Was uncovered pitches really hard to bat?

[Vijay.Sharma]

There is certain degree of unpredictability you encounter on an uncovered pitch especially when it is hit by extreme weather. It is natural. Even these days when there is slight rain and pitch get wet slightly before covers are on' date=' nature of the pitch changes slightly. On uncovered pitch this change will be unpredictable.[/quote']Agreed! In fact I'll speak from personal experience...this is what I faced (and I have played games on wet wickets and even wet matting wickets as a matter of routine during my playing days...the months of May and June). When I faced the spinners, the ball would come at you at a certain pace...I get ready to play the stroke after judging the line and length of the ball. Now the moment the ball pitches, it undergoes a personality change (much like Amitabh Bachhan (angry young man) turning into Raj Kapoor (slow old pook)) and I would have completed playing my shot and a second later the ball passes through to the keeper making me look like stupid. The best way to deal with it was to take the ball on the full - take the pitch out of the equation - and if not at least get to the pitch of it. In hindsight I think this could be one of the reasons why Indians have generally been good players of spin - because while growing up we are forced to play on damp uncovered wickets at the zonal and collegiate levels. And quite naturally batsmen learn to move their feet to get as close to the ball on the full or at least to the pitch of the ball in order to score runs. With practice it becomes an instinct and the moment we see a spinner the instinct kicks in. If damp wickets aren't difficult enough, the real ordeal comes when you have to bat on a wicket that is transitioning from the damp to dried...usually if there is good sunlight then this transition period takes about 2-3 hours. Its like the twilight zone. Damp wickets are equally difficult for batsmen and bowlers but this transitional period is a bowler's wet dream and a batsman's nightmare. But once the wicket dries up fully then it becomes fast and makes stroke making easy. I guess most of you knew that already.

[vvvslaxman]

We once experimented by spraying sand on the pitch and rolled onto pitch. Ball was moving unusually.

[Vijay.Sharma]

We once experimented by spraying sand on the pitch and rolled onto pitch. Ball was moving unusually.

Please elaborate...

[vvvslaxman]

Please elaborate...

We sprayed a bucket of sand in the business area of the pitch, watered and rolled the sand on to the pitch. Ball was making some unpredictable movements.

[Vijay.Sharma]

We sprayed a bucket of sand in the business area of the pitch' date=' watered and rolled the sand on to the pitch. Ball was making some [b']unpredictable movements.

Like what? Tell the fun parts...who got hit and how, who was made to look stupid and how, etc

[vvvslaxman]

Like what? Tell the fun parts...who got hit and how' date=' who was made to look stupid and how, etc[/quote'] It wasn't dangerous by any means. Sometimes it was skidding on. Sometimes it wasn't.

[msb1991]

Roberts specifically says uncovered pitches with dampness means its easier for batsmen against fast bowlers as the ball would just sit up. So not sure on what basis u are saying dampness means harder for batsmen?

Not everything in the world revolves around pace. The ball might sit up for someone bowling short balls but a length ball that sticks in the pitch is very difficult to play. Also, a slow pitch in general is not one which is easy to score off. EDIT: I've phrased this rudely. Not my intention.

[thongale]

We often hear cricket writers over glorifying past test batsmen by going on and on about how hard it was for those to bat in uncovered pitches.Yet Andy Roberts is giving a totally different view and saying it was actually tough on fast bowlers more than anything So was it really that hard bat on uncovered damp pitches? Also cracking interview with Roberts too. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/576267.html Mentions about how Pathetic the umpiring were in Australia even in the past

If it was so hard for batsmen, then would have been so easy for the bowlers. So take bowlers stats with a pinch of salt.

[India-KXIP fan]

They were harder to bat on but alot of chit bowlers back then so many batsmen had high averages. The modern day is the real cricket. Difference between the very best is very slight like with any sport. No one has averages over 60 after a 100 tests cause nowdays they actually have good bowlers.

[msb1991]

No one has averages over 60 after a 100 tests cause nowdays they actually have good bowlers.

Who did that before?

[CricLind]

Who did that before?

No-one. And if one looks at the modern batsmen, there were some people who averaged very close to 60 even after close to 100 Tests. I recollect Tendulkar in 2002, Dravid and Ponting sometime later all touching 59+ quite late in their careers. As for uncovered pitches, regardless of the quality of bowlers, rain could cause some pitches to become virtually unplayable. Spinners like Verity and Laker thrived in such conditions.