mickey arthur and the Kanpur track.

[Lurker]

prima donnas like Ganguly I suppose? Why cant South Africa win a test on the same sham of a wicket despite getting the better deal in the toss? I dont know whether to take you seriously because you could be either sarcastic or drunk.

I will bet you that NO TEAM outside India will win on this squar turner. Just that India winning on a square turner doesnt make them world champions(makes them look rather desperate really) similarly there is no reason why South Africa should be called anything if they fail to win this Test. All things being equal which other team, including Australia, do you think can match India's record on a square turner? And yes I am as drunk as you are effed up. You need to give the other person benefit of doubt before going effing off your rockers ace. Hope you get the message.

If Sehwag happens to be 5 times more talented as a spinner than Paul Harris, its their problem and such a team can never be truly great. We win on all kinds of wickets, we lose on all kinds of wickets. Its different with SA or Sri Lanka for that matter. Fact is, South Africa didnt have a spinner who deserves to play test matches. And that was ruthlessly exposed, as it deserves to be.

Only a dumba$$ will say that. Nothing against Sehwag but his spells like this will come only on such tracks. I dont blame him really, I mean he is a batsman first and last. But if he bowls such spells, or Michael Clarke did at Mumbai, it tells more about the pitch than Sehwag's skills.

Sehwag has taken 3 wickets a few times. And please, Harbhajan got a bowl because Dhoni, as he said didnt want any free runs to be given before they eliminated the lead, as would have been the case if he had given the ball to Ishant.

And Dhoni would have done that on a regular 3rd day 3rd innings track. Right. Now please show me of the instances in Harbhajan Singh's career where he has opened the bowling and saved runs. I dont dispute Dhoni's choice of bowling Bhajji by the way. But I know that under no circumstance will Bhajji bowl the first over of the game anytime when India plays outside. It was as much due to the track as anything else. xxxx

[The Outsider]

Only a dumba$$ will say that. Nothing against Sehwag but his spells like this will come only on such tracks. I dont blame him really, I mean he is a batsman first and last. But if he bowls such spells, or Michael Clarke did at Mumbai, it tells more about the pitch than Sehwag's skills.

Over the last couple of years, Sehwag has become a very useful and effective bowler. He bowled very well in WI and even in Australia. Those pitches were not square turner by any stretch of imagination. Does he have the ability to bowl 40 overs? Probably not, because he would not be practicing his bowling as much as someone like Harris would be, but over a 5-10 over spell, Sehwag is a more dangerous bowler than someone like Harris.

[Lurker]

Cant believe someone can actually downplay our victory coz we won in three days or just because spinners played such a massive role and got lots of assistance from the track. I have always found it ironical that' date= in the mid-90 and early 2000s, when we used to lose so badly abroad coz our batting wasnt great against quality fast bowling, the blame would automatically fall on our batsman for being not capable of adapting to the new environs. No one really blamed the pitch when we were shot out for 100 and 66 in Durban in 96 and lost in two days. Then, all the blame was on our batsman as usual.

And the blame was richly deserved too. Sorry but you need to do more homework Sriram. Firstly I am glad that you had to go all the way to mid 90s to dig up an example to support your cause. That itself vindicates what I am saying(and had you followed my posts I have already clarified that not since mid 90s have I see matches result in 3 days). And if you have looked further you would see that a visiting Pakistani team faught much better than India and match went till the last day so yes your argument on Durban pitch doesnt hold water.

Any pitch, any condition, is after all, a unique challenge by itself. There's no given thing called a 'good cricket wicket'.

Thats an argument that comes out of Indian mouth only, ever thought of that? A substandard pitch that cracks on day 1 is a challenge? Then I suppose the conditions on wonderbra NZ wickets were equally challenging and no surprises Indian prima donnas were found wanting. Question: Do you think NZ wickets were International quality the last time India travelled there? Was it challenging enough Sriram? xxx

[The Outsider]

I will see your viewpoint about comparing with South Africa(or Australia) if you could point me out to a test match that ended in less than 3 days. To my knowledge not since mid 90s have I seen a South African test end in 3 days so yes I would wait if you could give me some recent examples.

Did you watch the match? Kanpur track was a difficult track - for spinners and pacers alike. Look at the bowling of Ishant and Morkel during the match to get an idea of how difficult it was to play good pace bowling. As for tests in South Africa finishing in less than 3 days, give me a break, there are so many instances(I'll exclude the ones against minnows) of tests lasting less than 300 overs in the last 10 years. Here is a sample : http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63820.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/238201.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/238205.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/238207.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/249215.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/250667.html Most of them lasted less than 250 overs and what kind of a logic is that since SA lost at Johannesburg it doesn't count. If you think the Johannesburg track was prepared to assist India, then really I have nothing to say.

