Would you rather watch a 3-day result oriented Test or a 5-day snoozefest?

[Texan]

Of course, the best matches are the ones that last 5 days and go to the wire, the kind of games that NZ produced in their last 2 Test matches, but given the reality of Indian pitches, it appears like asking for a match that lasts 5 days and still produces a result might be asking for too much these days.

 

So, given the choice between a 3 day wicket-fest where 40 wickets are taken within 3 days v/s a 5 day run-fest where barely 20 wickets fall over 5 days and teams just about manage to finish their respective 1st innings, which one would you pick?

[Insidious]

4 minutes ago, Texan said:

Of course, the best matches are the ones that last 5 days and go to the wire, the kind of games that NZ produced in their last 2 Test matches, but given the reality of Indian pitches, it appears like asking for a match that lasts 5 days and still produces a result might be asking for too much these days.

 

So, given the choice between a 3 day wicket-fest where 40 wickets are taken within 3 days v/s a 5 day run-fest where barely 20 wickets fall over 5 days and teams just about manage to finish their respective 1st innings, which one would you pick?

Don't blame Indian pitches. The typical Indian pitches are those we had we had against England in 2016/17, where we  won matches even conceding 400 runs. I think after Chennai test 2020/21, where, we stopped producing typical India pitches. It is mostly because our captains ( then Kohli,now Rohit)can't win a toss to save their lives. And we don't have a team now who can win matches despite losing toss on  India pitches. Also our spinners are not used to bowl long spells. So what we do - we produced rank Turners/ mine fields to negate toss factor. Or batting beauty by leaving dry grass on the pitch, so that cracks don't open up, again to negate toss factor. These are not typical Indian pitches, but doctored pitches to suit an ageing team that now have lot of limitations.

[Texan]

7 minutes ago, Insidious said:

Don't blame Indian pitches. The typical Indian pitches are those we had we had against England in 2016/17, where we  won matches even conceding 400 runs. I think after Chennai test 2020/21, where, we stopped producing typical India pitches. It is mostly because our captains ( then Kohli,now Rohit)can't win a toss to save their lives. And we don't have a team now who can win matches despite losing toss on  India pitches. Also our spinners are not used to bowl long spells. So what we do - we produced rank Turners/ mine fields to negate toss factor. Or batting beauty by leaving dry grass on the pitch, so that cracks don't open up, again to negate toss factor. These are not typical Indian pitches, but doctored pitches to suit an ageing team that now have lot of limitations.

Fair enough, but the question still stands 

[zen]

Any test that gives both teams a relatively fair chance is better than tailored turning pitches, which are probably irrelevant for cricket. 
 

If you get bored with a relatively fair way of playing cricket (many people in subcon can look for various reasons to justify cheating), it is not difficult to see where the problem lies … If only 2 extreme options for pitches are available, it probably shows that India is not a good place to play test cricket. 
 

PS Recently, cricket fans saw some of the most interesting tests that went into the 5th day in NZ!

Edited March 14, 2023 by zen

[Texan]

One bonus in 5-day snooze fests:

You get to watch Shubman Gill and Cheteshwar Pujara bowl (in case you enjoy such action )

 

[Insidious]

Somewhere in between. The Nagpur pitch can be considered as ideal one. Turner but not a rank Turner. Ideally that test should not have ended in 3 days.

[vvvslaxman]

Ahmedabad pitch was like Pakistan pitch where bastmen statpad without any real effort. If Axar had batted selfishly he could have got a 150 here easily. Murphy could have got his maiden 50. This is exactly what we ridicule Babar Azam for.

[vvvslaxman]

This curator might go scot-free because he didn't make the batsmen look bad. Modern batsmen are ill-equipped to face challenging conditions. Same Australian side got blown away at the Gabba against SA. Just that SA batting sucked more.  As much as we whine about turning pitches we also have to understand current set of batsmen are good only on wickets that are closer to road.  Australia has been rolling out roads for the last 10 years or so and outbatting the opposition. No bowling unit could challenge their batting lineup until our bowlers.

 

 

[nevada]

Neither. I want to watch Rishabh Pant ace the chase towards the close of day 5. 

[Texan]

20 minutes ago, nevada said:

Neither. I want to watch Rishabh Pant ace the chase towards the close of day 5. 

You are missing the point. That is of course, everyone's ideal pitch. The question is if the ideal scenario is not met, which of the two extremes would you prefer?

