benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Run at me.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in Sri Lanka
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
"it's not great cricket?" what are you saying
imo it's as absorbing as ****
imo it's as absorbing as ****
adub
International Captain
Stumper might be showing some positive influence already.
adub
International Captain
A fit Harris is the trump card.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mate just because it's absorbing and interesting doesn't mean the quality of cricket is great.
You can have an u/9's team out there and if it's close it's still absorbing and exciting. Doesn't mean it's a great standard of cricket. The key is being able to deferentiate between close/absorbing cricket and high quality cricket.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
the quality here is determined by how good the players are at playing on this sort of a pitch.
it's not like the ball is turning square or anything. batsmen are just ill-disciplined and are failing to adjust to the variations caused by the pitch (which means they are not good at playing on a wicket like this).
Last edited:
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It means because the pitch is slow, which brings me back to my original point.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
then majority of the cricket in the subcontinent & west indies is boring.
adub
International Captain
I think the pitch is poor. It was never going to produce a 5 day test and probably made winning the toss the most important moment of the game, which isn't what anybody should want. The condition of the pitch on day 1 was what it should have been on day 4. The staff shaved and dried it far too much and I bet the Lankans are hoping the next two pitches are a bit better (or they win the toss both times).
I've got no problems with a bowler friendly conditions, but this one did tilt the balance too far. 3 Day tests aren't really the go and it's pretty unlikely this one will see out the day if the rain sods off.
Jayzamann
International Regular
They do, but it takes a legion of groundstaff and prisoners to get them off in time.
Jacknife
International Captain
Speaking for pitches in England, if a pitch has been the reason both teams are only making 100-200 it will get criticized and does, even though there are few pitches in England where that has happened, albeit the odd collapse from a team who can't bat.
In England though it's mostly down to the amount of swing each ground gets that causes problems, very rarely is it down to a sporty pitch.
You would think from a cricketing point of view you want a pitch in the sub continent to gradually deteriorate over the course of the game and maybe offer a bit to the seamers on the first day.
Himannv
Hall of Fame Member
Agree completely. Definitely double standards.
Bun
Banned
awta.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
actually the pitch might ease up a bit...Rain is back.Looks like being an infuriating day but this game probably only needs 100 overs or less for a result.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Saw in the England series that even on a good bowling surface, crap seamers i.e. the Indian guys were largely ineffectual but good bowlers and batsman with decent techniques prospered. He, any old Tom, Dick and Dilshan are turning it square and getting wickets. It is akin to Ian Bell bowling Sachin with one that seamed yards.
The leading wicket taker in this test match is a poor bowler; the pitch has made him become a superstar. That's a bit different to the England series where the leading wicket takers were all guys who have some kind of rep.