Your opinion on 3rd test wicket?

[White Ball]

Isn’t the bigger concern for England how did Joe Root out bowl their number 1 spinner?

 

[White Ball]

 

[Senile Sentry]

For the only guy who batted with brains and feet on, Sharma will be in a minority here

 

[centurymaker]

I think this is the key. When a part timer can rip through a side like that on Day 2, let alone on day 5 (ala Clarke) then we gotta start asking a couple of questions. Now obviously poor defences and some terrible batting helped make it seem even worse, but the Joe Root spell is key.

Root ran through the lower order once panic had set in in the Indian Team after couple of early dismissals on day 2. It was shocking the way the lower order gifted their wickets. Only Ishant looked composed of all.

Same thing happened when English team batted, after 0/2, they panicked and didn't know whether to attack or defend. Atrocious batting!

 

[centurymaker]

pitch rating 5.5/10

pink ball 0/10

Sooner they ban the pink ball the better!

This was a 200-250 pitch but both teams are carrying multiple dead weights in the line ups which exacerbated the scores

 

[centurymaker]

Isn’t the bigger concern for England how did Joe Root out bowl their number 1 spinner?

No way did Root outbowl Leach!

Leach took out the top order likes of Pujara, Kohli, Rohit and co. He was difficult to face and barely bowled any bad balls.

Root dismissed the lower order who were throwing away their wickets in panic. Big difference. It was Leach who dismissed Rahane and Rohit back to back overs to set panic through the indian camp!

 

[Chrish]

So general consensus seems clear: it was a poor wicket. I figured as much after looking at the scoreboard.

As an Indian fan, I am not particularly happy despite the result. I want team to win but not at the cost of playing these tricks. And I have pretty high tolerance for sporting wickets; deck in 2nd game was entirely reasonable IMO (I would give it a solid 7).

And pointing out how X player played well in Y conditions doesn’t necessarily justify the overall quality of wicket. I mean when you have 22 players in the field, one or two are bound to shine. You have to evaluate overall picture.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I think generally any conversation around pitches, like most things in cricket is shaped by your national interests and loyalties. Shane Warne for example would rip apart this pitch were this an Australia v India match but would watch in glee as England collapse.

So a lot of the criticism from English former players should be looked at in that light. That said, it's important to not miss the nuances in these conversations. The 2nd Test pitch saw the ball turn from Day 1 and there is a view from England and Australia that will automatically call that a horrible pitch because as per their idea of a good pitch is, Seam and movement on Day 1, good batting wicket on Day 2 and 3, turn on Day 4 and 5. That's a perfectly fine template and produces great Test matches, but doesn't have to be the only template for a pitch.

But this pitch was quite different from the 2nd Test pitch. In the 2nd Test, you still had to be a good spinner to get wickets, and Leach and Ali are good spinners who were able to do just that. But Ashwin was a better spinner and he did that at a better average, hence that made the difference.

This pitch on the other hand, Joe Root got more wickets than Ashwin and there's no way he's more skilled than Ashwin. That suggests the pitch negated the skill level of the respective spinners and made them almost equal. That's not a great pitch.

 

[honestbharani]

I think generally any conversation around pitches, like most things in cricket is shaped by your national interests and loyalties. Shane Warne for example would rip apart this pitch were this an Australia v India match but would watch in glee as England collapse.

So a lot of the criticism from English former players should be looked at in that light. That said, it's important to not miss the nuances in these conversations. The 2nd Test pitch saw the ball turn from Day 1 and there is a view from England and Australia that will automatically call that a horrible pitch because as per their idea of a good pitch is, Seam and movement on Day 1, good batting wicket on Day 2 and 3, turn on Day 4 and 5. That's a perfectly fine template and produces great Test matches, but doesn't have to be the only template for a pitch.

But this pitch was quite different from the 2nd Test pitch. In the 2nd Test, you still had to be a good spinner to get wickets, and Leach and Ali are good spinners who were able to do just that. But Ashwin was a better spinner and he did that at a better average, hence that made the difference.

This pitch on the other hand, Joe Root got more wickets than Ashwin and there's no way he's more skilled than Ashwin. That suggests the pitch negated the skill level of the respective spinners and made them almost equal. That's not a great pitch.