[Texan]

1 hour ago, Insidious said:

Somewhere in between. The Nagpur pitch can be considered as ideal one. Turner but not a rank Turner. Ideally that test should not have ended in 3 days.

Agreed that Nagpur was a good pitch. Game ended in 3 days due to incompetence of Australian batsmen to handle only a little additional spin than on a flat track in Indian conditions. It was definitely not a rank turner. Still, since the Test ended in 3 days, I would count it in the first bucket.

[Texan]

28 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

As much as we whine about turning pitches we also have to understand current set of batsmen are good only on wickets that are closer to road.

This.

 

Current set of batsmen are spoon fed on flat tracks to optimize their ability to score runs fast in LOIs. They are severely lacking in skills required for playing in challenging conditions.

[nevada]

12 minutes ago, Texan said:

You are missing the point. That is of course, everyone's ideal pitch. The question is if the ideal scenario is not met, which of the two extremes would you prefer?

Neither extreme is acceptable to me. They are called extreme for a reason! I derive no joy in bowlers running rampant on a one sided pitch or turned into ball boys on a docile one. I wish the stupid WTC final thing would go away so that hosting teams don't have to desperately engineer outcomes in their favor. 

[zen]

At Nagpur, the relatively inexperienced OZ spinners (Aus also went with 2 spinners) were not adjusted to the conditions, therefore, India took advantage of that. As the series progressed, they learned how to bowl on such pitches. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, nevada said:

Neither extreme is acceptable to me. They are called extreme for a reason! I derive no joy in bowlers running rampant on a one sided pitch or turned into ball boys on a docile one. I wish the stupid WTC final thing would go away so that hosting teams don't have to desperately engineer outcomes in their favor. 

 

Home advantage is there for all sides. We don't get greeted with dry wickets in Australia/SA/NZ/England.  Nagpur kind of pitches are acceptable. If India had fielded the side  Agarwal, Jaiswal, Eswaran, Sarfraz on the same pitch you would not have seen a massive collapse from india. The current line up (including Gill) don't play enough domestic cricket and they completely forget the art of playing spin on Indian pitches. Tendulkar played first class cricket in 2012. Kohli's last first class cricket was in 2011. How will they learn? Axar looks million bucks on the same trucks compared to top order batsmen like Pujara, Kohli. We give a free pass to batsmen because they collectively suck. What is the excuse for them to suck at Mirpur?

[vvvslaxman]

26 minutes ago, Texan said:

This.

 

Current set of batsmen are spoon fed on flat tracks to optimize their ability to score runs fast in LOIs. They are severely lacking in skills required for playing in challenging conditions.

FTBs are brutally exposed.

[SRT100]

1 hour ago, Texan said:

You are missing the point. That is of course, everyone's ideal pitch. The question is if the ideal scenario is not met, which of the two extremes would you prefer?

3 day pitch wins every time.

 

Every sessions is riveting and entertaining.

 

A 5 day match can be boring watching your bowlers get smashed all over the place.

[nevada]

3 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Home advantage is there for all sides. We don't get greeted with dry wickets in Australia/SA/NZ/England.  Nagpur kind of pitches are acceptable. If India had fielded the side  Agarwal, Jaiswal, Eswaran, Sarfraz on the same pitch you would not have seen a massive collapse from india. The current line up (including Gill) don't play enough domestic cricket and they completely forget the art of playing spin on Indian pitches. Tendulkar played first class cricket in 2012. Kohli's last first class cricket was in 2011. How will they learn? Axar looks million bucks on the same trucks compared to top order batsmen like Pujara, Kohli. We give a free pass to batsmen because they collectively suck. What is the excuse for them to suck at Mirpur?

I thought the game 1 pitch in this series was okay. Batsmen who applied themselves were able to score.  My dislike for 2-3 day pitches is not limited to India or the sub continent alone. England and New Zealand have such pitches too and I totally hate them. Bring on a good contest with a fair and balanced pitch and let the best team win. 

[vvvslaxman]

3 hours ago, nevada said:

I thought the game 1 pitch in this series was okay. Batsmen who applied themselves were able to score.  My dislike for 2-3 day pitches is not limited to India or the sub continent alone. England and New Zealand have such pitches too and I totally hate them. Bring on a good contest with a fair and balanced pitch and let the best team win. 

 

I agree that third test pitch was garbage. It was  keeping excessively low at times. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by vvvslaxman