ICC Warns SL for Galle pitch

[Woodster]

The pitch may not have been 'ideal' from the outset, but I'm not sure it warranted all this negatvie publicity. I watched the entire first day which was one of the most captivating days of Test cricket I'd seen all year, and the fact that Jawayardene and Mathews made big scores on the last day of the Test suggests it didn't deteriorate into a unplayable surface.

If in England a greener surface than normal is prepared and the opposition (such as India) have little idea of how to play in these conditions, then surely a similar warning is warranted if this the way they're going.

Also, as many people have expressed, surely these embarrassing, lifeless, batting roads we've seen are just as culpable, if not more so, as they can make for tedious cricket.

 

[Redbacks]

Have large financial incentives for 4-5th day result pitches and watch the groundsmen get their acts together quick smart.

 

[Cevno]

Both. Ideally it wouldn't have been as dusty as it was day 1 but it wasn't close to being a poor pitch. Difficult and challenging does not equate to poor.

This.

 

[silentstriker]

Is it a disgraceful decision because people think the pitch was good for test cricket OR is it disgraceful because the ICC don't punish similarly unfit pitches such as roads?

Ideal for test cricket. Produced a good contest between bat and ball. Tested your ability to play spin from the outset.

Some pitches should test fast bowling from day one, others spin, others a little of both, and others where batsmen have the advantage. 40 wickets falling on first day is as bad as each side scoring 600. Both are bad but latter is worse because the former can actually provide a tight contest. But the former is decried and the latter has become the de facto standard in many places.

Sorry I don't buy at all that this pitch wasnt great for Test cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Well how about we focus on that instead of people trying to pass off the pitch as being decent enough for test cricket.

Two wrongs don't make a right. We've had millions of people come into the SL vs Aus tour thread and say there was nothing wrong with the pitch. What a load of horse ****. The ICC are ****s for not sanctioning boards that dish up roads, but they're doing the right thing here.

No they aren't. I don't want to see roads but I would love to see cotests on pitches like this. Produces vastly superior matches that are exciting to watch. I don't think the two are equal.

 

[silentstriker]

The latter. Appalling double standard.

Only double standard is between a pitch that helps fast bowlers and ends in 3 days vs a pitch that helps spinners and ends in three days.

Not criticizing flat pitches is just icc showing their lack of ability. Especially when they start their reasoning by trying to cover their ass like saying that they don't want to see roads but their actions say the complete opposite.

 

[shankar]

The problem with the ICC criticism is the part about 'excessive turn'. It's perfectly fine to criticise uneven bounce from the first day. It's possible to produce pitches that turn from the first session onwards and yet only provide uneven bounce from the 4th day onwards - Pretty much 90% of the pitches in India before around 2002 were of this nature. For some reason nowadays, groundsmen (in India at least) are only able to produce slow, low puddings or crumblers (with the odd exception).

 

[Cevno]

Agree with SS completely. And don't have a problem with a pitch with uneven bounce either.

 

[Furball]

Agree with SS completely. And don't have a problem with a pitch with uneven bounce either.

I think that for the first couple of days at least, you should be able to trust that if the ball is landed on a good length, it's not going to shoot through low or rear up and threaten to take your head off.

Obviously playing on a pitch that's starting to wear and show signs of uneven bounce is a test of your technique but not from ball one.

 

[Cevno]

I think that for the first couple of days at least, you should be able to trust that if the ball is landed on a good length, it's not going to shoot through low or rear up and threaten to take your head off.

Obviously playing on a pitch that's starting to wear and show signs of uneven bounce is a test of your technique but not from ball one.

Obviously if there is that much variation from day one, then it is a problem. But don't have a problem with a pitch where the odd ball is keeping low on day one even as long as it is not anything alarming.

