Sub-continent & sporting pitches

[Ultimate_Game]

Everytime Eng/Aus/SA teams tour any sub-continental nation, there's always a talk regarding "sporting" pitches and how playing on turners is "killing the game" and not "real cricket". To top it lots of sub-continental pundits agree with the touring players/media/journos in their criticism. It's surprising we still haven't gotten out of our inferiority complex and treat everything said by goras as gospel while running down our own achievements. It's the same complex which makes a groundsman to leave grass on the pitch knowing fully well it will help opponents lot more just so that he can get praise from SA/Aus/Eng captain/coach. Somehow we have started believing that "sporting" pitches are the ones with bounce and assitance for pacers. By SA/Eng/Aus standard that may very well be the definition of sporting pitch but in sub-continent where the weather is hot & humid and the pitch can't be prepared the same way as in other parts of the world, sporting pitch is the one that assists spinners. The whole point of "sporting" pitch is that the pitch provides as much assistance to the batsmen as the bowlers. Thus a turning track where it helps spinners is much a sporting track as a greeen top in Headingley, a seaming monster in Johannesburg or a bouncy WACA. Just because different skills are required to get the wkts (spinners instead of pacers) doesn't make the pitches any less sporting. I wish likes of Gavaskar, Shastri, Bhogle, Arun lal, Manjrekar etc. make this point when English/Saffers/Aussies talk about sporting pitches. The very fact Indian batsmen can score runs on the same pitches and our spinners can take wkts means the pitch is sporting. Just because Eng/Aus/SA teams don't possess bowlers skilled enough to make the most of the conditions doesn't make these pitches any less sporting. Why should sub-continental teams have to bear the cross of having to perform both at home as well a s away in alien conditions whereas SA/Eng/Aus players get away from having to prove themselves in sub-continental conditions by simply saying those pitches were not "sporting". Worse is that we let them get away with it while crucifying our own when they do the same, i.e. score at home but fail abroad. I hope we prepare rank turners when Eng & Aus tour India later this year where there is turn from Day 1 and the match gets over in 3-4 days. If ICC says those are sub-standars pitches BCCI should point to the NZ pitches when India toured NZ in 2002 where the scores in 1st innings of a Test match for both teams were 99 and 93! Or maybe we can point them to the pitch is SA where Aus were bundled out for 46. Just because spinners take wkts instead of pacers shouldn't change anything. Wish our own commies/journos/media take this stand instead of pandering to the touring sides.

[The Outsider]

I hope we prepare rank turners when Eng & Aus tour India later this year where there is turn from Day 1 and the match gets over in 3-4 days.

Which pitch in our 0-8 loss was a rank green top?

[Ultimate_Game]

Which pitch in our 0-8 loss was a rank green top?

I am not saying it was or it wasn't. I am simply stating the double standards which exist. As an example I have mentioned the Test match in NZ in 2002 where Ind & NZ were bundled out for 90 odd in their 1st innings and the highest team score of the match was 140. But that was absolutely fine with ICC with. But when Aus were bundled out for 90 in Mumbai in 2004 all broke loose. Same when SA toured India in 2008 IIRC and despite winning the toss and batting 1st SA lost the final Test in the series and Smith started complaining about the "sub-standard" pitch. And ICC again stepped in and criticised the pitch even though India won by batting 2nd on the pitch. This is the sort of double-standards I am talking about.

[Spiderguy252]

Which pitch in our 0-8 loss was a rank green top?

All the 4 in England.

[Spiderguy252]

@OP : This mood will change if we prepare raging turners and teams start getting bundled out real cheap. Then they'll realize that they should quit whining and buck up and try and outlast the conditions to score some runs. Except the Poms, who'll just whine. At the moment, that's not happening. Flat track after flat track on offer...jeez.

[Ultimate_Game]

@OP : This mood will change if we prepare raging turners and teams start getting bundled out real cheap. Then they'll realize that they should quit whining and buck up and try and outlast the conditions to score some runs. Except the Poms, who'll just whine. At the moment, that's not happening. Flat track after flat track on offer...jeez.

I would take a mine-field where the match is over in 3 days and runs are at a premium over flat pattas where runs are scored for fun just so that the match could last 5 days. Wish BCCI understands that if India wins comprehensively on turners at home, they will eventually make much more even if the match lasts only 3-4 days. Coz if India stops winning at home due to flat pitches just becaus matc can last 5 days, India wouldn't be a top side and surely IPL will lose it's glamor if India doesn't perform well. BCCI needs to understand that for them to make money via IPL or any other way Indian cricket has to be in good health and for that India needs to win matches, not play out boring run fests at home.

[The Outsider]

I am not saying it was or it wasn't. I am simply stating the double standards which exist. As an example I have mentioned the Test match in NZ in 2002 where Ind & NZ were bundled out for 90 odd in their 1st innings and the highest team score of the match was 140. But that was absolutely fine with ICC with. But when Aus were bundled out for 90 in Mumbai in 2004 all broke loose. Same when SA toured India in 2008 IIRC and despite winning the toss and batting 1st SA lost the final Test in the series and Smith started complaining about the "sub-standard" pitch. And ICC again stepped in and criticised the pitch even though India won by batting 2nd on the pitch. This is the sort of double-standards I am talking about.

The 2002 NZ pitches were criticized a lot. I agree that the ICC should have issued a warning, but commentators had criticized the pitches. But you are not talking about double standards in the OP. You are asking for rank turners to be produced against England and Australia as some sort of payback when none of the pitches in the 0-8 loss were rank green tops. They were by and large good cricket pitches with some assistance for the fast bowlers and good for batting, and even some help for spinners. In the same vein there won't be anything wrong in preparing pitches which assist spin and good batting is also rewarded. Mohali '10 was an excellent pitch for example. The kind of rank turners of Bombay '04 or green tops in NZ '02 are not good cricket pitches. They make for substandard cricket. Don't know about you but a surface where Michael Clarke looks more threatening than Kumble or makes Tuffey look a better bowler than Bond is tripe as far as I am concerned.

[Ultimate_Game]

The 2002 NZ pitches were criticized a lot. I agree that the ICC should have issued a warning, but commentators had criticized the pitches. But you are not talking about double standards in the OP. You are asking for rank turners to be produced against England and Australia as some sort of payback when none of the pitches in the 0-8 loss were rank green tops. They were by and large good cricket pitches with some assistance for the fast bowlers and good for batting, and even some help for spinners. In the same vein there won't be anything wrong in preparing pitches which assist spin and good batting is also rewarded. Mohali '10 was an excellent pitch for example. The kind of rank turners of Bombay '04 or green tops in NZ '02 are not good cricket pitches. They make for substandard cricket. Don't know about you but a surface where Michael Clarke looks more threatening than Kumble or makes Tuffey look a better bowler than Bond is tripe as far as I am concerned.

I would rather have a result every game on turning tracks than see 3 boring draws and just one result pitch every series for us to maybe sneak a 1-0 series win. The only reason I used Eng & Aus as examples are coz they are the teams visiting India this season. If it had been SA & WI coming over I would have wanted the same. I don't want to see runs galore and draws on pitches where it's tough to complete even one innings per side in 5 days. The reason I bring this topic up right now is that when we have result oriented tracks in India we will cop the criticism from Eng & Aus as usual and for once I want BCCI to grow a pair and call out the double standard. Other than the example you mentioned, the other example is the Ind-SA Test in 2007-08 where the 2nd Test of the series was won by India and Smith criticised the pitch as under-prepared and unfit for Tests. ICC again intervened and issued warning and BCCI did nothing. Even though India batted 2nd and chased the total the pitch was criticised. So we have 3 examples over the last few years - NZ series where both the Tests were played on pitches where pitches couldn't be differentiated from the outfield, Mumbai Test against Aus in 2004 and Test against SA in 2007-08. NZ were never reprimanded but Indian venues were given a warning by ICC even though in the SA Test India batted last and won. So how exactly was that pitch "under-prepared"? BCCI didn't do anything in all these cases and I wis if the same were to happen BCCI objects to ICC's intervention and states that turning tracks are sporting as well and just because the result oriented pitches are spin-friendly doesn't mean they are non-sporting or are not "real cricket" pitches.

[The Outsider]

What is with these extremities? You are trying to portray things as if rank turners on which a hack like Michael Clarke can run through batting line ups is the only alternative to run fest pattas. Why not clamor for pitches like Mohali '10 which give a good chance to good cricket - if you bowl well you will be rewarded, if you bat well you will score runs? I agree with you on the double standards part and that NZ should have been reprimanded.

[Trichromatic]

What is with these extremities? You are trying to portray things as if rank turners on which a hack like Michael Clarke can run through batting line ups is the only alternative to run fest pattas. Why not clamor for pitches like Mohali '10 which give a good chance to good cricket - if you bowl well you will be rewarded, if you bat well you will score runs?

Like Chennai pitch against Australia 2004. @U_G When India toured England they got a spinner friendly pitch at Oval, so should we go for a pace-friendly pitch in India? :hmmm:

[Ultimate_Game]

What is with these extremities? You are trying to portray things as if rank turners on which a hack like Michael Clarke can run through batting line ups is the only alternative to run fest pattas. Why not clamor for pitches like Mohali '10 which give a good chance to good cricket - if you bowl well you will be rewarded, if you bat well you will score runs? I agree with you on the double standards part and that NZ should have been reprimanded.

My ideal wkt would be the sort seen in UAE for the Eng-Pak series. However, if given a choice between a patta or a minefield, I would prefer a mine-field. As regards to Clarke somehow he has always done well against us and always managed to get wkts against us. He did so not only in that Mumbai test but he took 3 wkts in an over at Sydney and also took few key wkts (including Tendulkar's) last year we toured Aus. Even though Clarke took 6 wkts it still needed skill from Laxman and tendulkar to score runs and they showed you could get runs on that pitch.

[Ultimate_Game]

Like Chennai pitch against Australia 2004. @U_G When India toured England they got a spinner friendly pitch at Oval, so should we go for a pace-friendly pitch in India? :hmmm:

We already did against Aussies at Nagpur in 2004 where Shashank Manohar ensured we played a Test at home where the pitch resembled an Aussie pitch just so that he and Pawar could get back at Dalmiya/Ganguly for Pawar losing the BCCI elections :facepalm:

[mastana]

We should prepare tracks which suits our bowling attack and that is spin. Lets test Aussies and England under those conditions.

[maverick451]

A good cricket wicket offers something for everyone, pace for the seemers but offering spin later on in the game. If a wicket offers absolutely nothing for the seemers then quite frankly it makes it a dull game, nudging the spinners around all day is dull.

[Trichromatic]

If a wicket offers absolutely nothing for the seemers then quite frankly it makes it a dull game, nudging the spinners around all day is dull.

All spinner friendly tracks help seamers. For ex this match - although bounce is low, ball has swung (conventional swing) even in 2nd session and later reverse swing.

[Ultimate_Game]

A good cricket wicket offers something for everyone, pace for the seemers but offering spin later on in the game. If a wicket offers absolutely nothing for the seemers then quite frankly it makes it a dull game, nudging the spinners around all day is dull.

I disagree. As long as bowlers, any kind of bowlers (pacers or spinners), have a chance to take wkts it's a good wicket. I mean how many pitches in SA or Aus have something for spinner? What's the point of spin on Day 5 when the match is almost already over by then? I can very well argue that on pitches offering turn the pacers can come into play on Days 4 and 5 as the cracks widen and the pacers can exploit the uneven bounce. At the end of the day as long as either spinners or pacers are getting assistance and batting is not without peril it's good eough for me and no seamers may not need to be in the game. In Eng/SA/Aus (and in earlier days WI) seldom have much for spinners and in sub-continent it should be fine for nothing much to be there for pacers. By the way if you are a good enough pacer you will still be able to take wkts as Steyn has shown and as McGrath used to do earlier.

[maverick451]

I have to disagree, if the ball goes through an ankle height and edges dont carry to the slips then its imo a poor pitch, the best pitches always have pace and take spin but they are few are fare between. The UAE picthes were good to be fair, seemers did quite well on them.

[superstar]

I have to disagree, if the ball goes through an ankle height and edges dont carry to the slips then its imo a poor pitch, the best pitches always have pace and take spin but they are few are fare between. The UAE picthes were good to be fair, seemers did quite well on them.

But it is okay if the ball goes neck height and edges fly to boundaries. Typical English.

[Ultimate_Game]

I have to disagree, if the ball goes through an ankle height and edges dont carry to the slips then its imo a poor pitch, the best pitches always have pace and take spin but they are few are fare between. The UAE picthes were good to be fair, seemers did quite well on them.

I have no problem with UAE pitches but as I said earlier if pitches help any kind of bowlers they are good enough. We don't ask for pitches assisting spinners when we tour Aus/Eng/SA/NZ and touring teams shouldn't expect help for pacers either.

[Tendulkar_Bhai]

The Hyderabadi is the perfect example of how a pitch should play, flat the first few days followed by it deteriorating on days 2/3+. NZ players being rubbish players of spin does not make it a poor pitch, their shot selection made Ohja and Ashwin look world class! Most fans would rather see a few more runs than wickets.