***Official India in New Zealand***

[Smudge]

Wisden report of the second test -

If the game at Wellington ended with indecent haste, this one had even less time for niceties. Never before in 1,632 Tests had both sides been dismissed for under 100 in their first innings; by the time New Zealand scraped home on the fourth afternoon of another rain-soaked match and sealed a 2-0 series win, there had been just 176 overs - nearly 21 fewer than in the First Test. Like the blade of the helicopter that hovered over the ground on the second morning in an attempt to blow away the damp, the cricket was fast, furious and strangely compelling.

Torrential downpours had wreaked havoc with the groundsman's preparations and, when the game finally got under way at 4.30 on day two, the excessive sideways movement sowed doubt in the batsmen's minds and turned run-making into Russian roulette. It was Ganguly's misfortune to lose another crucial toss against an unchanged New Zealand side still buzzing after their walkover at Wellington. For India, Yohannan replaced Agarkar.

Simply reiterates my point.

The pitches were ****. End off.

Again, no disputing that - what I do have a problem with is taking them out of your analysis simply because it suits your argument (even though, to be honest, it doesn't) And whether you like it or not, that's what you're doing.

And it's "End of". Parting shots are so much more effective if they actually make sense.






Cheers.

 

[Pratters]

And it's "End of". Parting shots are so much more effective if they actually make sense.

More like **** off.

 

[Pratters]

Actually, I thought the First Test pitch was one of the best I've seen in NZ. There was plenty for the bowlers, but if a batsman really applied themselves (Richardson, Dravid, Tendulkar) they could get a good score.

Only 3 players managed to score fifties in the entire test. Richardson's inning showed that one could make runs on the pitch but only just. New Zealand too crumbled to a partly 247. Take away Richardson's inning of 89 and there is little left to show

 

[Smudge]

More like **** off.

 

[Pratters]

Your sense of humour is so good Voltman. Heh. Grow up.

 

[Pratters]

Again, no disputing that

Again, no disputing that - what I do have a problem with is taking them out of your analysis simply because it suits your t (even tough, to be honest, it doesn't) And whether you like it or not, that's what you're doing

At least we agree the pitches were ****. I am not skewing things to suit my argument. I am removing the skewness.

 

[silentstriker]

Well pitches were equally 'bad' for both teams. Only one team won. Twice.

I watched it, and to say they were the worst pitches people have ever seen is absolutely and utterly ludicrous. Those games were exciting. Anyone ever been excited in a game like this? I haven't. That's the true evil. I'll take the New Zealand pitches of that series any day of the week. In fact, we need more of them. God forbid, a bowler has the advantage for once. They were bad only by the inane standard of what constitutes a 'good' pitch these days.

Bring them on. The major attraction of Test cricket are pitches that offer something different, country by country, venue by venue, and even series by series. I can't believe anyone is complaining.

 

[Evermind]

Well pitches were equally 'bad' for both teams. Only one team won. Twice.

I watched it, and to say they were the worst pitches people have ever seen is absolutely and utterly ludicrous. Those games were exciting. Anyone ever been excited in a game like this? I haven't. That's the true evil. I'll take the New Zealand pitches of that series any day of the week. In fact, we need more of them. God forbid, a bowler has the advantage for once. They were bad only by the inane standard of what constitutes a 'good' pitch these days.

Bring them on. The major attraction of Test cricket are pitches that offer something different, country by country, venue by venue, and even series by series. I can't believe anyone is complaining.

I dont think either pitch provides optimal entertainment in a game. What's the point if the game is done in 176 overs? That's barely 2 full days of a match that's supposed to last 5 days.

Ideal pitches would gives 5 days of play, a result, a couple of centuries, a five-wicket haul, swing on the first day and spin on the fifth. Variations on this are ok, but any game that has two teams scoring 500+ in a draw or teams getting bowled out under 100 is just not of an acceptable standard. The fact that we have so many of the former (including that recent **** SL-Pak series that was a debacle on every conceivable level) doesn't make the latter right.