Don't buy this theory that variation in bounce is bad while variation in line caused by swing or Seam etc.. is good. Also if pitches that don't turn till the end of the match are fine if they only offer assistance to fast bowlers, then see no reason why pitches offering assistance or spin from day one shouldn't be fine.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Obviously if there is that much variation from day one, then it is a problem. But don't have a problem with a pitch where the odd ball is keeping low on day one even as long as it is not anything alarming.

Don't buy this theory that variation in bounce is bad while variation in line caused by swing or Seam etc.. is good. Also if pitches that don't turn till the end of the match are fine if they only offer assistance to fast bowlers, then see no reason why pitches offering assistance or spin from day one shouldn't be fine.

Uneven bounce, while exciting for many viewers, can be dangerous, and brings the luck factor for bowlers and batsman to unacceptably high levels. Lateral movement makes it harder to play, but it's not going to hurt anyone.

 

[silentstriker]

I think that for the first couple of days at least, you should be able to trust that if the ball is landed on a good length, it's not going to shoot through low or rear up and threaten to take your head.

Why? The worst thing that could happen is if pitches all start looking and playing the same. I've no problem with pitches that lets Steyn knock over India withn a couple if hours of play starting, like it happened in Ahemdabad. I would prefer that India made spin pitches but I'll take the Ahemdabad pitch over some of the other flat bull**** that is produced all too often.

I know the "traditional" formula is fast bowling on first day, batting days 2-3, and spinners coming on day 4-5 and I think that's great but the point of test cricket is being tested in different types of surfaces, including those that favor the fast bowlers with steep bounce and movement and doesn't let up, or one that turns from day one and doesn't get better. And even pitches that help batsmen and bowlers have to work hard (again as long as at the end of the match, you're not thinking "well another match could be played here and that would be a draw too). All of those are "ideal" pitches as far as I'm concerned because thats variety and thats what I want to see as a fan.

I don't know why it's a bad thing if a batsman can't trust the bounce. Sometimes I want to see steyn going wild and Dravid knocking a 50. And other times I want to see Warne running through a lineup on day two. And sometimes I even want to watch sehwag tee off.

You know what my most exciting overseas test cricket memory is? Fourth test vs west indies. First three tests were boring draws. Fourth test an absolute minefield. Wickets falling left and right and Rahul Dravid standing like the ****ing man, making titanic twin fifties, one in both innings. I remember holding my breath at every ball, knowing anyone could do something crazy. My enduring image is a ball just dying and ending up at ankle height after pitching on a good length and Rahul Dravid just calmly going back and putting his bat in front and keeping it out. Like a boss. That same delivery had gotten four other players on both teams out. To this day, that is, as far as I'm concerned, Dravid's best innings and that is my favorite cricket "shot" of all time. I know sehwag scored a triple century at run a ball but I don't remember a single stroke from that. It is gone from your system in a few hours like a bad curry.

That match ended in like 2.5 days and the pitch was roundly criticized, including by genius batsmen like Lara. And maybe the ICC even warned them, I'm not sure. But that's where your best cricket memories are made.

But of course it's not ideal because it supposedly deteriorated too fast for the spoiled little batsmen.

And it pisses me off to no end.

 

[miscer]

Why? The worst thing that could happen is if pitches all start looking and playing the same. I've no problem with pitches that lets Steyn knock over India withn a couple if hours of play starting, like it happened in Ahemdabad. I would prefer that India made spin pitches but I'll take the Ahemdabad pitch over some of the other flat bull**** that is produced all too often.

I know the "traditional" formula is fast bowling on first day, batting days 2-3, and spinners coming on day 4-5 and I think that's great but the point of test cricket is being tested in different types of surfaces, including those that favor the fast bowlers with steep bounce and movement and doesn't let up, or one that turns from day one and doesn't get better. And even pitches that help batsmen and bowlers have to work hard (again as long as at the end of the match, you're not thinking "well another match could be played here and that would be a draw too). All of those are "ideal" pitches as far as I'm concerned because thats variety and thats what I want to see as a fan.

