Despite England's loss to Oz yesterday, it was interesting to note how effectively a part-time medium pacer like Paul Collingwood bowled. It looks like the slow, low-bounce conditions of the present-day Caribbean wickets will suit such bowlers. The batsmen might take advantage of the quicker bowlers with the ball coming on to the bat, while the spinners are likely to struggle if the bounce gets too low. But bowlers that are able to take the pace off the ball and use a bit of the seam are likely to actually benefit from the conditions. Oddly, most such bowlers are part-timers like Collingwood, Tendulkar, Kemp, Styris, Arnold, Dwayne Smith etc and I wonder how many of them will have a say with the ball in this World Cup?

In that sense, Oz might be handicapped by Symonds' limitations due to injury and not selecting White ahead of Johnson.

Are you saying that bowlers with an effective slower, hard to spot slower ball may be able to make the most of these pitches?

Sort of. It looks like the conditions might not favour the real fast men. Spin bowlers might occasionally restrain the scoring, but with the bounce getting low, they may not be able to threaten as much. But a medium pacer might just be able to get the best of both worlds. I keep looking back at Collingwood's dismissal of Hodge yesterday. Frankly, if that sort of thing is going to become commonplace, this tournament might turn out to be rather dull.

It's always been true that tall fast bowlers who get an easy life on quick, bouncy pitches find their fiercest short balls merely sit up and ask to be hit on slow and low pitches... and that at times, bowling faster actually makes life easier for the batsman by giving the batsman more pace to work with... hence Malcolm Marshall's long spells of bowling medium pace off-cutters to HUGE effect on sub-continental wickets.

To my mind the "pace" issue is irrelevent in all forms of cricket EXCEPT when bowling to tail-enders: what gets top batsman is guile - well disguised variations especially with lines that change in the air and off the pitch, will work anywhere... and it doesn't matter that much whether you bowl at Cairns' pace or Akhtar's pace so long as you can get batsmen confused about the line, length and pace of the delivery!

Well if you are right - then cricket as a game has ended, I for one would stop watching - and turn to baseball instead.

But I don't think you are right - front line bowlers on any pitch will take wickets, bowlers like Holding and Garner would have bowled on sand - better than the bowlers you mention bowl on cricket pitches.

Maybe the standard of coaching is poor - and bowlers are not taught to bowl in all conditions, a few years back bowlers like Lee Shoaib and Flintoff, would just has took a yard of their pace.

Also countries should be fined for producing POOR cricket wickets.

__________________
Ern

If the wickets in the actual World Cup are anything like those on the friendly games, your prophecy might well come to pass. Unfortunately, the some of pitches we see these days seem to encourage the negative approach to ODI cricket. My hometown Bangalore in India is an example; in November 2005 I saw one of the most boring ODIs between India and South Africa in which some 350 runs were scored in all in 7 hours; India won the match easily because the dew made bowling very difficult under the lights for the Proteas with India chasing their low total.

Absolutely. And I believe that Day / Night matches should be stopped.

But Marshalls cutters were effective because the batsman had to come on to the front foot to play them. The problem was not many batsman wanted to come forward to Marshall because he could easily pop one through at full pace and the batsman didnt fancy hospital food!

Yes, line and length is the most important part of being a bowler, but if you are bowling at say, 75mph (Jon Lewis' pace) a good bat like Ponting or Yusuf has all the time in the world to use his feet (either come forward or back) and the bowler has no come back. Yes the keeper can stand up to the stumps but then the only way that will take a wicket is if the bowler fires one wide down leg!

As Ern said the great (and good) fast bowlers like Holding, Garner, Ambrose, Lillee, Marshall, Walsh..... could bowl on any surface and cause problems. Nowadays there are currently no great fast bowlers around.

__________________
Mark.

Yes it's loaded in favour always of the side batting first - also the silly power play can go.

__________________
Ern

getting rid of the power play could not only stop exciting runs being scored but also could change the amount of wickets taken, it also gives teams a chance against a bowling line up like australias and makes the game much more exciting

__________________
Finally England have risen from the ashes.

Yeah that's the modern way of thinking - that's one reason I am not keen on one day cricket, to far removed from the real game.

To me when it was 50 overs a side starting at 10am, and another thing that has changed - is that teams winning the toss in those days, nearly always batted second.

__________________
Ern