Vivian Richard's last 5 years?

[shivfan]

We also have to remember that Viv played on pitches that offered more assistance to pace bowlers than they do nowadays....

Despite this, he was arguably the only batsman of his time who could intimidate pace bowlers.

 

[Uppercut]

We also have to remember that Viv played on pitches that offered more assistance to pace bowlers than they do nowadays....

Has anyone else noticed that pitches have been a bit flatter this decade??

NO???

Just me????

 

[Manee]

Has anyone else noticed that pitches have been a bit flatter this decade??

NO???

Just me????

Yes.

 

[Richard]

Has anyone else noticed that pitches have been a bit flatter this decade??

NO???

Just me????

A flat pitch is a flat pitch in any decade.

However, there've been far, far more (yes, far more, not just "a bit") from 2001/02 onwards than there were at any time beforehand save the 1930s.

 

[Richard]

How exactly does a bowler who's never dismissed him count as exposing a flaw?

Pietersen has been dismissed 3 times by Asif in ODIs and Tests and twice by Maharoof.

 

[Uppercut]

A flat pitch is a flat pitch in any decade.

However, there've been far, far more (yes, far more, not just "a bit") from 2001/02 onwards than there were at any time beforehand save the 1930s.

Far less draws, too, incidentally. (yes, far less, not just "a bit")

 

[King Pietersen]

- His off stump awareness is frankly abysmal, his tendency to try and work straight balls to the leg side (through midwicket) makes him vulnerable to full pitched away swinging deliveries, see Jerome Taylor at Jamaica, classic example. For a batsmen who's scored so many runs, he seem's to get bowled out an awful lot, never a good sign.

Absolute drivel. He has developed a vulnerability to full pitched swinging deliveries, but it's nothing to do with 'abysmal' off-stump awareness. This vulnerability to the said deliveries has only appeared since he's been out of form, and is simply because his back-lift has been coming up far too high and angled towards slip a tad. The knock-on effect of this is that his bat comes down late and across his body, something that he was not guilty of doing a year ago. It's just a simple to correct technical flaw that's crept into his game, and certainly doesn't stem from poor off-stump awareness.

If Pietersen had this so-called 'abysmal' off-stump awareness he'd have been found out a long time ago, and using him working the ball on the leg-side as proof of this flaw is just silly. That's just his area, he's comfortable working the ball onto the leg-side, as Brumby explained.

 

[Richard]

Far less draws, too, incidentally. (yes, far less, not just "a bit")

Indeed - though the point at which that happened didn't coincide with the increase in flat pitches. In fact it's been a gradual thing - the increase in flat pitches happened suddenly and overnight; the decrease in draws has been happening slowly for years.

The reasons for the reduction in draws are severalfold: statutory minimum overs per day regulations; faculty for making-up lost time; changes in attitudes (where once the prevailing attitude was "ensure against defeat before you aim for victory" these days pretty much the only time that applies is if you're 1-0 up with 1 to play in a series, otherwise the expectation is that victory will always be aimed for so long as it is realistic); faster scoring-rates, meaning there's more overs for teams who've put a good score on the board to take 20 wickets; and yes, more expansive batsmanship meaning wickets will fall quicker though conceivably with more runs being made in the meantime (the latter two a direct consequence of the increase in flat decks).

Just because there's fewer draws currently than just about ever, that under no circumstances means flat pitches are not more common.

 

[Uppercut]

No, but it's certainly something worth noting, particularly when there's so much talk of how flat pitches are killing the game. "Result decks" are actually more common than ever, even if the goalposts have been moved by some of the factors you mention.

 

[Richard]

I don't, quite, think flat pitches are killing the game (though it is far more interesting with decks that offer a bit to seam or spin), but the fact that there are more results now than ever is an issue separate from the disappointing factor of flat pitches. I don't dislike the propensity for flat decks because it precludes results, but because it encourages cricket of lesser quality than those with a bit in them for seam or spin.

 

[Manee]

I don't, quite, think flat pitches are killing the game (though it is far more interesting with decks that offer a bit to seam or spin), but the fact that there are more results now than ever is an issue separate from the disappointing factor of flat pitches. I don't dislike the propensity for flat decks because it precludes results, but because it encourages cricket of lesser quality than those with a bit in them for seam or spin.

Would agree with this. Flat pitches are killing the spectator aspect of the sport moreso than the result orientated aspect.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't really agree. It's a different kind of cricket... the skills required to win on a flat deck are different from those required to win on a minefield. "Lesser quality" is a pretty vague term.

Bishan Bedi once said his favourite times in cricket were when he was on a rank road and had to work really hard to find a way to get a wicket. Bowling on a seaming or spinning deck is about putting the ball i the right areas, line and length, whereas bowling on a flat deck is about finding a way to somehow get the next batsman out. It can be a slower ball, skilful use of flight, the leg-side stumping trick or, sometimes, reverse swing. Plenty enterprise is required, Shane Warne being an absolute master of somehow scrounging another wicket when conditions are heavily in the batsman's favour.

It doesn't always work like that, and more often than not the game simply peters into a bore draw. But flat pitches require a different kind of cricket to get a result, not lesser quality cricket.

 

[Richard]

The number of bowlers who can get wickets via good bowling on genuinely flat pitches that offer nothing to seam or spin are miniscule - always have been, and smaller than ever of late. If there's no bowlers who can offer a real test, the quality of batting suffers - you get too many players who are good when the going's easy but the moment a relatively rare bowler-friendly spell occurs everything collapses.

The set of circumstances where flat pitches are in the minority, and where excellent bowlers are required to bowl wicket-taking deliveries on them, encourages a much better standard of cricket. Batsmen have to be much better to withstand what's thrown at them, and bowlers have an incentive to, well, be bowlers, because they aren't thinking every deck is going to offer them nothing.