Are placid pitches to blame as India run Sri Lanka ragged? : Dileep Premachandran

[Nova]

This article is spot on. I'd rather see a result and if the test match gets completed in 4 days..so be it. I hope BCCI stops being so money hungry and takes some steps to "save" test cricket.

[Mr. Wicket]

For eg' date=' this match could have EASILY produced a result, if only Lanka had managed to snag a couple of more wickets in the 2nd session of day 1. So, just because a match is drawn, does not mean the pitch is bad.[/quote'] Even if SL had snagged another wicket or two, what's to say India may not have cashed in near the end when the pitch was a disgraceful patta? Four wickets fell on the fourth day, one being a tailender (and if you want to get into details, 3 given away by batsmen throwing the bat, and one the result of charming umpiring). Two fell on the final day! How on earth do pitches like that facilitate results?

[Ram]

MM, with all due respect, "EASILY gotten a result" is very close to defending the pitch. You are saying we could've gotten a result when 21 out of 40 wickets fell. And test cricket's greatest wicket-taker ended with 0/128 on the last day of the pitch in INDIA. How the hell does that translate to "EASILY" gotten a result?

To say we could have had a result in this match is no way a 'defence' of this pitch. I saw an article in the OP that went along the lines of 'we're having too many draws in india and the pitches are to blame for that'.. All i wanted to say was 'Of course draws are bad, but please keep in mind guys, sometimes the difference between a draw and result could very well be just a couple of wickets, so lets no by DEFAULT label all drawn pitches as terrible'. What is wrong with that? This match is a very good example of that. How many times do you see a team recovering from being 4 wickets down in less than 40 mins on day 1 (AND) facing a deficit of over 350 in the 1st innings with 135 overs to bat out save a game? To somehow twist my mere theoretical assertions as some sort of defence of pitches that encourage draws require a great amount ingenuity. Think about it, if I really didn’t think nothing much is wrong with our pitches, I could have just said ‘Well, nothing’s really wrong. It all depends on luck. Lets just keep things as they are..’

Things could have gone differently in the other way as well - had our openers got through the first hour' date=' we would have witnessed an even greater run fest. From your earlier post, you were trying to categorize this pitch as one on which "draws happen". That's plain wrong - this was a pitch made for a draw. [/quote'] Sigh.. what are you’re talking about man? When or where did I say ‘This Ahmedabad pitch is the type where draws happen’?. Once again, I merely said even within draws, you can categorize them into two types. Then, I made different point on this match (because its still so fresh in our memory) to highlight that even though this game was drawn, we could have had a result. You established connection when there was none and then lambaste me for that. I honestly think you guys should read a bit more carefully before calling out people.

[Ram]

Even if SL had snagged another wicket or two, what's to say India may not have cashed in near the end when the pitch was a disgraceful patta? Four wickets fell on the fourth day, one being a tailender (and if you want to get into details, 3 given away by batsmen throwing the bat, and one the result of charming umpiring). Two fell on the final day! How on earth do pitches like that facilitate results?

Salil, absolutely you're right. Even if lanka HAD taken a couple of more wickets, we could have STILL had a draw, which is why i said 'We could have EASILY had a result, if only 2 more wickets had fallen the first day' (which i think is an entirely reasonable statement, given not many teams recover from being 4 down in less than 40 mins) and did not 'I ABSOLUTELY know with 100% certainty that had 2 more wickets fallen, there would have been a result'.

[Anakin]

This was a joke of a cricket pitch. Disgraceful really. But from BCCI's POV, probably not good enough for future T20s to be played there.

[The Outsider]

Sigh.. what are you’re talking about man? When or where did I say ‘This Ahmedabad pitch is the type where draws happen’?. Once again, I merely said even within draws, you can categorize them into two types. Then, I made different point on this match (because its still so fresh in our memory) to highlight that even though this game was drawn, we could have had a result. You established connection when there was none and then lambaste me for that. I honestly think you guys should read a bit more carefully before calling out people.

The distinction was already made in the article in the OP and the examples given were all of the type where the pitch was crap. You "can" have a result even on crap pitches - that should not justify them being laid out. For example the test we won at Multan was a flatbed, but Pakistan crumbled just because the score was so huge. There was hardly anything happening on that pitch even in the last innings. I did misunderstand that you were trying to say that this was a pitch on which a draw "happened"

[lonestarranger]

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article&sectname=News%20-%20Sports&sectid=71&contentid=2009111920091119234957765c2f74ef hmm - Poor guy. We must also look at his PoV.

[Feed]

Motera-like tracks would kill Test cricket: Harbhajan Feisty off-spinner Harbhajan Singh said that batting-friendly tracks like the one in Motera would kill cricket's longest format. More...

[vvvslaxman]

In other words this pitch was very close to even deader pitches in Pakistan. Pakistan is the worst culprits in producing these kind of roads. We should not become like them.

