Pitch looks a belter

[Statto]

they keep saying on C4 that he used to bat at 11. If we could teach one of our tailenders to bat like that then we'd be able to pick keedy for giles which would be just what we need. boring as he may be he is effective and is doing what he is asked to do (hold up one end), mainly because the rest of the players are attacking. Our coaches should be making tailenders apply themselves a bit more (not neccessarily to open the batting but at least to be able to bat 8). Only Hoggard seems to have put in a lot of work on his batting and it paid dividends in sri lanka and windies.

[Rachael]

As I see it... getting a "result" is not the senior-batsman's job: if a game ends in a draw.. that's the groundsman's problem - the players (and especially the opening batsmen) shouldn't let such considerations weigh one jot. Job one is to ensure the game is safe.. and anything beyond that is mere bonus.

I've no objection to lower-middle order batsmen accelerating the scoring once the runs are on the board (as Laxman has been known to do when batting at 6 and Gilchrist has done regularly at 7).. but I'm talking when the shine has gone off the third new ball. The way these Kiwi's are batting right now (having lost Richardson in a most unfortunate manner when he was really looking set to bat right through to that third new ball) I'm not sure they are even going to SEE the third new ball - which, on this pitch, and against an atack that's generally been out of sorts... will be a pretty poor show.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Can't say I'm unhappy to see the back of Richardson, jeez what a boring player. Neither was I unhappy he was out when he clearly got an inside edge.

Scott - how do you square this comment with your many and lengthy contributions to the technology debate a week or so ago? You were adamant that the most important thing is to get decisions right and ... well, you know what you said. Your comment surprises me a bit. Surely you aren't suggesting that two (or more) wrongs make a right?

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Eep! Rachael, you frighten me with your "third new ball" fetish, as though this were the norm in cricket.

A third new ball means 160+ overs, which these days means a score in excess of 550.

[Rachael]

I don't think seeing the third new ball should be the norm.. but I do think that on most modern Test pitches, for the side that won the toss and elected to bat, it should be the AIM.

Aiming at 160+ overs is only aiming to see the game through to just after tea on day 2.. which ain't asking that much. To aim at less is to aim at conceding the best of the batting conditions to the opposition and to give them a shout at a big first innings lead with time to bowl you out a second time: something that MIGHT transpire.. but which any self respecting top 5 should be at least AIMING to prevent.

Scores wise... I really don't care what, say, batting 160+ overs amounts to: it doesn't strike me as relevent. at 2.5-2.8 an over (which is all any decent Test attack should concede) you're on 400 (respectable) to 450 (excellent). Sure, in that time you'll also see some sides reaching 550 plus.. but to be honest... any pitch that's so flat as to allow 550 plus shouldn't see a result anyway.

[Goatman]

While I am a devotee of "craft cricket" second only to your good self Racahel, I think you forget that the game has moved on in the post-waugh (!) period. "normal" tactics are no longer to survive with fiedlers clustered round the bat and grab the odd bad ball until the bowlers tire and the field spreads. Most teams now look to dominate the bowling and stop the opposition fielders being ABLE to crowd the bat, right from the start. The days of score rates of 2.5 an over are, well, over. 3-4 is now the norm, and so the second new ball will absolutely mean scores of 500+, and thats not just on good pitches. And regardless how good the bowler is, if he has got half his fielders saving runs (which both come in boundarues and in quick singles in the modern age - disprupting the bowler can be done by dropping it into the infield for a run a ball, and this is made even easier if the field is spread) rather than taking catches, when the catch comes it doesn't go to hand. Its anti-intuitive, but the faster you score the easier it is to score and the harder it is to lose a wicket - all the fielding team can do is try and slow down the flood and wait for a false stroke. Its a tactic thats hard to beat when it works, regardless of what us "purists" would like...... Unfortunetly, it makes sessions like the Donald-Atherton battle and so on increasingly uncommon. Maybe one day an attack like Garner, Holding, Marshall and Croft will reappear, and teams will once again be reduced to scratching.

On the other hand, it means that increasingly first innings scores of 500+ are being posted with enough time in the match left to allow a result, which can only be a good thing. Look at the record braeaking run-chase by WI against AUS for example. Thats a great game of cricket, even if it isn't the traditional way!

[Rachael]

Goatman.. I'm a lot more positive than you about a resurgence in 2.5 to 2.8 runs per over bowling: I don't see it happening in Australia.. where the national side is packed with strokeplayers and they have bowlers who thrive on true, fast, bouncy wickets... but elsewhere? I don't see it.

The recent Sri Lanka vs Aus series saw some bowling conditions in which the ball was swinging around as one would expect it to in England in May. Pakistan also managed to produce a conditions that allowed swing bowlers to do the job for at least the 1st of their dire, 3 test series. In the WI, 3 of the first 4 wickets were surprisingly bowler friendly... and both sides had sessions of play in which the bowlers were very much on top and batting was tough. New Zealand is notoriously home to pitches on which scoring freely is not an option... and South African pitches that appeal to bowlers are no unknown.

All told.. I think we over here are actually slacking behind the current trend towards more results-oriented pitches.. and at last there seems to be a glut of promising young bowlers pretty well everywhere you look. If we can just get back to a situation where the world scene boasts a quality to match the time when Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waquar, Warne, McGrath and the like were all at their height... then I'm quite sure we'll be back to 2.5-2.8 runs per over cricket.. and the flat track bullies will just fade away like a bad dream!

[Goatman]

Well, we can certaily all hope! The thing is, that if you can get 2-3 people to blast 50 on a dodgy track you'll post a total of 300ish easily without anyone putting in a really good gritting effort at all, which is a score you can win from. Just having "result" pitches is not enough to stop the domination strategy working. SA is well known for having plenty of seaming tracks, and yet the current SA team has a number of notable bullies. Your argument has some merit, but it looks to me like you need more than just seaming pitches to slow the run rate.

[R W S]

287/6 - Oram c GO Jones b Greivous 65!!
324/7 - Tuffey b Greivous 6

And we're off and running!! All out by lunch? Come on England!!

Let's get behind the team today!!

[R W S]

And another one goes!! Dangerous McCullum gone!! b Jones 5.

NZ 329/8 - England very much in this.

Come on England!!