Doctoring the pitch

[Shri]

Haha, I wasn't aware someone changed the pitch between innings. Unless they did, one team did better on the same pitch than the other, and that's called playing cricket.

/thread.

 

[Cevno]

/Learn2PlaySpin. Apparently that's not part of cricket anymore.

The only way a pitch is doctored is two teams play on a different pitch. ICC had a whinge about the Kanpur pitch, thankfully BCCI can tell them to go stick it up their ass. The problem with that tour in terms of Indian pitches was not the one at Kanpur, but the one two Tests before that.

I second that.

 

[Cevno]

Right. Noticed you ignored the 2004 Mumbai pitch. M. Clarke 6/9. What a joke.

When you open the bowling with spin on the 3rd day of a test then something is wrong.

And South Africa played the spin ok on the first day before the pitch crumbled to pieces. Deliberately preparing a pitch that resembles a 3rd day pitch on day 1 is pitch doctoring.

Thats the way cricket has always been. Its not like India invented test cricket. Though, I get the impression from many Indian fans that they now "own" cricket and everyone else can go get stuffed.

And SA lost even after winning the toss.

 

[Cevno]

Nope. Notice how the WACA pitch stayed the same year in year out and was never modified or changed when the West Indies played.

Take the 1992/93 West Indian final test at the WACA. Going into this match it was 1-1 with Australia needing to win. Was the WACA any different to previous years when Australia played teams that weren't strong on fast, bounchy pitches? Nope. The WACA was probably at its fastest and bounciest and Ambrose and Bishop destroyed Australia.

Now if the WACA curator prepared a pitch different to what it was in previous year when Australia thrashed India there then that would be pitch doctoring.

Do not think it was possible for the Curator to alter the pitch that much,specially with the bounce the WACA wicket soil has anyways,if he wanted to.

Plenty of Australians can play spin.But a pitch that has crumbled to pieces by the 3rd day is not of a test standard. As I pointed out, India didn't invent test cricket, nor was it one of the first two teams to play a test match. Just because India "owns" cricket now doesnt give it the to make the rules.

So a pitch which is spinning on 3rd day is not test standard.
But a pitch which is green from day one and with the ball seaming everywhere is?Like Newzealand prepared for Indian tour last time before this year.Or what South africans usually try to prepare(where it is possible) when India tour there. Or the old Perth wicket in which most matches did not last for 4 days.
There is no sub condition as far as i can tell that a test should last for full 5 days.

What is the use of home and away matches if we are going to search for Ideal pre-set conditions everywhere?

 

[Richard]

Home authorities can instruct groundsmen to prepare whatever the @&%£ they want for pitches, provided they're not dangerous to players' safety. If they want to lose two days' revenue by preparing a highly seam\spin-friendly deck that's their lookout. Equally if they want to be stupid enough to prepare rank road after rank road and bore everyone stupifyingly senseless, that's their lookout as well - and they'll kill the game if they do that.

Umpires are the responsibility of independent authorities; groundsmen are the responsibility of the home authority. The idea of neutral groundsmen is as ludicrous a suggestion as any that could possibly be made in connection with cricket. And BTW, the only time a deck is doctored is when it's illegall alterered during the course of the match.

Home advantage is one of the most important factors in what makes Test cricket what it is.

 

[Migara]

Do not think it was possible for the Curator to alter the pitch that much,specially with the bounce the WACA wicket soil has anyways,if he wanted to.



So a pitch which is spinning on 3rd day is not test standard.
But a pitch which is green from day one and with the ball seaming everywhere is?Like Newzealand prepared for Indian tour last time before this year.Or what South africans usually try to prepare(where it is possible) when India tour there. Or the old Perth wicket in which most matches did not last for 4 days.
There is no sub condition as far as i can tell that a test should last for full 5 days.

What is the use of home and away matches if we are going to search for Ideal pre-set conditions everywhere?

Or the perth pitch which look like the lunar surface by the 5th day for that matter

 

[Burgey]

Must say I'm coming round now to the view that I don't give a tinker's what the pitch is like as long as it isn't dangerous, and there's something in it for bowlers, be they spinners or quicks.

The term "doctoring" has nasty connotations though, implying cheating. As SS has said, the term implies the pitch changing drastically during the game, though I confess to having used it in the sense of specially preparing a pitch which is out of its normal character pre-match.

