Toss Innovations

[Richard]

I'm with Richard on this one. Home advantage, providing that the pitches remain safe and give a chance of a reasonable contest (ie: no uneven minefields, Mumbai 2004's or Lahore 2006s), pro-home side pitch preperation is a good thing.

Even the odd terror-track (Mumbai 2004\05, Lord's 2005) has always been part of the game.
What's worrying is if you get them, or the useless (Antigua) ones becoming a trait.

 

[Richard]

I totally agree.

Maybe Groundsmen around the world prepare pitches to suit home teams, maybe they don't...we have home/away series so we (as fans) can watch test cricket and thats it. Each Cricket Board would like to see matches go into the 5th day, not end on the 3rd or 4th...so to prepare a pitch that is distinctly geared towards more spin, more bounce etc just flies in the face of logic. I don't recall the pitches having a huge bearing on the outcome of last years Ashes series...I seem to remember that it was the brilliance of some of the players that made the difference.

Of course the pitches made a difference, they always do.
Different pitches allow different qualities to come out of different players.
For instance - only rarely was there much in the pitches for Giles last summer; the state of the outfields and pitches, however, enabled the primary strength of Jones and Flintoff.
Good play is all about exploiting what is in the pitch\air\etc. - the better players are those who can exploit the largest variety of conditions.

 

[Richard]

Yes, let's remove any small advantage Bangladesh could get, and put them in a worse position than they are now.

You can give Bangladesh or any other substandard team any advantage you want, they'll still be nowhere near good enough to compete in 99 cases out of 100 (the other 1 can be explained as flukes and freaks).

 

[Richard]

paper sissors rock requires great skill and is also really quick. Also the coin toss could be forged but paper sissors rock cant

Well... I see what you mean but I can't really see it happening.
It would indeed be preferable to a coin-toss, but there's still an element of luck.

 

[Richard]

Richard....I do wish you would add the words .."In my opinion" to some of your reply's rather than talking about subjective things as gospel. I'm not even saying I disagree with this particular comment, its just you always talk about subjective opinions as if they are facts.

Happy now?
I see what you mean, and I do try wherever possible.
However, I see what Corey's on about here.

 

[Armadillo]

6 posts in a row! God Richard you have to **** on every thread you touch.

 

[Richard]

Don't be silly.

 

[Armadillo]

Don't be silly.

I know, sorry.
But that's 7 out of 8, you're on a roll mate!

 

[Richard]

It's not exactly anything unusual.
If I have something to say, I say it.
It doesn't obstruct anything.

 

[Langeveldt]

good thread title one feels

 

[Richard]

And being CW the chances of all conversation following the title are slim... good convo-starter, tho.

 

[SteveG]

Of course the pitches made a difference, they always do.
Different pitches allow different qualities to come out of different players.
For instance - only rarely was there much in the pitches for Giles last summer; the state of the outfields and pitches, however, enabled the primary strength of Jones and Flintoff.
Good play is all about exploiting what is in the pitch\air\etc. - the better players are those who can exploit the largest variety of conditions.

I agree to some extent. Certainly, pitches contribute to the result, thats why you don't see an Australian side win the toss and put the opposition in to bat very often...the 5th Day Warne factor decides that. But, I still think it takes one or two personal performances to turn a game. The pitch may be a help in that regard, but the player still has to master the conditions.

 

[Richard]

I agree to some extent. Certainly, pitches contribute to the result, thats why you don't see an Australian side win the toss and put the opposition in to bat very often...the 5th Day Warne factor decides that.

Well... excepting this period, where Stephen Waugh decided to simply put the opposition in almost regardless... interesting that in that period 3 of the worst results (the only 2 losses and the mere 62-run victory) came from the 4 games where they elected to bat first.

But, I still think it takes one or two personal performances to turn a game. The pitch may be a help in that regard, but the player still has to master the conditions.

That's what I just said... wasn't it?
The England players used the conditions (Edgbaston onwards) much, much better than the Australians - and hence they utterly dominated.

 

[Langeveldt]

Why a captain would ever put a side in (unless its cloudy and is going to clear up) is beyond me.. Its not like a cricket pitch is going to get better when you play on it, is it?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Under such circumstances, why have a toss anyway? Allow the visiting captain the choice of batting or bowling first in order to redress the balance.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Why a captain would ever put a side in (unless its cloudy and is going to clear up) is beyond me.. Its not like a cricket pitch is going to get better when you play on it, is it?

Some of these drop-in pitches do... I remember when we toured NZ in 2002, in the 1st match, the pitch was moving all over the place on the first couple of days, then it flattened out into a real road, Thorpe hit 200, Fred hit 137 (his first test century), then Astle hit that famous 200.

 

[Richard]

Seaming pitches regularly get better... on a seaming pitch as a captain I'd always bowl first even if it wasn't going to get better...
Give yourself the first chance with what the pitch does best, that's my estimation.
If it's a turner that's going to turn more as the game goes on, bat.
If it's a seamer that's going to seam less as the game goes on, field.
If it's not going to change (the characteristics of the best pitches - whatever they do, they do it throughout the match) it doesn't really matter, just back yourself whether you field or bat.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If it's not going to change (the characteristics of the best pitches - whatever they do, they do it throughout the match) it doesn't really matter, just back yourself whether you field or bat.

If it's not going to change, then, unless overhead conditions are disagreeable, then runs on the board are always what I'd go for.

 

[Richard]

But... if your bowling-attack is better than your batting-line-up, are you not better to give your attack first bash, then leave your weaker batting-line-up under less pressure?
What about if you're unlikely to get many on the board?

 

[Tom Halsey]

But... if your bowling-attack is better than your batting-line-up, are you not better to give your attack first bash, then leave your weaker batting-line-up under less pressure?

That doesn't make sense to me - surely if your bowling attack is better than your batting line-up then it will be able to stand up to more pressure and thus you want your batsmen to bat under less pressure?

Anyway, I'd bat first in that situation.