Beefy wants pitch doctored!

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

If an attack of Hoggard, Zoysa, Pedro Collins and Balaji had been at the last two Tests it would have got murdered... and to little effect... whereas a far less talented attack of Best, Sami, Lee and Nel would have been fairly effective: that's just ridiculous!

Brett Lee was hammered all around the ground on Thursday last week. I've no doubts that Tino would have suffered the same fate. Andre Nel is a far better bowler than he is given credit for being, likewise Freddie.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

The first two Tests have lasted into the fourth day, what you're suggesting may see two day Tests in England !

The first Test should have been a draw: it was a good batting track and hardly any top order wicket fell to an unplayable delivery: the Aussie batsmen got themselves out by refusing to show England's bowlers the respect they deserved.. and the England batsmen got themselves out through technical failings. A decent batting side would have comfortably managed 9 sessions over two innings on that track.

Edgebaston? England shoudl have been 3-4 down not all out at the end of day one... and Australia's failure to get as far as the new ball was awful. Was it really the sort of wicket on which England should have been 75-6 in 26.5 overs and all out in 52 overs? I think not: the pitch was largely (one ball to Geraint Jones aside) blameless in that collapse.

Neither game was on a results pitch.. and the way Flintoff and Harmison struggled to get any movement to trouble Warne and Lee on the 4th day at Edgbaston (and Vaughan kept Hoggard out of the attack) says it all, really.

ps. I agree that Lee got carted on day one at Edgbaston... but would a decent fast-medium swing bowler like Pedro Collins have done better?

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Was it really the sort of wicket on which England should have been 75-6 in 26.5 overs and all out in 52 overs?

Having seen the ball Warne got Strauss out with I am surprised they got as far as they did. I felt Warne should have had 6-20 in the second innings as the pitch was aiding him massively.

[Wiljoy]

I would be more than happy to see Botham "doctored"

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Having seen the ball Warne got Strauss out with I am surprised they got as far as they did.

There's too much ******** talked about that ball: wherever it pitched.. and however much it turned.. it should not have bowled Staruss: he's got two pads and a bat and one job - to get that lot between ball and stumps. he just didn't know where his stumps were relative to the pitch of the ball and stood in the wrong place: not impressive.

I was far, far more impressed with Harmison's slower ball to dismiss the ever more impressive Clarke... that ball swung and seamed and was almost unreadable: Clarke should have been bringing his bat down straighter and not trying to whip the thing off his legs.. but I fancy that even playing that ball with a straight bat he'd have popped a catch up to the bowler.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

There's too much ******** talked about that ball: wherever it pitched.. and however much it turned.. it should not have bowled Staruss: he's got two pads and a bat and one job - to get that lot between ball and stumps. he just didn't know where his stumps were relative to the pitch of the ball and stood in the wrong place: not impressive.

I don't disagree with you that Strauss played it appallingly. However, what it showed was that the pitch was becoming very receptive to turn which would hardly have helped any attempts at scoring quickly.

[Rachael]

Point taken: there was more in that pitch for Warne than for the others. That said.. Warne's as keen as Harmison or McGrath on pitches with a bit of pace and bounce.. and it's a mark of just how good he is that he was so effective depite the absense of those things.

One suspects an ordinarily decent leg spinner (thinking maybe MacGill, not Salisbury) would have struggled to describe that Edgebaston pitch as one they'd love to bowl on!

[Cricket Girl]

I've recently heard some of the senior New Zealand players and commentators complain that their pitches at home are TOO bowler-friendly, with the result that any guy who bowls medium-pace and puts it on a spot three balls out of six looks like a world-beater. Then these same bowlers play Tests and are carted all around the pitch by everyone, flat-track bullies and otherwise. This is not because Test pitches are too batsman-friendly - although of course some of them are - it's because the New Zealand Rose Bowl-type pitches have allowed mediocre medium-pacers who have neither pace, accuracy, bounce or swing to pick up cheap wickets. Why would we want to get into a situation where this is the case in Tests?

The ideal is surely not to be too batsman or bowler-friendly, but to produce a pitch which starts out, as someone said, 60-40 in favour of the batsman and gradually deteriorates. Test cricket should be a test and it should be tough for everyone, batsman and bowlers. Much as I don't like flat-track bullies picking up cheap runs (how Graeme Smith has an average of 55 continues to baffle me), there would be no sense in reversing the situation so that mediocre bowlers could pick up cheap wickets.

The solution is to kick out the weaker sides in Tests and hope the rest start producing some quality bowlers. The real reason cricket has been too batsman friendly over the past few years is due to the fact that there haven't been enough decent bowlers. If you had the pace attacks of the late 80s/early 90s on the pitches of today, do you really think today's batsmen would be doing so well? IMHO, less to do with pitches than players.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Cricket Girl

The ideal is surely not to be too batsman or bowler-friendly, but to produce a pitch which starts out, as someone said, 60-40 in favour of the batsman and gradually deteriorates. Test cricket should be a test and it should be tough for everyone, batsman and bowlers. Much as I don't like flat-track bullies picking up cheap runs (how Graeme Smith has an average of 55 continues to baffle me), there would be no sense in reversing the situation so that mediocre bowlers could pick up cheap wickets.

Many good points CG. However, I do disagree with you on Graeme Smith. I used to think he was an overrated flat-track-bully. I am coming around to the fact that he is a decent batsman. He does have his weaknesses, especially against the ball swinging into him, but he also has the ability to play. His innings at the Jo'burg Test when he was injured was quite something.

You are right tho, we would rather see a pitch where the batsman starts as favourite but where the bowlers then hold sway later on. For me the ideal Test pitch would have a little something in it on the first and second mornings and then begin to turn towards the end of the fourth day. i'm sure a few will disagree

[Cricket Girl]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

Many good points CG. However, I do disagree with you on Graeme Smith. I used to think he was an overrated flat-track-bully. I am coming around to the fact that he is a decent batsman. He does have his weaknesses, especially against the ball swinging into him, but he also has the ability to play. His innings at the Jo'burg Test when he was injured was quite something.

You are right tho, we would rather see a pitch where the batsman starts as favourite but where the bowlers then hold sway later on. For me the ideal Test pitch would have a little something in it on the first and second mornings and then begin to turn towards the end of the fourth day. i'm sure a few will disagree

I don't think Graeme Smith is a bad batsman - as you say, he played a good innings while injured against us and has played some gutsy innings against Australia. But there is no way on this earth that he is good enough to average 55 - or good enough to average what 55 used to stand for. When I first saw him batter our poor attack in 2003, I thought that the better attacks in world cricket would soon sort him out and his average would tumble. But the problem is there aren't that many good attacks in world cricket. His average fell a bit after we got the better of him over the winter, but three successive hundreds against the WI's substandard attack made that up and more.

There was a feature in Observer Sport Monthly recently about how many current batsmen are in the top 20 of players with the highest average. There are eight in total. Viv Richards isn't in the top 20. Now, there is no way at all that Matthew Hayden and Graeme Smith are better batsmen than Viv Richards. Smith has an average that is FIVE runs better than Richards's, and that really is down to nothing but the flaying of substandard attacks. Hopefully that average will level out over his career, but if bowling attacks worldwide stay at the same standard, there's no reason why it shouldn't stay at those heights. Whereas if Smith was batting in the late 80s/90s, he'd still be a good batsman but he'd average about 40-odd, I think.

I guess the point is that it is difficult to compare averages across generations and stats aren't everything.