I still maintain that pitch in 04 where Clarke took 6-9 was as close to being so bad that it wasn't up to test standard though. I really don't think it would have mattered who was batting on it, there was never a chance of the match going even into day four (iirc).

I also think Australia aren't stupid in choosing not to play some of the stronger teams in Brisbane of late. The prospect of facing Steyn at the Gabba isn't particularly palatable for anyone, I'd have thought.

 

[silentstriker]

I still maintain that pitch in 04 where Clarke took 6-9 was as close to being so bad that it wasn't up to test standard though. I really don't think it would have mattered who was batting on it, there was never a chance of the match going even into day four (iirc).

To be honest...how did Clarke do in Sydney? Clarke > India.

But I could potentially see the point of being 'substandard' if its dangerous, but otherwise, I see it as par for the course. Test pitches should test different skill, sometimes it means scoring merrily on flat tracks, sometimes it's hopping around at WACA, and sometimes it's trying to counter meter long spin.

People trot out 'Good for fast bowling first day, settles down on day two and three, helps spin on day four or five' cliche, but seriously that would be boring as hell if every pitch was like that. That may work for some pitches, but I certainly don't want that to be the only type of pitch, or even small variation on that theme.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, not only that though, those pitches aren't all that easy to produce anyway I'd think - a lot of climatic and geological variations at play all the time.

 

[andyc]

Like SS has said, you don't want every pitch being the same. I've got absolutely no problem with an absolute dustbowl like the Aus-India in 04, as long as it's the exception rather than the rule. Given the number of Test pitches that appear as if they could last 10 days, I don't see what's wrong with one or two lasting only three. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

 

[Jono]

Lol @ sippyslip. What a joke.

A green wicket is challenging for the batsman and good for cricket but a turner is "doctored".

****ing hilarious how ridiculous that is.

 

[honestbharani]

lol... maybe he s bitter his team can't play spin.. But then, I should call every wicket with even a bit of bounce and movement as bad coz my team have sucked in those conditions for ages..

 

[Burgey]

Lol @ sippyslip. What a joke.

A green wicket is challenging for the batsman and good for cricket but a turner is "doctored".

****ing hilarious how ridiculous that is.

This.

Jono, I still giggle at that avatar of yours every time I see it. Can't help it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't think there's a problem unless a wicket is prepared to play markedly different to how it normally does. If you set out to totally change the characteristics of the wicket for one match then it's pretty piss poor, otherwise carry on.

 

[JimmyGS]

Haha, I wasn't aware someone changed the pitch between innings. Unless they did, one team did better on the same pitch than the other, and that's called playing cricket.

Bingo.

 

[Richard]

I still maintain that pitch in 04 where Clarke took 6-9 was as close to being so bad that it wasn't up to test standard though. I really don't think it would have mattered who was batting on it, there was never a chance of the match going even into day four (iirc).

I don't mind those decks, as long as they're only in a very small minority.

Not something you want to be seeing every series, or even every season. But every now and then is fine. And if it's the choice between that and an ARG-esque runway, give me Wankhede '04/05 any day.

 

[Richard]

Lol @ sippyslip. What a joke.

A green wicket is challenging for the batsman and good for cricket but a turner is "doctored".

****ing hilarious how ridiculous that is.

lol... maybe he s bitter his team can't play spin..

That's the general reason for such idiotic views.

Green seamer and dustbowl are both, I repeat, infinitely preferable to ARG-esque runway.

 

[Streetwise]

That's the general reason for such idiotic views.

Green seamer and dustbowl are both, I repeat, infinitely preferable to ARG-esque runway.

Respect the poster.

 

[GotSpin]

Anything other than flat tracks please!

SCG has been my favourite pitch for a while now. Had some great results.

 

[Richard]

Don't think there's a problem unless a wicket is prepared to play markedly different to how it normally does. If you set out to totally change the characteristics of the wicket for one match then it's pretty piss poor, otherwise carry on.

Some wickets don't have a "normal" way of playing, really. All of the grounds in Australia have their own unique "typical" pitch (and we've seen what happens when people try to suppress the ARG's flatness), but many grounds elsewhere don't. In Pakistan, for instance, it's always been easy to produce a seamer, turner or road almost to order.

Completely changing the characteristics of the "typical" way the wicket plays in the space of a month or so is not far from impossible. Certainly you've got to have a hell of a lot of luck to pull it off. Mostly it's just a case of making use of extremes - deliberately making sure a deck that normally turns\seams a bit does so a lot.