[graphic23]

Lurker, Harbhajan has opened the bowling for India in 5 other circumstances (or 5 along with this one - I don't remember), but this was the first time he bowled the first over. In the other situations, he bowled the 2nd over. I think in most or all of the matches, he opened in the 2nd innings. So there are possibilities that he could've opened it on a 3rd day. Sehwag also did well on a 4th day Perth track. The WACA is not known for its spin so I'd say give him a bit more credit and a little less to the pitch. I agree with you in your general assessment that he's not as good as a special spin practitioner but I think he's one of the better part-time spin bowlers around the world. Harbhajan, unlike in recent times, has always been used as an attacking bowler so I'd say that if he opened the bowling, the pitch must've been conducive to spin bowling or that we were defending a really low target and we wanted to use him to trouble the opposition batsmen. Lately though, he has been a restrictive bowler and has saved runs early on. I also am not sure what your (correct) assessment of not opening with Harbhajan overseas has to do with the topic really. It is rather right that we want to open with him only on tracks that suit spin and where he can trouble the batsmen and put them in pressure early on so that we can get wickets. No team apart from India and West Indies has won on the WACA in the past 20 years. So they are pretty darn strong and comfortable with playing on that pitch. Similarly, no one has ever beaten us at Green Park over the past 25 years because we have really good spinners and they don't. Even if they did, we have really good players of spin, which gives us a very big advantage. Your comment that SA should not be called anything if they lose this test is quite right. Infact, I think its more shameful that we've lost at home by an innings. We deserve to be criticized. At the same time, would you have expected India to win at Perth? We did. But we never made any comments prior to the test that we can handle bounce, etc. SA team management though kept giving us "warnings" about how they are good players of spin and that their pacemen will manage more out of this pitch than us. So I think it is valid if we claim that their mouths spoke more than their batting on this pitch. Also I think since I mentioned that they spoke too much, I'd also like to mention that my respect for Graeme Smith has increased. 1) He did not find any excuses that we prepared a bad pitch,etc. (like Ponting did in 2004). 2) He thanked us for a good series. 3) He did not indulge in nonsensical chatter on the field. They were extremely aggressive and not many words were exchanged (barring that minuscule issue with Yuvraj and Steyn).

[kooljatt]

Its not even as if any of those wickets were actually cases of his skill (or even the wicket) doing the trick He's about as good as Yuvraj.

dnt u compare him with yuvi...even kaif is beta spinner than him:giggle:

[umpire]

>Even the foolest of fool wont compare Sydney cricket ground with Kanpur, but hey surely there are some even worse than that lot. again utter nonsense. Aussies biggest strength against England in Sydney is Shane Warne and thats why they did not change the pitch. I would like you to go back to 98-99 series agaisst India. Australia had already clinched the series, India were 2-0 down and out. 3rd Test is at Sydney and what they come up. The bounciest pitch you will ever see in sydney. But ofcourse thats fine as spinner did not open the bowling. Give me a reason on why I should not compare Sydney with Kanpur. The games ended within 3 days at both venues. Lurker, you are making fool of yourself with your loathing.

[SA-Eddie]

I wouldnt pay to much attention to Mickey Mouse as us Saffies call him . We would rather see him gone and have another coach ,he always tends to say crap .

[Gambit]

Some good posts in this thread. It is true that a pitch that is bouncy and a haven for quick bowlers is heralded as a great track on which a batsman's true mettle is judged. But a krumbling track aiding spinners is looked upon as a medieval torture chamber and a disgrace to cricket that needs to be done away with as soon as possible.

[f.b.m]

I will bet you that NO TEAM outside India will win on this squar turner. Just that India winning on a square turner doesnt make them world champions(makes them look rather desperate really) similarly there is no reason why South Africa should be called anything if they fail to win this Test. All things being equal which other team, including Australia, do you think can match India's record on a square turner?

I think Sri Lanka and New Zealand (on some ocassions) can match India on a square tuner.Thats besides the point. Yes, India winning on such a track doesnt make them world champions, for that they would need to win on all sorts of tracks.

Only a dumba$$ will say that. Nothing against Sehwag but his spells like this will come only on such tracks. I dont blame him really, I mean he is a batsman first and last. But if he bowls such spells, or Michael Clarke did at Mumbai, it tells more about the pitch than Sehwag's skills.