All of this is true but the mitigating circumstance here is the pink ball and the day-night conditions. We don't still know if it was the pitch alone that caused all of this and you have to give the benefit of doubt for a new stadium as well as the curator and the guys working may still be figuring out how the soil behaves over multiple days and how much grass and water is needed etc. And the pink ball lacquer-straight ball connection has already been made by multiple players.

The slips were standing hilariously deep for the Indian spinners too, so maybe they were worried the pink ball was zipping off the pitch faster. Everyone from SG to the curators and groundsmen across India have to come together to make day-night tests viable for us. It definitely was not easy to bat on and there is a lot of defensive overcorrection from the Indian commentators and players there. Whether the pitch or the ball or a combination of those made it so, the fact is these were very difficult conditions to bat in.

 

[cnerd123]

Root's five-fer isn't being taken into correct context. He got Pant playing a poor shot, Sundar with a beauty, Ashwin on a slog, and then Axar and Bumrah who are utter trash. Hardly a spell that proves the pitch took skill out of the equation. Just one of those crazy passage of plays that happens every now and then in Test cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

TBH, the one to Pant and his entire spell to Sundar were excellent deliveries utilizing the conditions (pitch, pink ball lacquer, whatever) perfectly. While you wanna blame the pitch, he also bowled well, just like Clarke did in Mumbai 2004.

 

[the big bambino]

Over in two days, spinners dominating from the gun, Root michelle ... ok. Anyway I have a suspicion India produced a turning wicket to offset the advantage conceded to England having Anderson under lights. I don't have a problem with home sides producing favourable tracks but this one was bad. However some of the blame for the lollapses can be taken by the batsman and their dodgy techniques against the turning ball.

 

[Burgey]

oot's five-fer isn't being taken into correct context. He got Pant playing a poor shot, Sundar with a beauty, Ashwin on a slog, and then Axar and Bumrah who are utter trash. Hardly a spell that proves the pitch took skill out of the equation.

Why do you think blokes were playing poor shots? If Root's spell was the only evidence in support of it being a poor pitch you'd have a point, but the highest completed innings score in a match lasting two days was 140 odd.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The inconsistent spin made every spinner look like peak murali. Conventional cricket thinking says that means its a poor pitch. And I sort of agree but not really. While it did make for an unusual game where the skill level between spinners was basically non existent, I dont feel like I actually care about that because I dont think its harmful for the game or anything. Certainly preferable to dead roads where tailenders can get runs at the very least.

It probably feels wrong because of how rare these pitches are making them feel like something that shouldnt happen. Anomalies like this always stick out, but Im not convinced there's an argument for there being no place for them in the game.

 

[cnerd123]

Why do you think blokes were playing poor shots?

because Pant does Pant things and the rest are tailenders. (well Sundar's a 21 year old allrounder in his 3rd Test and Ashwin #CanBat but the point broadly stands)

Don't think Root nabs a cheap 5 fer if he was bowling at the top order, as evident by Leach's bowling figures.

 

[Chrish]

I mean the average total for 3 whole innings is 112 ffs. I don’t know how poorer it can possibly get.

I am of firm opinion if one side can dominate the game while other one gets completely smashed, then it can’t be blamed on pitch (happened in 2nd game). But if both sides completely suck with big enough sample size ie. three innings, then it probably is a garbage pitch. There is no other explanation.

Pitch like this may be have a place in FC games; not in test cricket IMO.

 

[Spark]

I dont feel like I actually care about that because I dont think its harmful for the game or anything.

Eh I do feel it's kind of hard to take such games entirely seriously as a result. I don't know if it's a great advertisement of the game to have two day games where both sides can't even get to 150.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Eh I do feel it's kind of hard to take such games entirely seriously as a result. I don't know if it's a great advertisement of the game to have two day games where both sides can't even get to 150.

Why?

 

[jimmy101]

Tbf five-day cricket isn't really a great advert for the game either. Most people from non-cricketing nations can't wrap their heads around why it takes that long.

 

[honestbharani]

The Grade Cricketer podcast guys think their SOs, both female, were more into this game than other test matches. Make of that, what you will.