[Sachinism]

I guess no matter what kinda pitch is prepared, there is somebody out there who is going to make a big issue. India can't produce wickets like those in Aus, and this may be down to something which we can't do much about.

[vvvslaxman]

I say go for raging turners :winky:

[Feed]

Are placid pitches to blame as India run Sri Lanka ragged? : Dileep Premachandran India's run-fest against Sri Lanka may not be the greatest entertainment, but the crowds in Kanpur will be content with a win for MS Dhoni's men. More... Are placid pitches to blame as India run Sri Lanka ragged? India's run-fest against Sri Lanka may not be the greatest entertainment, but the crowds in Kanpur will be content with a win for MS Dhoni's men Comments (15) What can you say about a series in which 2,133 runs have been scored in 19 sessions for the loss of just 25 wickets? What can you say of the 10 centuries scored already, of a bowler as accomplished as Muttiah Muralitharan being carted all around Green Park? And is Test cricket in India really on an intravenous drip if more than 25,000 take up vantage points in the dilapidated concrete stands in Kanpur? Over the past 24 hours, I've fielded calls from two radio stations, one in the UK and the other in Australia, both wanting to know why pitches in India are so placid, and whether they are responsible for the decline in popularity of the five-day game. Sunil Gavaskar quipped during the Ahmedabad Test that the surface was like a road and, apart from the opening hour of the series when four wickets fell, the contest between bat and ball has been as unedifying as Muhammad Ali reducing Ernie Terrell's face to pulp while hissing: "What's my name, Uncle Tom?" The facts are irrefutable. Over the past five years, nearly 50% of the matches in India [11 of 24] have ended in draws. And unlike a Cardiff 2009 or The Oval 1979, most of the stalemates have been mind-numbingly boring. In the same period, 11 of 35 Tests in England have been drawn. Leading the way in pitch preparation, as on the field, are Australia [two draws in 27] and South Africa [three in 29]. And just to prove that south Asia does not only do touch-of-grey Tests, Sri Lanka have had 18 results from 22 games. Are Indian curators incapable of producing result-oriented pitches, or have they been led astray by idiotic guidelines put in place by the game's administrators? The last time a Test was played in Kanpur, India beat South Africa by eight wickets just before the end of the third day's play. There was all sorts of tripe about "dust bowls" and "sub-standard pitches", strange when you consider that the first-innings scores were 265 and 325. A month later, the ICC sent the Indian board an official warning, one that went meekly unchallenged. While they may not be especially good at running the game, few organisations can match the ICC when it comes to two endearing qualities – hypocrisy and double standards. Just consider this. Match one lasts 256.1 overs, of which 115.3 are sent down by pace bowlers. They take 14 of the 32 wickets to fall. Match two spans just 199.3 overs and finishes a long sneeze after lunch on the third day. The only spinner to bowl in the game goes wicketless in 16 overs. The pitch, the seam bowler's idea of a night at the Playboy Mansion, attracts little negative press, and there's certainly no slap on the wrist from the ICC. Match one was the South African game at Kanpur, match two the recent Ashes Test at Headingley. This much is clear then. A seam-friendly pitch is a good pitch. One that aids slow bowlers isn't. Extravagant seam movement is fine, but God forbid that you turn the ball on the opening day. Ricky Ponting did not have a bad word to say about Headingley, but was worse than any whingeing Pom could ever be after defeat in Mumbai in 2004. Again, the facts are instructive. That game lasted longer than Headingley [202.1 overs] and 11 wickets fell to pace bowlers, while three superb half-centuries from Damien Martyn, VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar offered far greater insight into the batting arts than a century on a featherbed ever could. Yet, because Australia could not chase down 107 for victory, the Mumbai pitch became "nowhere near a Test wicket". By that yardstick, Perth, which hosted Tests against the West Indies in 1993 and 1997, should have been struck off the itinerary years ago. But wait, the Waca is pace-friendly. That's all right then. Instead of taking on this outrageously biased view, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has instructed curators to prepare surfaces that last the full five days. The pitches for the Australia series in 2001 were all spin-friendly, and they delivered three of the most memorable games Indian cricket has seen. But instead of maintaining that tradition and telling the ICC to take a hike, the organisation that is powerful enough to change an umpire mid-series chooses to do nothing. If a few dozen in the stands drift into a coma while watching another run-fest, then so be it. This approach is also welcomed by the broadcasters, whose deal with Indian cricket is on a per-day basis, and who mistakenly think that they get more bang for their buck if a match goes 15 sessions. This is not 1980, though, and most people have better things to do than watch a Test that proceeds at a pace slower than the terribly over-rated Climates. Cheering a Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid century is one thing, but the average punter who skips a day or two of work to take in the play is primarily there to watch India win. Those who have braved the winter chill in Kanpur may just have that wish granted. Virender Sehwag's first century in nearly 18 months and Gautam Gambhir's seventh in his last nine Tests gave India an imposing platform to build on, and with Dravid stroking another marvellously fluent hundred, Sri Lanka were staring into the abyss by lunch on the second day. The odd ball has turned, jumped or kept low, and with an avalanche of runs behind them, India's bowlers could be a real handful. Hopefully, the pitch will deteriorate and aid sharp turn over the coming days. The healthy crowds here have shown that people still care about the five-day game, but the administrators need to play along. And for that to happen, the soundtrack needs to be Nirvana (Here we are now, entertain us) and not Del Amitri (Nothing Ever Happens).