Why is it that Paul Harris was absolute crap in both innings, while when Sehwag was threatening its the wicket? I'm not denying that most of Sehwag's wickets were due to the pitch. But why was it that Sehwag was threatening and not Paul Harris? What I'm saying is that a team where no one can turn the ball even on the Kanpur wicket doesnt deserve to win a series here, and obviously deserve to lose the match.

And Dhoni would have done that on a regular 3rd day 3rd innings track. Right. Now please show me of the instances in Harbhajan Singh's career where he has opened the bowling and saved runs. I dont dispute Dhoni's choice of bowling Bhajji by the way. But I know that under no circumstance will Bhajji bowl the first over of the game anytime when India plays outside. It was as much due to the track as anything else.

Right, its not as if we're playing in India are we? I've often wondered why this doesnt happen more often on Indian and Sri Lankan tracks. Its obvious that the openers love the first 10-15 overs in the subcontinent where the ball is hard and is coming on to the bat. The spinners like the ball bouncing and spitting. The pacers only hope is usually reverse swing. You solve the jigsaw.

[f.b.m]

Some good posts in this thread. It is true that a pitch that is bouncy and a haven for quick bowlers is heralded as a great track on which a batsman's true mettle is judged. But a krumbling track aiding spinners is looked upon as a medieval torture chamber and a disgrace to cricket that needs to be done away with as soon as possible.

Right, its not as if this track had nothing in it for the fast bowlers either. If you think about it, the top three most unplayable deliveries of the whole match were bowled by fast bowlers: Morkel's wicket of Dravid, and Ishant's deliveries to Boucher and Kallis (didnt get him out though).

[Lurker]

As for tests in South Africa finishing in less than 3 days' date= give me a break, there are so many instances(I'll exclude the ones against minnows) of tests lasting less than 300 overs in the last 10 years. Here is a sample : http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63820.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/238201.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/238205.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/238207.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/249215.html http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/250667.html Most of them lasted less than 250 overs and what kind of a logic is that since SA lost at Johannesburg it doesn't count. If you think the Johannesburg track was prepared to assist India, then really I have nothing to say.

Losing a game under 3 days simply because the pitch was substandard is completely different from losing inside 3 days because 1 team played cr@p(or the other team played stellar). I am not sure which Kanpur test you were watching but I certainly did not see any earth shattering spell that left me gobsmacked. Of course I did see Ishant Sharma failing to get ball to rise on spell 1 of day 1. As for the examples that you give, how many of them even remotely had an argument of "substandard pitch". You can not just throw some example without looking at the context. So Pakistan lost inside 2 days in Sharjah(to Australia) and were dismissed for 50 and 60 odds. Is that a pitch problem or a batting problem?? The fiasco at Kanpur was a pitch problem. Get it? Question: Of the examples you put up, how many of them ended up with the captain sending out cash renumeration to the curator? I am sure you have read of Dhoni sending 10,000 curator's way by now.

A grateful Mahendra Singh Dhoni sent a note of thanks and Rs 10,000 to Green Park stadium's pitch curator for preparing the turning track that helped the hosts clinch the series-levelling win over South Africa in the third Test in Kanpur

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Dhoni-says-thanks-to-Kanpur-pitch-curator/296643/ xxx

[Lurker]

I also am not sure what your (correct) assessment of not opening with Harbhajan overseas has to do with the topic really. It is rather right that we want to open with him only on tracks that suit spin and where he can trouble the batsmen and put them in pressure early on so that we can get wickets.

Thats a misnomer Graphic. On a spin track a spinner will come early, say 10th over, even 6-7th but if the spinner is given the brand new ball that should tell you exactly how much the pitch is spinning. Anyone who has played cricket will agree it is hard to spin a new ball, indeed on a spin track pacers are often used to "deaden" the ball. However here Bhajji was given 1st over. So that speaks as much about the pitch as it does about Harbhajan really.

No team apart from India and West Indies has won on the WACA in the past 20 years. So they are pretty darn strong and comfortable with playing on that pitch. Similarly, no one has ever beaten us at Green Park over the past 25 years because we have really good spinners and they don't. Even if they did, we have really good players of spin, which gives us a very big advantage.

No I dont agree with that at all. I will repeat what I mentioned in other thread someplace. On such turning tracks ONLY India wins. Yes you can argue we have never lost on Kanpur but that does not mean we have great spinners or anything, we just play a little better on such wickets. Heck the stats of Bhajji and even second string bowlers like Raju and Chauhan would not be half-bad. Such pitches just make half-decent bowler come across as world beater. You mentioned WACA pitch but what you did not mention is how WACA pitch was always pacey(it has started to go all slow now). Kanpur used to be batsman's paradise till it was changed completely to aid Indian spinners. How can you compare the two? xx

[Lurker]

again utter nonsense. Aussies biggest strength against England in Sydney is Shane Warne and thats why they did not change the pitch.