That said, a 2-day bowler's paradise is slightly better than a 5 day batsman's paradise. At least the punishment is done with quicker. With every high-scoring draw, test cricket dies a little.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I watch cricket to see wickets and less to see batsmen score runs - although an exceptionally sublime innings is always good to see. My idea of cricket hell is a match where it goes the full 5 days and less than 20 wickets are taken. Awful.

I'm quite happy to watch batsmen having to struggle and graft for runs whilst the bowlers cause havoc. If I was a groundsman, I'd prepare a balanced wicket but I'd be just as happy if there was more in it for the bowler than the batsman.

 

[Flem274*]

Agree with SS, Volty and Heef.

If we're going to discount greentops, then I'll discount raging turners from India when i asses batsmen then. Seems to be the current logic.

Loving Pratters mental instability, arguing with Precam seems to do that to most previosuly sane people.

 

[Pratters]

I wouldn't include the second test for the analysis for sure. Even if we include the first test avg of Laxman, which I wouldn't, his avg doesn't drop by that much to say he is unproven against swing.

 

[Pratters]

i dont think either pitch provides optimal entertainment in a game. What's the point if the game is done in 176 overs? That's barely 2 full days of a match that's supposed to last 5 days.

Ideal pitches would gives 5 days of play, a result, a couple of centuries, a five-wicket haul, swing on the first day and spin on the fifth. Variations on this are ok, but any game that has two teams scoring 500+ in a draw or teams getting bowled out under 100 is just not of an acceptable standard. The fact that we have so many of the former (including that recent **** sl-pak series that was a debacle on every conceivable level) doesn't make the latter right.

That said, a 2-day bowler's paradise is slightly better than a 5 day batsman's paradise. At least the punishment is done with quicker. With every high-scoring draw, test cricket dies a little.

awta.

 

[Beleg]

Again, you're completly failing to counter my argument that the pitches were inconsistent in bounce. Even in the Wisden piece you quoted, part of the blame has been apportioned to the batsmen. Just so you can hopefully read it properly this time, there is NO disputing there was an awful lot of sideways movement - and definitely too much over 5 days (or three in the tests' cases) for an international test match. But "minefields" are a massive reach. The match referee didn't call the tests off - something which HAS happened in the West Indies. Those were minefields (although we know the problem with the Antigua pitch this year was more to do with the outfield and run-ups).

Great post. QFT. The pitches are demonised out of proportion.


Edit: Swing/seam movement IS great entertainment.

 

[Pratters]

Agree with SS, Volty and Heef.

If we're going to discount greentops, then I'll discount raging turners from India when i asses batsmen then. Seems to be the current logic.

Loving Pratters mental instability, arguing with Precam seems to do that to most previosuly sane people.

There are no subcontinent Sri Lanka 952 like flat decks in the calculation of Laxman's avg.

 

[Flem274*]

There are no subcontinent Sri Lanka 952 like flat decks in the calculation of Laxman's avg.

I was meaning when non-subcontinent batsmen tour and get owned by the occassional absolute raging turner (not a normal one, a big one).

 

[Pratters]

I was meaning when non-subcontinent batsmen tour and get owned by the occassional absolute raging turner (not a normal one, a big one).

Okay fair enough. Such decks also don't produce scores like the second test though except once in a blue moon. I would discount such wickets too.

 

[Beleg]

There are no subcontinent Sri Lanka 952 like flat decks in the calculation of Laxman's avg.

I dont get it. why do you want to use selective statistics?

 

[Pratters]

I dont get it. why do you want to use selective statistics?

We were trying to find Laxman's performance in swinging conditions.

 

[Beleg]

We are trying to find Laxman's performance in swinging conditions.

that's a red herring then since you are ignoring reverse swing in your analysis.

 

[Pratters]

that's a red herring then since you are ignoring reverse swing in your analysis.

Tell that to precambrian. I am tired of this debate. (As I am sure he is too)