Shoot the groundsman... or just give up on cricket?

[Jimmy789]

The fact is the sides are playing on the same pitch - and they must play the best cricket they possibly can on the pitch put infront of them - this pitch they are playing on has produced over 1000 runs 37 wickets and a great spectacle dont complain im sure you wont find anybody who was at the ground complaining today - ill tell you for 1 my dad was at there today and said it was the best atmosphere he has ever seen at a cricket match.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm still not convinced that it's a genuine results pitch... but with two sides batting as diabolically as these two are... it's hard to tell: by my reckoning there should only realy have been 15-20 wickets so far in the match... as the rest have been due to quite atrocious batting.

No Rachael, England batted to a plan, they came out on the first day to attack, and it paid of, and it had nothing to do with McGrath not playing, becauase stat wise, this is one of his worse grounds.

And the seamers who bent their backs got a lot out of this pitch, Flintoff bowled an unplayable spell, with lateral movement!, Lee bothered the England batsmen, Harmison gave nothing away, even though he only got one wicket.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Anyone like to hazard a guess as to how many wickets SHOULD hve fallen at this point in the match?

If England had not taken control, maybe 10 wickets, but the way England dictated how the game should be played, it was par for that plan.

[Jimmy789]

Rachael how many games do you watch as closely ? You might have seen some pitches in New Zealand where the wicket was nothing short of unplayable which produces boring low scoring affairs and who wants to see that ?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Jimmy789

Rachael how many games do you watch as closely ? You might have seen some pitches in New Zealand where the wicket was nothing short of unplayable which produces boring low scoring affairs and who wants to see that ?

I'm only really inclined to watch when I expect the bowlers to be on top: I want to watch Test cricket.. with Testing spells of bowling... not a load of dross with balls being sprayed all over the place and every stand and deliver ODI specialist in creation slogging the ball all around the park.

McGrath at Lords I watched. Warne today I watched. That was good cricket. I also sat with my nephew and watched Flintoff slogging Kasprowicz and Lee... but that bit was so painful to behold I would have walked out had it not been for the need to try and explain the game to a kid who'd never really seen any cricket before.

Cricket's just second rate baseball when the batsmen are on top: it's only balls whistling past edges and the mental torture of batsmen reduced to gibbering wrecks by great spells of pressure that elevates it to something special.

[Jimmy789]

Yet if you had cricket all your way you would find cricket in ruins finnancially with less of an audience and less mass appeal the game has no choice but to go that way

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm only really inclined to watch when I expect the bowlers to be on top: I want to watch Test cricket.. with Testing spells of bowling... not a load of dross with balls being sprayed all over the place and every stand and deliver ODI specialist in creation slogging the ball all around the park.

I was glued to the TV all day. Personally I just love watching England perform, and these matches have been exactly what I want to see, despite the result of the first test I enjoyed England showing at least periods of dominance. Exciting stuff with a real contest.

Originally Posted by Rachael

...I would have walked out had it not been for the need to try and explain the game to a kid who'd never really seen any cricket before...

Oh no! I suppose that's another child put off cricket.

Originally Posted by Rachael

...it's only balls whistling past edges and the mental torture of batsmen reduced to gibbering wrecks by great spells of pressure that elevates it to something special.

Ahhhhh! Now I see why you wax lyrical about Mark Ramprakash and continually shout out for a Chris Read recall. They're two gibbering wrecks if ever there were any.

Rachael, you may not like this sort of test cricket. But the fact is simple, Australia have dominated - everywhere around the world, against all teams, in all sorts of conditions, a fact you can't deny - for a decade with aggressive cricket. England's recent success has been built on a similar sort of aggression. It's no coincidence that the two top teams in the world have got there playing hard attacking cricket. Such play is a foundation for dominating test teams of the future. It's the way the cricket is going and people enjoy it, they want to see it. Frankly, if you don't like it then I 'd advise you to leave cricket behind and find some other sort of entertainment. You can't afford to be old fashioned for too long with such a rapidly changing game. I'm sorry, but the cricket you desire on a regular basis is dead!

[Rachael]

Unlike the promoters.. I do actual credit the cricketing audience with some critical faculties: I'm quite sure there's a huge audience out there for artistry, subtlety, finesse.. for graft and craft. Lee spraying the ball all over the shop and Flintoff planting the ball over the ropes with agricultural heaves is NOT a substitute for such quality!

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

...Flintoff planting the ball over the ropes with agricultural heaves...

Agricultural heaves? That's a joke. OK, he hit a few over the rope on the on-side, but they were actually good shots. On top of that his straight drives for six were very good powerful shots. Flintoff is actually not a slogger, when he is in he can play technically good, yet powerful strokes!

[Jimmy789]

Im sorry i disagree with you there - saying Flintoff is not a slogger after stepping back 2 feet so he can swing his arms is not technically sound - and you will never find any coach encouarging you to step back and reveal your stumps

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Jimmy789

Im sorry i disagree with you there - saying Flintoff is not a slogger after stepping back 2 feet so he can swing his arms is not technically sound - and you will never find any coach encouarging you to step back and reveal your stumps

Just because he steps outside his stumps doesn't mean he's a slogger, that's just improvisation. He can play good technical shots, that's why he often clears the boundary. His straight drive, off the bowling of Lee, over long-off - practically out of the ground - was a brilliant shot and far from a slog.