You simply dont know cricket, do you? Australia have always dominated England. CHeck the records. In the series you are yapping about they were leading 4-0 going in the 5th Test. So why the eff would they need to do anything out of the world anyway??? And Sydney pitch always spins. There is nothing knew about it. This is the same pitch where Alan Border took 7 wickets on day 1 against mighty West Indies(overall 11 wickets). So go do some homework before you start yapping again.

[f.b.m]

. On such turning tracks ONLY India wins.

Why?

we just play a little better on such wickets.

Why?

Heck the stats of Bhajji and even second string bowlers like Raju and Chauhan would not be half-bad. Such pitches just make half-decent bowler come across as world beater.

Why was Paul Harris crap then?

[The Outsider]

Losing a game under 3 days simply because the pitch was substandard is completely different from losing inside 3 days because 1 team played cr@p(or the other team played stellar). I am not sure which Kanpur test you were watching but I certainly did not see any earth shattering spell that left me gobsmacked. Of course I did see Ishant Sharma failing to get ball to rise on spell 1 of day 1.

The first example I quoted was SA-WI. None of the sides lasted more than 70 overs. So which one played crap and which one was stellar? In the second example neither Aus nor SA lasted more than 90 overs. Which one was crap and which one was stellar? In the thrid example, SA vs. NZ, no side lasted more than 100 overs. Yes, NZ were crap but if they were so crap why didn't SA pile on the runs? In the fourth example, SA vs. NZ, no side lasted more than 80 overs. Which was the crap, which was the stellar side? In the fifth example, no side lasted more than 85 overs, Ind vs. SA. Who was crap, who was stellar? In the sixth example, maximum overs batted was 65, SA vs. Pak. Who was crap, who was stellar? None of the matches above were horribly one sided pastings and no minnows were playing.

The fiasco at Kanpur was a pitch problem. Get it?

No it wasn't. It just brought out the simple fact that South Africa have crap players of spin and have crap spinners. On a pitch where fast bowlers and spinners got equal assistance they were exposed. Did the pitch become crap all of a sudden when they were coasting at 152-1, then improved again for India to post 320+. And then after the last Indian wicket had added 50 runs, the pitch became crap again for SA to be all out for 120 before easing off again so India could knock over 60 odd runs at 5 RPO.

[Lurker]

Why? Why

Yes. Because. Maybe. Whatever

Why was Paul Harris crap then?

Such assertion always makes me laugh at certain Indian fans. No wonder when India loses many non-Indians start celebrating. How was Paul Harris cr@p? He took 4/140 or so in the Test. Not the greatest spell ever surely but surely not bad for a bowler who is a 12-13 Test veteran and was travelling India first time. I suppose most visiting spinners will take 4 wickets@35 in an Indian test with glee(just ask Warne). Speaking of cr@p what the cr@p happened to India in 2nd test? How cr@ppy were Indian batsmen that were skittled for 70 odds? How cr@ppy is Rahul Dravid who scored a total of 20 runs? How cr@ppy is the Indian team that lost by an innings at home? See how that works smarty pants :finger:

[umpire]

>Australia have always dominated England. CHeck the records. In the series you are yapping about they were leading 4-0 going in the 5th Test. So why the eff would they need to do anything out of the world anyway??? And Sydney pitch always spins. There is nothing knew about it. This is the same pitch where Alan Border took 7 wickets on day 1 against mighty West Indies(overall 11 wickets). So go do some homework before you start yapping again. What is your point here, I don't get it? Same sydney pitch was bouncy track (Brett Lee's debut game) against India, may I ask you why?

[Lurker]

What is your point here, I don't get it? Same sydney pitch was bouncy track (Brett Lee's debut game) against India, may I ask you why?

You obviously wont get it mate. For starters YOU are the one who gave example of Sydney test ending in 3 days. YOU are the one suggesting that it was done because Aussies wanted to beat England. YOU conviniently ignored(or perhaps just dont know) that Aussies were leading 4-0 anyway and SCG is where Warne and Macgill kick most butt(except India) so no reason why they had to doctor the pitch. What YOU need to understand is this : Comparing SCG win of Australia in 3 days with India's at Kanpur are not one and the same. Clear now?

[The Outsider]

Looks like someone is still trying to figure out which team was crap and which was stellar in matches where no side lasted more than 70 overs in South Africa, the land of fair pitches and paradise!:hysterical: