Your ideal ODI pitch?

[Craig]

Well what is it?

For me it is to offer something for the bowlers early on, and then to flaten out and be a good wicket, and with a total between 240-300.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just like in tests, the key IMO is variation, and keeping within reasonable limits. You don't want to see absolute minefields or Jo'burg '06 type wickets, but anything within reason is good provided that there's a bit of variety to test the different skills of players.

The Champions Trophy had really good pitches IMO, with only one or two really offering a little too much for the bowlers, but all of them having a bit in them and providing some unpredictable contests.

 

[Craig]

That said I do like the wickets where the team struggles to get 200-220, or even lower, and the team chasing just manages to get there or get bowled out just before the total. They are more entertaining then getting wickets where teams can mow down massive 340 plus scores.

 

[Perm]

Have to say that I would far rather watch a team score 350 than struggle to 200. For the first ten or so overs I would like to see the pitch playing with a reasonable amount of seam, swing and bounce and then flattening out later. The odd turner, low slow wicket or really bouncy track is good though and like Fuller said the key is variation. I enjoyed the Champions Trophy because the scores weren't huge like they had been getting prior to the tournament.

 

[Richard]

I like to see a pitch which gives bowlers a chance. Pitches that reward line-and-length bowling for as long as possible and punish waywardness.

I don't like to see pitches that encourage teams to be bowled-out in 40 overs or those that see 270-plus totals. But here's the important bit: MORE THAN OCCASIONALLY.

As Fuller mentions, what you want is to see some different types of pitches. You want the odd greentop, you want the odd really flat one, but you don't want them more than occasionally to break-up the monotony.

Because if you have a repeated dose of 200-plays-201-with-1-over-left, you won't go far wrong from where I'm standing.

In short answer - I like a relatively slow pitch, and a new-ball that swings. And ideally reverse-swings when it gets older. And absolutely ideally doesn't lose colour, but that's mostly asking a bit too much.

 

[Fiery]

I like these 300+ scores. It's not like they happen every game...mind you I've watched a lot of cricket during the 80s and early 90s when a good score was 220 and the middle overs were quite tedious. I have no problem with high scoring games and as tonight illustrated, it can be quite thrilling when your team chases down a massive score successfully

 

[Richard]

But that happens far less often than it doesn't.

Even now, when chasing 270-plus is far less OOTQ than it used to be, it still results in a tedious second-innings more often than not.

And IAH - IMO 200-plays-201 > 350-plays-351. I like a game where quality bowling plays a part.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Slow pitches reduce the standard of cricket. Except if they turn.

 

[Fiery]

But that happens far less often than it doesn't.

Even now, when chasing 270-plus is far less OOTQ than it used to be, it still results in a tedious second-innings more often than not.

And IAH - IMO 200-plays-201 > 350-plays-351. I like a game where quality bowling plays a part.

You must be a bowler Richard

 

[Richard]

I am.

 

[Richard]

Slow pitches reduce the standard of cricket. Except if they turn.

Well they reduce the standard of limitless-over cricket, certainly, but I'd not say they reduce it in limited-over stuff. They reward bowlers who bowl accurately, offer help to wicketkeepers who're willing to stand up to the stumps, and make batsmen have to work for runs rather than just putting the bat there and watching it sail off the middle to the fence.

Nothing wrong with a bit of grip too - they make the Dharmasenas and the old-style Kumbles (pre-1999) even more effective - but the Ealhams, Mullallys etc. of this World will still profit on slow pitches with no grip.

 

[Fiery]

I am.

There ya go

 

[Richard]

'T'explains a lot, I know.

I'm forever pressing my groundsman and captain for big boundaries.

 

[Fiery]

'T'explains a lot, I know.

I'm forever pressing my groundsman and captain for big boundaries.

What exactly do you mean by "pressing"?

 

[Richard]

Turning-up at the ground nice and early, surveying the boundaries, ensuring this conversation takes place:
Me: "Bit short, that isn't it?"
Jeff: "Er, oh, is it?"
Me: "Yeah, could do something about that."
Jeff: "Er, OK, er make sure you keep the boundary the right shape, eh-huh!"

(You can't really imagine that properly unless you know Jeff's voice, though)

 

[Fiery]

Thanks Richard. Well explained...I felt like I was right there.

 

[silentstriker]

40 all out.

 

[C_C]

Agree mostly with Richard here (and yes i used to be a bowler capable of some lusty hitting at #6-7) - I'd like to see atleast 75% of ODIs where 240-270 are winning scores against a decent bowling side, with the occasional ripper ( 200-ish or under) and belter ( 300-ish) pitches around.
I certainly don't like the plethora of 300+ scores and cricket should be about balance.
It isnt balanced currently and i think balancing a sport as well as keeping that balance is a very hard thing to do - ODI cricket, IMO was the best in the mid/late 90s and early 2000s.

 

[Beleg]

A pitch that offers good competition and remains steady through-out the game, be they 180 ones or 350+. I hate pitches which exhibit loop-sided characteristics.

 

[DCC_legend]

i would say a wicket that offers chances for both batsmen and bowlers in both innings is one i would favour.

i hate playing on astroturf wickets.