I think this is purely a matter of perception. Suppose Hayden didn't get out to the ball he did, and continued to get beaten for ten more overs, he wouldn't have been destined for a 100 as per your analysis. That would be illogical as the batsman who hung on for ten more overs would be deemed less destined for a 100 than the one who was poor enough to get out much earlier going by that reasoning.
Disagree so much.
Boo hoo. The pitch is fine. In fact, it's probably too good. I hope all Indian pitches are like this.
All well and good but the BCCI will cop hefty fines if they repeat that particular one.
No, they won't. And if they do, so be it. ICC can go stuff themselves. They are absolutely moronic if they will fine a Test that was close and exciting while not doing anything about the borefest 1st Test in that series where Chris Martin had a chance to score a century.
It's not as though it's a minefield. The wicket has obviously been a little flat and isn't exactly a glorious surface, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that it's turning. If Australia are upset with playing on a turning wicket, maybe they should have a better spinner than Cameron White?
I think unlike what SS is saying, i personally believe India have got things spot on with the kind the pitches they have prepared for this series, India know Australia doesn't have any spinner of note so they have no threat from that department of the Aussie bowling line-up, it was only the Aussie pace attack that was gonna pose any serious threat to them and had India prepared a bit of a turner that would have given the Aussie quicks a bit of chance by using their cutters and using the invariable bounce of the track, then Indian batsmen could have been in a bit of trouble (i think the Bangalore pitch was an example of that).
Be fair to Smith and co., they refused to use the pitch as an excuse. The concern was with safety. You look at the ball that got Dravid in the first innings and it seems a reasonable thought, although those balls weren't especially common. But if the pitch had got to day five, it would've been that much more dangerous. Unlikely, but it's not a risk you want to take when preparing a cricket pitch. I'll put it this way, if pitches like that became the norm, someone will get badly hurt at some point. A rap on the knuckles was probably the right decision from the ICC.
Are you saying that pitches elsewhere esp faster ones didnt injure anyone? Especially the ones in Perth etc, where even a medium pacer could bounce the head off the batsman.
No, but what you see is what you get. You won't get your head taken off by a ball you were looking to drive.
Not that i can remember, but that isn't really relevant. I can't remember any serious injuries resulting from spear tackles in rugby, but that's not to say they aren't very obviously dangerous. The abandoned Jamaica test almost definitely would have hurt someone.
Because you don't play the drive against the spin in such conditions. Lack of technique is no excuse for getting hit on the head on spinning tracks.
You're using absurdly incorrect analogy. There are instances of batsmen getting injured by fast bowling, right? Where are the instances of batsmen getting injured by a spinner?
No comparison can be made between Rugby and Cricket. One is a contact sport, the other one is not.
Are we going to tell fast bowlers that only the spinners are allowed to bowl on these tracks then?
The danger on heavily cracked pitches doesn't come from spinners, it comes from the fast bowlers.
Dude, now you're claiming that a fast bowler is more dangerour than a spinner on a spinners minefield? You're watching a different game to cricket, mate. I struggle to recall a batsman complain about the quicks on a minefield. Australia should have easily won Mumbai 2004 if the pacers really posed a danger there.
Then the phrase "spinning minefield" is wrong to refer to those tracks.
