***Official Australia in India***

[Uppercut]

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.

Spinning minefields are cracked and dusty pitches. They provide sharp bounce to the spin bowlers. Fast bowlers, if capable, would get bounce on every surface. They don't get dangerous bounce on these pitches alone because bounce on such pitches are a result of the ball gripping the surface and then popping out.

I'm confused. Where did i ever use the phrase "spinner's minefield" at all?

 

[Precambrian]

I'm confused. Where did i ever use the phrase "spinner's minefield" at all?

You didn't but you were referring to one. Substance over form.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Would've, could've, should've. Yea, right. I'm sure player safety was an issue. Pitches that have a lot of bounce and pace are 10x more dangerous.

If ICC do anything about turners, the BCCI should just refuse to pay the fine and prepare an even bigger turner next time. ICC are absolute morons about pitches.

 

[Uppercut]

You didn't but you were referring to one. Substance over form.

The pitch in Kanpur was cracked throughout and had heavily uneven bounce as well as turn. Hence the ball i referred to taking off at Dravid off a full length was bowled by Morne Morkel IIRC.

 

[silentstriker]

Not that i can remember, but that isn't really relevant.

Actually, it's very relevant. Because there have been plenty of injuries on fast and bouncy pitches. We should ban them first. Any pitch that gets the ball above waist height from good length is inappropriate for Test cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

Would've, could've, should've. Yea, right. I'm sure player safety was an issue. Pitches that have a lot of bounce and pace are 10x more dangerous.

If ICC do anything about turners, the BCCI should just refuse to pay the fine and prepare an even bigger turner next time. ICC are absolute morons about pitches.

Not completely in agreement with that. I'd rather play on a fast, bouncy track than one where i know a full length ball could take off at my head at any time. What was your opinion of the abandoned Jamaica test?

 

[silentstriker]

Hence the ball i referred to taking off at Dravid off a full length was bowled by Morne Morkel IIRC.

They have helmets. If Dravid doesn't like it, walk off the pitch. If you don't want to play, concede your wicket. Problem solved.

 

[silentstriker]

What was your opinion of the abandoned Jamaica test?

I think it was rightly abandoned. Unless you are going to say that Indian pitches are like that - this is irrelevant. Kanpur pitch wasn't remotely like that.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't recollect the delivery. Have you got a link perhaps?

Also note that Morkel is a guy who gets bounce everywhere due to his height.

 

[Uppercut]

They have helmets. If Dravid doesn't like it, walk off the pitch.

He did

Fair enough, but it's not the type of incident you want to prepare tests to facilitate IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

This one? About 15 seconds in.

Wow, this is what we're talking about? That's it? Deal with it FFS. That's perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

 

[silentstriker]

He did

Fair enough, but it's not the type of incident you want to prepare tests to facilitate IMO.

Why? I'd rather have those wickets than Sehwag scoring 300-runs in a snorefest. One is exciting good cricket, the other is not.

 

[Precambrian]

Not completely in agreement with that. I'd rather play on a fast, bouncy track than one where i know a full length ball could take off at my head at any time. What was your opinion of the abandoned Jamaica test?

Denotes your lack of comprehension of Indian pitches them. If you expect any delivery to rear up in a bouncy track, why can't you expect the same on an Indian pitch then? Or are you trapped in the world of cliches and smug expectations?

 

[Uppercut]

Why? I'd rather have those wickets than Sehwag scoring 300-runs in a snorefest. One is exciting good cricket, the other is not.

I'll get this straight.

The pitch for the third test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*draws breath*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pitch for the first. We're in agreement there.

 

[silentstriker]

Yet the ICC would supposedly do something about the third and not the first? They have no clue on the issue. As for the third pitch, I watched it live and I remember the uneven bounce. It was good solid Test cricket which led to an exciting match, just as the second one did. In India, I'd want the third test pitch every time, but both the second and the third match pitches were fine for Test cricket.

Watching that Dravid ball again, that's much ado about nothing. I don't see the big deal - yes, it bounced more than expected. So what?

 

[Precambrian]

It's such a rotten preconception by non-subcontinental people that a spinning den means cheating. It is not the preparer's mistake that the visiting team has no quality spinners. Hard to believe it will change in my lifetime.

 

[silentstriker]

It's such a rotten preconception by non-subcontinental people that a spinning den means cheating.

I don't think that's what uppercut was saying.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't think that's what uppercut was saying.

No I was not referring to Uppercut. I was referring to the heads at the ICC who deemed the Kanpur pitch to be pathetic.

 

[silentstriker]

No I was not referring to Uppercut. I was referring to the heads at the ICC who deemed the Kanpur pitch to be pathetic.

No one cares what the ICC thinks TBH. If they say something, just pay the fine and ignore them.

 

[Uppercut]

Yet the ICC would supposedly do something about the third and not the first? They have no clue on the issue. As for the third pitch, I watched it live and I remember the uneven bounce. It was good solid Test cricket which led to an exciting match, just as the second one did. In India, I'd want the third test pitch every time, but both the second and the third match pitches were fine for Test cricket.

Watching that Dravid ball again, that's much ado about nothing. I don't see the big deal - yes, it bounced more than expected. So what?

Probably yeah. Hate flat pitches, and particularly hate the lexicon that states that every word used to describe them must be very positive; "belter of a wicket" "fantastic pitch" etc.

The Dravid ball's just the only one i remember, and the implication is that if they do that on day two, on day five there could be trouble. Also, if you're aiming for that kind of pitch every time, sometimes it might go too far and end up another Jamaica. It wasn't dangerous enough to warrant a fine or anything, but the point is more that the ICC weren't telling off wickets that are too good for the spinners, rightly or wrongly they were punishing a pitch that they felt could have been unnecessarily dangerous.

The first pitch was horrid. Sehwag's 300 made that match marginally more interesting than watching grass grow. Marginally.