*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[steds]

Holding comlaining about an Oval pitch that turns. Shut up you tit.


How come a pitch can be completely dead or as green as a snooker table and be regarded as a "good" wicket, but if it turns a bit, people immediately start talking about pitch doctoring and such?

 

[Pratters]

Not a natural opener and it's not easy adjusting to opening.

 

[Burgey]

Piss poor first over from Anderson, would it really hurt to make the new batsman play at least one ball in the over?

God your avatar is an appropriately miserable character, isn't it? The Sanz of this sub-forum.

Well done you.

 

[Pratters]

Holding comlaining about an Oval pitch that turns. Shut up you tit.


How come a pitch can be completely dead or extremely fast and bouncy and be regarded as a "good" wicket, but if it turns a bit, people immediately start talking about pitch doctoring and such?

He was going on aboutit yesterday as well. This is a good pitch IMO opinion as it is a result pitch - some thing which England needed to eliminate the possibility of a draw.

 

[sledger]

Holding comlaining about an Oval pitch that turns. Shut up you tit.


How come a pitch can be completely dead or extremely fast and bouncy and be regarded as a "good" wicket, but if it turns a bit, people immediately start talking about pitch doctoring and such?

Yeah I agree, at least this sort of pitch makes the game interesting to watch. Nobody wants to see a game played on a total flatbed. That said, the pitch shouldn't really have deteriorated to quite the extent it has on only the second morning of the match, but ah well, at least it should provide some interesting viewing.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I agree, at least this sort of pitch makes the game interesting to watch. Nobody wants to see a game played on a total flatbed. That said, the pitch shouldn't really have deteriorated to quite the extent it has on only the second morning of the match, but ah well, at least it should provide some interesting viewing.

What would you say if England lost the toss and were batting second?

 

[wpdavid]

Flintoff once again worthy, economical and completely unthreatening.

Anderson, if he can be persuaded to keep pitching it up, looking far likelier.

 

[Craig]

"Steve Harmison is the man"

 

[sledger]

What would you say if England lost the toss and were batting second?

Well, without being thrilled about it, I would still rather watch a game on a pitch that offered something for both batsman and bowlers rather than one on an absolute road. Pitch deterioration, no matter how erratic is part of the nature of the game really. I would have been more annoyed about losing the toss or choosing to field first than about the pitch itself.

 

[pasag]

ffs Watto, tighten up.

 

[Burgey]

Watto seems to be playing for the misbehaving one here instead of just batting normally.

 

[Craig]

Good call.

 

[steds]

What would you say if England lost the toss and were batting second?

Same thing I am now. Want to see the ball turning square. As far as I'm concerned, seamers and batsmen kill the game.

 

[sledger]

Haha, Watto completely beaten on that one.

 

[pasag]

LOL at this.

Might as well just play an attacking innings here.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Typical.

 

[Craig]

Watto got lucky there. Where's Ikki then?

 

[King Pietersen]

That was plumb. Don't understand why Fred didn't appeal properly. He'll be out lbw or bowled if he keeps playing like this.

 

[tooextracool]

God your avatar is an appropriately miserable character, isn't it? The Sanz of this sub-forum.

Well done you.

Thanks mate, I enjoy torturing the CW members with my cheerless demeanor.

Cheers,

 

[kingkallis]

That was OUT! Grrrrrrrr