Thank you for the sporting pitch

[thevortex]

If you're referring to extremely spin-friendly pitches then that might be the case, but the general trend among Indian fans is to laud some pitches as sporting and result-friendly, while lambast others for being a patta, when its clear as daylight that pitches do not play a significant role in determining the outcome of a match. I've already pointed, the last 4 decisive test match results in India have all been innings wins, meaning the pitch was so good for batting that one of the teams had to bat only once. Yet, the a result was achieved due to a combination of a good spell of bowling by a bowler and the other batting team crumbling under the pressure of having to face down so many runs.

Marris - the only general trend among most Indians that I have been able to spot is that they criticize virulently any pitch that turns alarmingly. And they consider a pitch that seams and swings and bounces alarmingly to be a 'sporting' one even if this happens late in the Test match. This is sad, no? In any case, I would disagree with the statement that the pitch does not have anything to do with determining the outcome of the match. That statement may turn out true when the teams are poorly matched. Or if one team had an extreme bout of nerves. In this case, South Africa choked. Otherwise there was no way that a result was going to be produced. Tell me one thing. If SA had batted on for two more overs and achieved the draw, what would have been your take on the pitch?

[Ram]

Marris - the only general trend among most Indians that I have been able to spot is that they criticize virulently any pitch that turns alarmingly. And they consider a pitch that seams and swings and bounces alarmingly to be a 'sporting' one even if this happens late in the Test match. This is sad' date=' no?[/quote'] Absolutely, that is sad. Even I have been voicing similar opinions along similar lines for years now.

In any case' date=' I would disagree with the statement that the pitch does not have anything to do with determining the outcome of the match. [/quote'] I think you're misquoting me here. I did not say the pitch 'does not have anything to do with determining the outcome of the match'. I said the 'pitches do not play a significant role in determining the outcome of a match', unless of course, they're rank turners of unbelievably pro-seamers like the ones they dished out to us in New Zealand. There's a BIG difference b/w what I said and what you're attributing to me.

That statement may turn out true when the teams are poorly matched. Or if one team had an extreme bout of nerves. In this case' date=' South Africa choked. Otherwise there was no way that a result was going to be produced. [/quote'] Choked? What choke? If South Africa choked in the first innings of the 2nd test, then so did we in the first innings of the 1st test, collapsing from 200/3 to 233 all out. If South Africa choked, then so did Sri Lanka, who also got dismissed for low total in the 2nd and 3rd test in their last series against us, losing both matches by an innings. In all the above occasions, was the pitch bad enough for a team to be bowled out twice for low totals? Of course not. And we're not talking about B'desh or Pakistan, this Lanka and South Africa, two very good sides. So your statement of that theory being true only if the two teams are poorly matched also does not hold water. My premise is that there is very little difference b/w pitches that produce decisive results and those that produce dour draws. Only, the former gets all the plaudits for being sporting while the latter gets hammered for being a patta. What people fail to realize is that a lot depends on how the individual teams play in those moments.

Tell me one thing. If SA had batted on for two more overs and achieved the draw' date=' what would have been your take on the pitch?[/quote'] My take wouldnt be any different, because I did not call this pitch sporting in the first place. I think the Kolkata pitch is like any other typical Indian wicket - Generally good for batting, with slow and low turn for the spinners and very less for pacers.

[thevortex]

Marris - thanks for explaining yourself in detail. I dont think we are at any great odds regarding these points. Yes, Kolkata was not some kind of different wicket. However my point is that if some of the grass had been taken off then disintegration of the wicket would have taken place and the 5th day would have been more of a challenge for the South African batsmen. As it is Probir Mukherjee (did I get that name right?) got off luckily. :)

[Ram]

Marris - thanks for explaining yourself in detail. I dont think we are at any great odds regarding these points. Yes, Kolkata was not some kind of different wicket. However my point is that if some of the grass had been taken off then disintegration of the wicket would have taken place and the 5th day would have been more of a challenge for the South African batsmen. As it is Probir Mukherjee (did I get that name right?) got off luckily. :)

Yep, I totally agree. If the last 3 wickets can hold out for more than 50 overs on day 5 without any big problems, then something isnt right about the pitch. For a day 5, session 3 pitch, it was shockingly flat. What's wrong with our curators these days?

[Sachinism]

^ 1 day was lost, so it was more like a day 4 pitch

[Ram]

^ 1 day was lost' date=' so it was more like a day 4 pitch[/quote'] Even otherwise, there were no visible signs of deterioration. The only time the pitch was a contribution factor in the fall of a wicket was the dismissal of Sachin, when the ball spun off the rough at a full length. Hashim Amla was having no trouble whatsoever, reading Mishra off the track. That is not how it is supposed to be. The ball is supposed to bloody turn quickly and disturb the top surface of the pitch every time it lands on it on day 5.