Beefy wants pitch doctored!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by davo ramone

so you guys advocate cheating then?

The Aussies have spent a generation preparing pitches on which bowlers like Hoggard and Giles don't stand a chance. Indeed.. they've spend a generation producing pitches of which finger-spinners have generally despaired.. and on which bowlers who go hunting for wickets (and indeed anyone less than 6'4" tall) get murdered.

Sadly... England are now following suit: instead of producing pitches on which the likes of Bell, Tresco and Vaughan can reasonably get in a few overs and on which Hoggard and Simon Jones would be pitching the ball up and seeing late movement in the air and movement off the pitch.. and where Giles would go for about 1 an over we've had pitches that any self respecting basman would like to be able to order up each and every time they go out to bat.

Changing the above wouldn't be cheating.. it would be providing a better Test wicket!

[greg]

Originally Posted by Irish Left Armer

Botham should have his jaw wired shut. I'm willing to listen to the blissful silence on Sky.

More chance of a family of small rabbits taking up residence in your left pocket.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Sadly... England are now following suit: instead of producing pitches on which the likes of Bell, Tresco and Vaughan can reasonably get in a few overs and on which Hoggard and Simon Jones would be pitching the ball up and seeing late movement in the air and movement off the pitch.. and where Giles would go for about 1 an over we've had pitches that any self respecting basman would like to be able to order up each and every time they go out to bat.

Why would anyone want to see Bell, Tresco and Vaughan bowling? Who would it benefit to have Giles going for 1 an over? Cricket is a sport that is watched by spectators who attend to be entertained. The aforementioned "incidents" would not be at all entertaining. They would bore the pants off everyone, both in the ground and watching at home. We would soon see the death of Test Cricket if those incidents were common place. People pay to see runs and wickets. People watch cricket to see the best batsmen facing the best bowlers.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Why would anyone want to see Bell, Tresco and Vaughan bowling? Who would it benefit to have Giles going for 1 an over? Cricket is a sport that is watched by spectators who attend to be entertained.

Sadly, Rachael has a different view of what constitutes Test cricket than I suspect you and I have.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Why would anyone want to see Bell, Tresco and Vaughan bowling?

Captains ought to be able to turn to their occasional bowlers: it's part of the game. It should also be quite feasible to have people like Pietersen, Collingwood, Watson, Symonds and Clarke bowling a few overs here and there. It should certainly NOT be necessary for England to play 5 frontline bowlers when they could turn to Tresco, Bell, Pietersen, Vaughan and Collingwood on top of the front-line players.

I'd not suggest that every pitch should see Giles tying batsmen down as remorselessly as McGrath tied folk down at Lords... but let's be straight: McGrath's spell in which he bowled 32 overs and took 5 wickets for 2 runs was the most stunning spell of cricket I (and I suspect most people who watched it) have ever had the good fortune to watch.

The best of the rest of the series to date: Warne's mesmeric control of England's batsmen at Edgbaston prior to the late slogging that screwed up what had been quite awesome figures. Again... bugger all in the way of runs.. but sensational cricket.

The best bit of cricket from England in the last Test was not a batsman playing a stroke.. but Harmison's magical slower ball to deceive Clarke. The most watchable over of cricket was not notable for shots: it was the one in which Flintoff got Langer and Ponting. Was anyone worried that it didn't involve awesome strokeplay? No!

The main point to focus on here is the fact that in cricket... a big shot generally means the bowler screwed up: the perfect match would not actually see much in the way of strokeplay whatsoever... because the bowlers wouldn't be bowling any bad balls and the ball would, therefore, never be there to be hit.

You'll never get a perfect bit of cricket involving a boundary... because the perfect time to play a stroke that would take the ball there would, by definition, be off a ball that was less than perfect: you will, however, get a perfect moment in cricket when an opener plays the perfect leave to a perfect ball that swings and then seams on it's way past the top of off stump.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

...McGrath's spell in which he bowled 32 overs and took 5 wickets for 2 runs...

32 overs for 2 runs? You're having a laugh aren't you?

Are you sure you don't mean 32 balls?

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The best of the rest of the series to date: Warne's mesmeric control of England's batsmen at Edgbaston prior to the late slogging that screwed up what had been quite awesome figures. Again... bugger all in the way of runs.. but sensational cricket.

The best bit of cricket from England in the last Test was not a batsman playing a stroke.. but Harmison's magical slower ball to deceive Clarke. The most watchable over of cricket was not notable for shots: it was the one in which Flintoff got Langer and Ponting. Was anyone worried that it didn't involve awesome strokeplay? No!

They were the most watchable for you and for English fans because they represented England getting closer to victory.

As a neutral and someone who appreciates batting AND bowling and does not buy into the crazy idea that cricket is only enjoyable when bowler is dominating batsman, I can pick out moments when bat had a sway over ball and class them equally as enjoyable.

Some of the play by Ponting and Pietersen (1st inns) and Flintoff (both innings) was on par with all you have mentioned.

The main point to focus on here is the fact that in cricket... a big shot generally means the bowler screwed up: the perfect match would not actually see much in the way of strokeplay whatsoever... because the bowlers wouldn't be bowling any bad balls and the ball would, therefore, never be there to be hit.

A big shot does not mean a bowler screwed up at all.

A big shot can actually mean a batsman is at the top of his game and making it count.

So from what you are saying the "perfect match" would be a tie as both teams would be out for 0 as no one could hit anything.

You'll never get a perfect bit of cricket involving a boundary... because the perfect time to play a stroke that would take the ball there would, by definition, be off a ball that was less than perfect: you will, however, get a perfect moment in cricket when an opener plays the perfect leave to a perfect ball that swings and then seams on it's way past the top of off stump.

You are the only person looking for perfect cricket.

Maybe that is why since I have joined this messageboard, the majority of your posts seem like nothing but what could be call a right old moan!!. And worse still for a thing that never has and can't even exist!!!

Perfect cricket does not exist.

Test cricket is not about ball over bat or bat over ball, it is about all the players of whatever discipline being TESTED and the best coming out at the top.

I am, and I am sure many on this messageboard are too, excited by a batsman in the zone scoring runs in an innings it would seem he could not get out in as much as a bowler tearing through a top order or bamboozling his opposition.

I receive as much joy seeing a Lara, Dravid, Tendulkar, Inzy flay an attack as i do in a McGrath, Warne, Ambrose or Wasim destroying a top order.

And those people do what they do because they are good, not because the pitch was doctored for them and people not even half as good as them to go at 1 per over or get a few overs in.

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You'll never get a perfect bit of cricket involving a boundary... because the perfect time to play a stroke that would take the ball there would, by definition, be off a ball that was less than perfect: you will, however, get a perfect moment in cricket when an opener plays the perfect leave to a perfect ball that swings and then seams on it's way past the top of off stump.

OK! Unfortunately we can't all be as perfect as you!

Can you define a perfect leave for me please?

You say that there would never be a boundary in a perfect bit of cricket as ultimately the bowler - acting first - has the say in whether the ball he bowls is perfection or not. The batsman cannot decide what the bowler will do and it's in the bowler's hands as to whether he bowls the perfect ball or not.

Then you describe the "perfect moment in cricket" including the perfect ball from a perfect bowler. I'd just like to say that I'd face this perfect bowler any day of the week. If I know that he's going to continuously bowl the perfect ball to me, I'd sit down in the outfield, with a cup of tea, and continously watch that perfect ball perfectly miss off-stump over and over again. This bowler's hardly perfect, he can't even take a wicket, let alone cause the batsman to play and miss. He can't even hit the stumps.

Would a ball be perfect if it flies through the keeper's gloves and reaches the boundary?

is it possible that a batsman could hit a perfect ball for six?

[Rachael]

The point of considering perfection is to draw attention to the core ideals inherent in the game: I submit that the game is built around bowlers trying to induce batsmen to play balls that they should leave.. and batsmen trying to induce bowlers to put the ball where they want to have it so they can hit it. Inherent in that game of cat and mouse, therefore, is the notion of bowler and batsman error: if the bowler moves too wide / short the ball's too easily left... and too full/straight means the ball's too easily played... though of course.. those balls have to be played because (as you note) it's the batsman's misjudgement with respect to one he should have left.. or should have played.. that leads to the wicket.

Note: lots of scope there for (and indeed requirement for) something other than metronomic bowling on exactly the same line and length.

Things is... anything else that comes with the cricket is actually pretty incidental to the above: batsmen might be one-dimensional blockers like Boycott, Bailey, Atherton or (most recently) Mark Richardson... or artists like Gower and Mark Waugh... they might be as orthodox as Kallis or Dravid.... or as unorthodox as Kirsten, Jack Russell and Dermott Reeve. IN great cricket, however, they're all facing up to the same endlessly repeated challenge of getting a bowler to put the ball where they want it put by leaving all the rest and therefore rendering his efforts fruitless.

Now all of this works fine on a proper cricket wicket: doesn't matter if the bowler is short but swinging the ball 8" either way, tall and getting seam movement, slow but deceptive in the air and getting turn off the ground or what: Trueman, Statham, Bedser and Laker span a range of styles.. but all engaged with that same game.

The problem these days is that promoters have lost confidence in the heart of the game: instead of trusting the punters to appreciate the ideals at the heart of the game.. they've decided the game has to be dumbed down to meet the alleged intellectual deficiencies of the punters. A bit daft as cricket crowds have a long and illustrious history as singularly knowledgeable.. but the call that has been made.

The result? Adventurous bowling... especially the seamer's mastery of lateral movement in the air and off the seam... but also the slow bowler's well flighted variations... have had to take a back seat: where once the likes of Bicknell and Tuffers would have reigned supreme.... we get, instead, a mix of tall speedsters (there's so rarely any lateral movement to be had there's limited point in swing specialists) and fairly limited finger-spinners who are singled out more for their ability to bottle up one end (and bat) than for any ability to produce magic.

The flips side? With so little lateral movement, turn and uneven bounce around.. the guys who should be towering over the game with the bat (those who thrive when the going gets tough) are being swamped in a sea of pinch hitters, flat track bullies and the like: players like Chris Gayle, Sangakkara, Graeme Smith, Matthew Hayden and so on.

The game at Lords was outstanding because we saw two very different bowlers picking apart batsmen in very different ways: McGrath (and I guess Warne) exploiting technical failings of batsmen who can get away with all-sorts most of the time.. and Harmison (and to a lesser extent Lee and Flintoff) exploiting the tempermental failings of batsmen who just appear to have forgotten how to show a bowler a bit of respect.

That was great.... but it wasn't ona pitch that was overly helpful to the bowlers: ask Jones, Hoggard or Giles.. it was NOT a bowler's pitch. That's what should be in place to keep the batsmen happy, not what should be in place to keep the bowlers happy. The direction of change from Lords should have been to pitches that provided a sterner Test for the batsmen.. like Headingley (especially when damp) or the Rose Bowl (which, of all the county grounds, perhaps plays most like a proper uncovered wicket): that would have provided a nice spectrum from batsmen friendly to bowler friendly.

Perfect cricket? Doesn't worry me. Pitches on which it would at least be feasible does though!

[Lemming]

Rachael, can you find an example of a current bowler, i.e. via an article written by or interviewing them, who dislikes the current status of test cricket pitches, thinking they are designed for batsmen?

Or are you the only person in the world who has this point of view?