*Official* Sri Lanka in India

[silentstriker]

The only pitches that are disgraceful are ones like these, or those where play has to be abandoned due to unsafe playing conditions. It's better I don't have any power, otherwise I'd ban Ahmedabad from hosting a match for five years after this disgrace.

 

[Cruxdude]

Great batting from Srilanka. Really heaped the pressure on India. Hope we bat out today and continue with the trend of being crap in the first test and doing well later.

 

[Top_Cat]

The only pitches that are disgraceful are ones like these, or those where play has to be abandoned due to unsafe playing conditions. It's better I don't have any power, otherwise I'd ban Ahmedabad from hosting a match for five years after this disgrace.

No they weren't. One team won, and it wasn't India. Sour grapes. Indian turners aren't disgraceful either.

It's wickets like these that are. No wonder no one gives a crap about Tests in India.

Completely agree with the above.

 

[Jono]

I have this funny feeling that India could lose this one.


SL at 5.50 value IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

No they weren't. One team won, and it wasn't India. Sour grapes. Indian turners aren't disgraceful either.

It's wickets like these that are. No wonder no one gives a crap about Tests in India.

I said "as disgraceful as", which means the same.. What I meant to say was, if you consider the turners as bad, then those were bad too.


And secondly, any track which favours either discipline too much over the other is a bad track in my book. I understand that getting perfectly balanced tracks is impossible but there have been occassions when batting was almost impossible, esp. on the last day of our turners and the first day of those grasscourts. Some team will almost always win on a track favouring bowlers more than batsmen. Doesn't make the track good, juz like how if a team wins on a flat track (India in Chennai against England last year) won't make the track a good one.

 

[honestbharani]

You don't need to have seen the series. If the umpires deemed it safe and it brought a result, it was a decent pitch. Maybe there have been better ones in the history of test cricket, but it's certainly not "disgraceful".

Again... my point was "as disgraceful as". Because I know quite a few here who seem to think that once you produce a turner, it is disgraceful and yet an equally stupid seaming one is a "good" wicket.


And honestly, unless you saw how bad the pitches were, you do not know it. Disgraceful is the word we use because it is stupid to see batsmen not even able to put bat on ball as it swung so much u never knew which one you would edge. Just like how on a last day up and down shooter, batting depends so much on luck that it is indeed disgraceful.

Just because a pitch was physically safe to play on does not mean it was not "disgraceful". It was disgraceful as it did not allow a proper cricket contest and made batting depend exclusively on luck, just like how on the current flat one bowling is totally taken out of the equation..

 

[Xuhaib]

BCCI in a clever ploy to destroy test cricket.

and to put the icing on the cake you have Russel Arnold commentating.

 

[Jono]

Again... my point was "as disgraceful as". Because I know quite a few here who seem to think that once you produce a turner, it is disgraceful and yet an equally stupid seaming one is a "good" wicket.


And honestly, unless you saw how bad the pitches were, you do not know it. Disgraceful is the word we use because it is stupid to see batsmen not even able to put bat on ball as it swung so much u never knew which one you would edge. Just like how on a last day up and down shooter, batting depends so much on luck that it is indeed disgraceful.

Just because a pitch was physically safe to play on does not mean it was not "disgraceful". It was disgraceful as it did not allow a proper cricket contest and made batting depend exclusively on luck, just like how on the current flat one bowling is totally taken out of the equation..

I thinks that's a fair point HB raises. People complain a lot more about raging turners, but extreme seaming wickets are all the rage.

 

[Dissector]

I can't help compare this test with the last series against Sri Lanka: an up-and-down contest with three results and in particular a truly absorbing third test. Every pitch like this is a nail in the coffin of India test cricket.

 

[R_D]

India need to score few runs along the way.... one or 2 wicket go down and panic sets in and could still lose this...... seen that quite a few times now.

 

[Shri]

Should give this pitch curator some job in the road department in Chennai. Will surely fix a lot of potholes in my area.

 

[Shri]

A result doesn't look likely atm. Just hope Sachin gets his 43rd test hundred.

 

[R_D]

A result doesn't look likely atm. Just hope Sachin gets his 43rd test hundred.

i doubt they will bat that long......

 

[Pratters]

I said "as disgraceful as", which means the same.. What I meant to say was, if you consider the turners as bad, then those were bad too.


And secondly, any track which favours either discipline too much over the other is a bad track in my book. I understand that getting perfectly balanced tracks is impossible but there have been occassions when batting was almost impossible, esp. on the last day of our turners and the first day of those grasscourts. Some team will almost always win on a track favouring bowlers more than batsmen. Doesn't make the track good, juz like how if a team wins on a flat track (India in Chennai against England last year) won't make the track a good one.

 

[Shri]

i doubt they will bat that long......

I dont know. How many overs have India got to bat to complete the match?

 

[Shri]

Got another 90 minutes of play here. Sachin needs another 33 runs. Sounds possible.

 

[Stapel]

Sachin to ton up, followed by a handshake by Sangka..... So Sachin has 25 minutes to score 16 runs. That's what we can expect, I guess.

Given the fact that this match started with figures of 32/4 after 8 overs, a draw is a remarkable outcome.

 

[Uppercut]

Again... my point was "as disgraceful as". Because I know quite a few here who seem to think that once you produce a turner, it is disgraceful and yet an equally stupid seaming one is a "good" wicket.


And honestly, unless you saw how bad the pitches were, you do not know it. Disgraceful is the word we use because it is stupid to see batsmen not even able to put bat on ball as it swung so much u never knew which one you would edge. Just like how on a last day up and down shooter, batting depends so much on luck that it is indeed disgraceful.

Just because a pitch was physically safe to play on does not mean it was not "disgraceful". It was disgraceful as it did not allow a proper cricket contest and made batting depend exclusively on luck, just like how on the current flat one bowling is totally taken out of the equation..

Hmm, I'm not (anymore) someone who complains about turning wickets, so I'm in agreement with your first point.

As for your final point, I don't agree that seaming wickets reduce the game to luck. It's nothing to do with chance that Durham win every single match at Chester-le-Street they play, and if we saw any of those pitches in a test match there'd be some serious moaning. Cricket matches lasts five days, or even if they only last three days, that's still 20-odd hours of play. Moreso than any other sport, the team who wins is almost invariably the one that performs best.

 

[Cruxdude]

It seems to me Sangakkara is sulking at match not being called off early.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It seems to me Sangakkara is sulking at match not being called off early.

Should have thought of that before letting his side score 760.