blaming! As a civil-servant I can't in all honesty blame the pressure of work!

 

[tooextracool]

Afraid to what? Challenge the belief that Headingley might have eased for batting despite not appearing to?
You look at the Headingley Test-matches of 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, and you tell me batting was easier than the 2-day game in 2000.
The difference was mainly in the fact that in one game you had Ambrose, Walsh, Gough, Caddick, Cork and White bowling at the top of their game; in the other four you had McGrath, Harmison and Kallis - basically no-one else, amounting to less than one decent bowler per game.
So therefore it might be assumed that the conditions were easier than they actually were.

the conditions in 2002 were certainly easier than any of the other years. for the rest of them it was basically just poor bowling.

 

[Richard]

Easier, a little, but still far more seam-friendly than any of the other 6 Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

no it wasnt a little, it was extremely flat after the first session

 

[Richard]

God, let's not get into yet another "this pitch did this" "no, it did that!", please.
You must, surely, have noticed that the pitch seamed throughout the match and bounced unevenly quite a bit, and would almost certainly have been far, far lower-scoring had the bowlers not been Hoggard, a half-fit Caddick, Flintoff (probably about 1\4 fit, of course - not that it made a difference), Giles, the woeful Tudor, Zaheer Khan, Agarkar, Bangar and the two spinners.

 

[tooextracool]

no because as badly as any team can bowl, no team can manage to score over 600 on a seamer friendly wicket, let alone without even being dismissed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

no because as badly as any team can bowl, no team can manage to score over 600 on a seamer friendly wicket, let alone without even being dismissed.

By what standard? What if they bat really well?

I accept that the chances of BOTH teams scoring more than 600 on a seamer-friendly pitch is next to nothing, which is why the PWC system works, but certainly if you have a very good batting lineup and they are facing mediocre bowling there's no reason a huge score can't be made even when the bowlers are getting assistance.

 

[Richard]

My point exactly.

 

[tooextracool]

By what standard? What if they bat really well?

I accept that the chances of BOTH teams scoring more than 600 on a seamer-friendly pitch is next to nothing, which is why the PWC system works, but certainly if you have a very good batting lineup and they are facing mediocre bowling there's no reason a huge score can't be made even when the bowlers are getting assistance.

even if they batted really well it doesnt change anything. im sorry even if you had zimbabwe bowling on a seamer friendly wicket, you'd still never see a team score 600 odd for 8 declared, because the pitch will assist you no matter how poorly you bowl. ive certainly never heard of a team scoring 3 big hundreds and a 50 in one inning on anything other than a flat wicket.
and all the english batsmen bar flintoff got a start in both innings, again something that would suggest that the pitch was flat and england just played poorly.

 

[Richard]

So instead of looking at statistics and suggestions, why not call on your memory, because I find it impossible to conceive that you've not watched or claimed to watch that game.
And you'd see that it was not just the first morning that offered seam (or uneven bounce). While it was flatter than most Headingley wickets, it still moved about plenty and it was only because the English and Indian seamers were so extraordinarily poor that we didn't see 300ao plays 280ao etc.
Of course, they were pretty wayward throughout the innings, but Dravid and Bangar preferred to go about as close to risk-free as you can in batting, so didn't punish them, but left it to Tendulkar and Ganguly.

 

[marc71178]

My point exactly.

So you're now agreeing that it works?

 

[Richard]

Oh, no, I'm saying that looking at scores can regularly misinterpret the conditions.
Headingley 2002 (especially - and 2001, 2003 and 2004 to a slightly lesser extent) was a prime example - not easy conditions, even with the low-standard bowling, but because lots of batsmen played it better than normal, it was worse than a score-generalisation could possibly realise.