FP semis

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by adamberry

'Cos if it's cricinfo I would disregard it entirely, they seem to have forgotten everything they know recently!

Spot on there! Have they ever known anything about cricket??

The only good thing about that site is some of the interviews they get and more importantly the stats. These are both factual things, where some non cricket understanding journo cant mess things up.

Regarding pitches though we seem to go from one extreme to the other. Its either a seamers paradise where any old trundler can run through a team or a batters paradise where any old flat footed slogger can hit a century.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Regarding pitches though we seem to go from one extreme to the other. Its either a seamers paradise where any old trundler can run through a team or a batters paradise where any old flat footed slogger can hit a century.

Not really: sides are packed with batsmen who've never really learnt how to play on a sporting wicket.. so the moment the pitch is anything OTHER than a Taunton-like road... batting line-ups implode!

The Test side is supposed to have the most accomplished players in it... and in Tresco, England did have an opener who could play the ball late... but Strauss (like Flintoff) goes hard at it... Cook's hands are about as soft as titanium... and even Collingwood's better at getting onto the front foot than at lingering on the back foot.

Look back to the 2005 Ashes and consider how badly the much-vaunted Aussies played lateral movement.. and that was on pitches that had true bounce!

Sadly, few now cope well with conditions in which ability to leave good balls is tested and where playing straight / nudging late is the order of the day.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Look back to the 2005 Ashes and consider how badly the much-vaunted Aussies played lateral movement.. and that was on pitches that had true bounce!

The 2005 Aussies were undone by swing though - that has nothing to do with the pitch.

We dont want pitches too helpful though. The benchmark should be - will a typical English trundler look good, if the answers yes then the pitch is too helpful. There has to be skill involved from the bowlers too. A good pitch should help all types of bowling provided they are skilled at their craft but should have a bit of pace, even bounce (which will punish the bad ball) and reward batsmen who graft and not give their wicket away.

[flanflinger]

I have said it before and I will say it again, a good pitch needs to be balanced.

A Test pitch should have something for the seamers on the first session of day one, but should allow the batters to rule on day two or three, the fourth day should give something for the seamers and the spinners, while on the last day the ball should be turning appreciably. That is a good Test pitch IMO.

One day pitches should give something for the bowlers early on, but should essentially being decent batting surfaces. But not so good that batters can play too easily, the problem these days is that the ODI pitches are roads, and the boundaries are as short as possible, giving the batsmen too much.

One day games are for the crowds, nobody likes to see one side all out for 70, with the other team 6 down trying to scrape a win, also I don't find one side getting to 380 for the loss of five wickets, with that score being chased down with ease any more entertaining!!

The best one day games is where one side post 260-280, with a late surge and lots of late wickets, while the team following them has to get to the last over, with a few wickets in hand still in the hunt!!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

We dont want pitches too helpful though. The benchmark should be - will a typical English trundler look good, if the answers yes then the pitch is too helpful. There has to be skill involved from the bowlers too.

If your definition of "trundler" is guys like Bell and Collingwood then yes... but two of the most skilled bowlers of the last generation have been Fraser and Bicknell... and EVERY pitch should given THEM the chance to look good!!!

My concern is merely that pitches encourage the bowlers to pitch the ball up: bowlers like Sidebottom, Lewis, Saggers and Hoggard should be able to run in with ANY newish (<40 over old) ball thinking "I've got the chance to dominate here".

If they can't dominate when the ball softens after the 50th / 60th over then sobeit... but up until the 40th over the batsmen should be looking to survive, not dominate!

What I do NOT want to see is a situation in which a bowler as good as Pollock feels obliged to bowl back of a length (and perhaps 12" outside off stump) to get through overs until the new ball comes along: that should NEVER happen!

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The best one day games is where one side post 260-280, with a late surge and lots of late wickets, while the team following them has to get to the last over, with a few wickets in hand still in the hunt!!

I've no problem with 160-180 pitches OR with 240-260 pitches... it's the extremes that I find ludicrous.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

, the problem these days is that the ODI pitches are roads, and the boundaries are as short as possible, giving the batsmen too much.

The biggest problem with ODI's is that the boundaries have been made too small. Its more of a skill to work the ball around and still scoring at 6-8 an over without scoring boundaries.

Originally Posted by Rachael

but two of the most skilled bowlers of the last generation have been Fraser and Bicknell... and EVERY pitch should given THEM the chance to look good!!!

My concern is merely that pitches encourage the bowlers to pitch the ball up: bowlers like Sidebottom, Lewis, Saggers and Hoggard should be able to run in with ANY newish (<40 over old) ball thinking "I've got the chance to dominate here".

Fraser at his peak could bowl on any wicket anyway and be effective, it was just if there was something in it he became a handful. Bicknell was never top class, he was an honest county performer but was never good enough to play at test level.

Lewis, Saggers and to a lesser extent Sidebottom are county trundlers and if they are dominating the pitch is too much in favour of the bowler IMO.

The likes of Hoggard (and possibly Sidebottom) can be effective at any time, on any wicket by learning to bowl cutters and learning to reverse the ball, if they are good enough to do this they can then prosper in any conditions.

Lewis had a go at test cricket on a green pitch which was heavily in his favour and he was shown he wasnt good enough. IMO if you are a quality batsman and Lewis comes on to bowl whatever the pitch condition you should be thinking "I've got a chance to dominate here!"