[Ram]

While they may not be especially good at running the game, few organisations can match the ICC when it comes to two endearing qualities – hypocrisy and double standards. Just consider this. Match one lasts 256.1 overs, of which 115.3 are sent down by pace bowlers. They take 14 of the 32 wickets to fall. Match two spans just 199.3 overs and finishes a long sneeze after lunch on the third day. The only spinner to bowl in the game goes wicketless in 16 overs. The pitch, the seam bowler's idea of a night at the Playboy Mansion, attracts little negative press, and there's certainly no slap on the wrist from the ICC. Match one was the South African game at Kanpur, match two the recent Ashes Test at Headingley. This much is clear then. A seam-friendly pitch is a good pitch. One that aids slow bowlers isn't. Extravagant seam movement is fine, but God forbid that you turn the ball on the opening day. Ricky Ponting did not have a bad word to say about Headingley, but was worse than any whingeing Pom could ever be after defeat in Mumbai in 2004. Again, the facts are instructive. That game lasted longer than Headingley [202.1 overs] and 11 wickets fell to pace bowlers, while three superb half-centuries from Damien Martyn, VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar offered far greater insight into the batting arts than a century on a featherbed ever could. Yet, because Australia could not chase down 107 for victory, the Mumbai pitch became "nowhere near a Test wicket". By that yardstick, Perth, which hosted Tests against the West Indies in 1993 and 1997, should have been struck off the itinerary years ago. But wait, the Waca is pace-friendly. That's all right then.

Dileep has echoed the sentiments of many of many fans from the subcontinent. There is a general hypocricy in terms of how the cricketing world views a seamer friendly pitch and a spinner friendly pitch.

[Sachinism]

Good article from Dileep. Its true. Nobody complains about a pitch that offers exaggerated movement for seamers, these wickets are seen as a test for batsmen, but for some reason a turning wicket is not considered a test for batsmen, its deemed as an unfair, unfit for test cricket wicket

[riya]

Because the pommies,Aussies,kiwis,proteas can't play spin.And thats not considered as a technical fault.Wheras our batsmen are called as FTBs and getting mocked if they fail in seaming track.

[varun]

Dileep has echoed the sentiments of many of many fans from the subcontinent. There is a general hypocricy in terms of how the cricketing world views a seamer friendly pitch and a spinner friendly pitch.

Personally I agree with you. But the purists and traditionalists of course look towards history to see what defines a good pitch. And as it is after all an English game, one can understand why they might consider traditionally "good" pitches to be more pacer friendly than ones that assist spin. The other thing is, that most spin friendly pitches are pitches that have cracks in it, or are dustbowls. This ends up in either inconsistent or low bounce. The prospect of seeing a fast bowler bowing as fast as he can with the ball bouncing twice before going to the keeper just doesn't seem fair either.

[Karan114]

This ends up in either inconsistent or low bounce. The prospect of seeing a fast bowler bowing as fast as he can with the ball bouncing twice before going to the keeper just doesn't seem fair either.

True enough - also, you don't want a batsman who is concentrating and applying himself to play a ball correctly but still get dismissed because it hits a crack and does something completely unexpected (on the first day that is, on the fifth day that is perfectly fine).

[nballa]

here we go again...

[King]

Often Hayden and Langer used to score at a fast peg but no complaints were raised then. Aussies when they had great players aiding them used to run up scores in excess of 500+ almost on a regular basis and none complained about the pitch. Similarly none can complain if India does win this test match. I hope India does win this test match to shut some of these buggers that fail to acknowledge the Indian top order. India successfully has put together huge totals on all sorts of pitches including in England and in Australia in the last 6-7 years. They score runs not just because the pitches are flat but because they are good enough to score.

[Mr. Wicket]

Personally I agree with you. But the purists and traditionalists of course look towards history to see what defines a good pitch. And as it is after all an English game' date=' one can understand why they might consider traditionally "good" pitches to be more pacer friendly than ones that assist spin. [/quote'] I would disagree. The game has largely been biased towards batsmen (starting with the fact that in any decision, the benefit of doubt should go to the batsman; not to mention **** like timeless tests, laws made to clip bowlers' wings on things like bouncers, wides down leg side, fielding restrictions, etc). That said, anytime a Pom starts whining about a spinning pitch, point him towards this. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62814.html