***Official*** Australia in Sri Lanka

[Burgey]

actually the pitch might ease up a bit...

How? It won't have gotten wet, I can only think at best it will not deteriorate as fast without the sun on it. I don't know that it could pssible get better for batting, but I guess we wait and see.

 

[benchmark00]

then majority of the cricket in the subcontinent & west indies is boring.

Amen brother.

 

[Daemon]

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.

The leading run scorers are the guys who've actually played tremendous knocks. Works both ways tbh.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I'm not too fussed with the pitch. Especially since this is like a once-in-five-years pitch. The two players who have played really well have gotten runs. Those who didn't, haven't. What's wrong with that?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I'm not too fussed with the pitch. Especially since this is like a once-in-five-years pitch. The two players who have played really well have gotten runs. Those who didn't, haven't. What's wrong with that?

Nah, ****

 

[Burgey]

Nah, ****

Just heard Jamie Cox has resigned. Last of the Ashes selectors gone.

 

[TT Boy]

Doubt Sri Lanka will be making pitches like this for a while anyhow. Their bowlers need the assistance to get 20 wickets but their batting is dependent on 3 guys, so it’s too risky. Lose here or magically chase down 300+, play the rest of the series on roads and take the 1 zip loss/win.

 

[SamSawnoff]

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.

I dont' see what the problem is. Why should wickets all offer the same thing as regards batsmen and bowlers? There has been some truly dreadful and lazy shots in this match, batsmen ride first class too often.

Edit: Are you referring to Herath? I thought you were.

 

[Spark]

It's not like Lyon was bowling long hops, either. You still have to bowl decently or a good player will cart you.

In my view a pitch is bad when skill, determination etc. ceases to be the overriding factor in determining performance. The two batsmen who have been the most adept against spin have been Hussey and Clarke. The two batsmen with runs are Hussey and Clarke.

It's not a perfect Test pitch but it's hardly terrible.

 

[benchmark00]

A good pitch should allow batsmen and bowlers to showcase their skills. Having a pitch which all but takes out the drive is not a great example of cricket.

 

[SamSawnoff]

A good pitch should allow batsmen and bowlers to showcase their skills. Having a pitch which all but takes out the drive is not a great example of cricket.

Why should they all do that though? This is what I don't understand. Why should they all deteriorate at the same rate?

Nothing wrong with the odd dodgy pitch.

I remember Adam Gilchrist in an interview saying that the innings he was most proud of was a score in the mid-40's on a really, really tough pitch.

 

[benchmark00]

Why should they all do that though? This is what I don't understand. Why should they all deteriorate at the same rate?

Nothing wrong with the odd dodgy pitch.

I remember Adam Gilchrist in an interview saying that the innings he was most proud of was a score in the mid-40's on a really, really tough pitch.

That's all well and good, but as spectators do we want to see a batsman's talents curtailed because the pictch is just so slow? Also do we want a bowler made to look like god because the pitch is so slow and inconsistent?

I'd suggest we'd want a balance between the two.

 

[Burgey]

That's all well and good, but as spectators do we want to see a batsman's talents curtailed because the pictch is just so slow? Also do we want a bowler made to look like god because the pitch is so slow and inconsistent?

I'd suggest we'd want a balance between the two.

I think this is right, in an ideal world.

Then again, in an ideal world, Jono would never have made a post on CW.

 

[SamSawnoff]

That's all well and good, but as spectators do we want to see a batsman's talents curtailed because the pictch is just so slow? Also do we want a bowler made to look like god because the pitch is so slow and inconsistent?

I'd suggest we'd want a balance between the two.

And I suggest that we don't want (and rarely get) a perfect balance between the two in every match. That sounds like a fantasy expectation.

I think it makes for absorbing cricket watching batsmen struggle for every run. It's just as interesting a spectacle as watching flourishing shot making for me.

I like seeing a range of pitches with differing personalities. Batsmen get to look like gods due to pitches being so true they don't have to think hard about what they are doing, why shouldn't bowlers get the same opportunity from time to time?

 

[Burgey]

Have they taken an early lunch here?

 

[Himannv]

That's a bit different to the England series where the leading wicket takers were all guys who have some kind of rep.

Rep in England, not elsewhere.

 

[Spark]

Have they taken an early lunch here?

I'm hearing that it'll be two three hour sessions, so quite possibly.

 

[benchmark00]

And I suggest that we don't want (and rarely get) a perfect balance between the two in every match. That sounds like a fantasy expectation.

I think it makes for absorbing cricket watching batsmen struggle for every run. It's just as interesting a spectacle as watching flourishing shot making for me.

I like seeing a range of pitches with differing personalities. Batsmen get to look like gods due to pitches being so true they don't have to think hard about what they are doing, why shouldn't bowlers get the same opportunity from time to time?

Ah because it's boring and two wrongs don't make a right??

 

[SamSawnoff]

Ah because it's boring and two wrongs don't make a right??

So you find this match boring.

I don't.

 

[Spark]

I'd not say this has been especially boring (particularly not when Clarke was batting).

The main difference between a bowler's deck and a road is that one leaves both teams with a theoretically equal chance to win. In the other case neither team is likely to win.