Drawn Tests in Indian sub-continent a worry: Ponting

[gs]

Sounds like "sour grapes" to me. But having said that, we need to fix our damned runways!!

[Chandan]

Because it will take a good fast bowler to exploit the disconcerting bounce. Just because a pitch is fast and bouncy does not mean a Mark Waugh with his military medium would take 5 wickets. On the other hand the dust bowls of India ensures two things: a) Spinners who would hardly make a mark at International level come across as being an all-time great. Case in point Venkatpathy Raju who has 71 wickets in 16 tests@24 while his away record reads 22 wickets in 12 tests@52. b) Mediocre batsmen end up piling runs and beefing their aggregates only to be found wanting when they travel overseas. xxx

Lurker, If only good bowlers can exploit a Waca bounce, how come Irfan was the MOM in the match we played? Our seamers who look very average on pitches which have no assistance, become demons on pitches which are seaming are have swing. Isn't it the same case for spinners too? There are few spinners who bowl better than others when there is turn and bounce while they are quite innocuous on unhelpful tracks. Both the cases look quite similar. Secondly why should we worry about overseas performance while playing at home? Now India has a number of batsmen who can play on all kind of tracks. They have come from the 90s era. If what you are saying is correct, (Mediocre batsmen end up piling runs and beefing their aggregates only to be found wanting when they travel overseas.) how did we end up with 5 top batsmen in the world?

[Lurker]

Lurker, If only good bowlers can exploit a Waca bounce, how come Irfan was the MOM in the match we played? Our seamers who look very average on pitches which have no assistance, become demons on pitches which are seaming are have swing.

Because Pathan was stellar in that game. At his best Pathan's swinging deliveries are absolutely top draw and merits comparison with Akram if only for a fleeting spell. I can still remember how he practically finished off Chris Rogers cricket career with two absolute gems of inswingers(outswingers for Rogers). Plus of course in the game you mentioned he displayed good batting, specially when coming in as a night watchman.

Secondly why should we worry about overseas performance while playing at home? Now India has a number of batsmen who can play on all kind of tracks. They have come from the 90s era. If what you are saying is correct, (Mediocre batsmen end up piling runs and beefing their aggregates only to be found wanting when they travel overseas.) how did we end up with 5 top batsmen in the world?

We should worry about overseas performance or else we won't be a complete cricketing team. Simple. There are only a handful of pitches that support Indian spinners, bulk of them in India, while most of the overseas tracks are anything but. So it does not need any explanation that if we do need to win everywhere we should not be blindly dependent on spinning tracks. Although I dont see any reason why we should have a good spinning track in say 2-3 out of 5 Test match series. Still I would completely avoid the kind of track where Michael Clark takes 6 wickets for pittance. As for the top 5 batsmen most of them have been in action in late 90s(except Sachin of course). Sehwag has pretty much come into his own in early to mid 2000s. VVS will tell you he prefers bouncy tracks anyway so his success is hardly astonishing. Dravid and SRT are cut from the same clothe as Sunny in the sense they did not a pitch to help them score runs. xxx

[graphic23]

Thats a good point Lurker. The fact that the top 5 batsmen of India are succeeding has to do with their inherent talent. But, I am not sure if I'm convinced by the explanation of Clarke's 6/9 making the Mumbai pitch in '04 a bad one. Because it still required folks like Tendulkar and Laxman to apply themselves and get India out of a rut. I find it harsh to judge a pitch as substandard because part timers did well on it. Nathan Hauritz, Australia's "actual" spinner, did not fare too well on it while Harbhajan and Kumble, naturally, thrived on it. Barring a couple of extraordinary performances by our batsmen, we can say that the ineptness of the batsmen on both sides had a lot to do with the 2-day affair along with a square-turning track from day 1.

[Celeste]

Ponting is right. India should prepare more test quality pitches not roads.

[Dinx - the Jinx]

Ponting is right. India should prepare more test quality pitches not roads.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: look who is talking :--D

[vvvslaxman]

Ponting is right. India should prepare more test quality pitches not roads.

They lost 0-2 on "roads" :hysterical: you lost 0-1 on "roads". SL lost 0-2 on "roads". :hysterical:

[Dhondy]

734 for 9 in 2 days of play following a drawn Test against the weakest side in the world. And then they call Indian pitches roads. India flattened one of the strongest batting sides in the world two-zilch, both by an innings and a bit with unheralded bowlers. If Kanpur and Mumbai are highways, so are Perth, Adelaide & Sydney. Now that McWarne are gone, Australia are finding out how difficult it is to get twenty on these tracks. Simon & Simon, over to you.

[King Tendulkar]

They lost 0-2 on "roads" :hysterical: you lost 0-1 on "roads". SL lost 0-2 on "roads". :hysterical:

:hysterical::hysterical:Quality reply:hysterical::hysterical:

[DomainK]

BTW Ponting should be the last person to call Indian pitches too flat. He averages 20 here. It's statement on his own abilities with the bat. If the pitches are so flat and he averages 20 on then, he needs to find another profession.