I don't know why it's a bad thing if a batsman can't trust the bounce. Sometimes I want to see steyn going wild and Dravid knocking a 50. And other times I want to see Warne running through a lineup on day two. And sometimes I even want to watch sehwag tee off.

You know what my most exciting overseas test cricket memory is? Fourth test vs west indies. First three tests were boring draws. Fourth test an absolute minefield. Wickets falling left and right and Rahul Dravid standing like the ****ing man, making titanic twin fifties, one in both innings. I remember holding my breath at every ball, knowing anyone could do something crazy. My enduring image is a ball just dying and ending up at ankle height after pitching on a good length and Rahul Dravid just calmly going back and putting his bat in front and keeping it out. Like a boss. That same delivery had gotten four other players on both teams out. To this day, that is, as far as I'm concerned, Dravid's best innings and that is my favorite cricket "shot" of all time. I know sehwag scored a triple century at run a ball but I don't remember a single stroke from that. It is gone from your system in a few hours like a bad curry.

That match ended in like 2.5 days and the pitch was roundly criticized, including by genius batsmen like Lara. And maybe the ICC even warned them, I'm not sure. But that's where your best cricket memories are made.

But of course it's not ideal because it supposedly deteriorated too fast for the spoiled little batsmen.

And it pisses me off to no end.

agreed. there's even a quote in wisden somewhere, where it says something like (paraphrasing) "and again a supposedly poor pitch produced one of the most exciting test matches from start to finish."

 

[Top_Cat]

Can only say that unless you've had to bat on an uneven pitch, you can't really understand how **** it is. Just leaves a bad taste for the players and I think Bencheh's coming from this angle too. And as Albi said, it shifts determinants for the success a player has further from skill to luck. You can work on your technique over time to deal with seaming/swinging/spinning balls and open up your scoring options as you get better but you just can't say the same for uneven bounce. If you walk out on a pitch which is shooting, spitting or both, your scoring options are limited to 'survive'. Sometimes that can open up into a good, grinding contest but not often.

I've got no problem with the occasional pitch being this way but it can't happen too often. A pitch where the batters can't get the ball off the square and eventually get pinged with shooters is just as homogenous a contest for me as a boredraw bat-off.

EDIT:

 

[Migara]

Uneven bounce, while exciting for many viewers, can be dangerous, and brings the luck factor for bowlers and batsman to unacceptably high levels. Lateral movement makes it harder to play, but it's not going to hurt anyone.

Sorry, but no one was hurt at Galle, and not many deliveries bounced dangerously, number being less than 10.

 

[silentstriker]

Can only say that unless you've had to bat on an uneven pitch, you can't really understand how **** it is. Just leaves a bad taste for the players and I think Bencheh's coming from this angle too. And as Albi said, it shifts determinants for the success a player has further from skill to luck. You can work on your technique over time to deal with seaming/swinging/spinning balls and open up your scoring options as you get better but you just can't say the same for uneven bounce. If you walk out on a pitch which is shooting, spitting or both, your scoring options are limited to 'survive'. Sometimes that can open up into a good, grinding contest but not often.

I've got no problem with the occasional pitch being this way but it can't happen too often. A pitch where the batters can't get the ball off the square and eventually get pinged with shooters is just as homogenous a contest for me as a boredraw bat-off.

The Galle pitch was not any of those things.

However, to address too much 'uneveness'. All I have to say is (to the batsmen): get over it. Boo hoo, it sucks to bat on a pitch. Sucks more to be a fast bowler and break your back on some of these flat pitches that keep getting served up.

Unless it gets to dangerous territory (unlikely these days with protection, but possible), or if it becomes a regular occurance where Tests end in 2 days, I've no problem with it whatsoever.

 

[Furball]

The Galle pitch was not any of those things.

However, to address too much 'uneveness'. All I have to say is (to the batsmen): get over it. Boo hoo, it sucks to bat on a pitch. Sucks more to be a fast bowler and break your back on some of these flat pitches that keep getting served up.

Unless it gets to dangerous territory (unlikely these days with protection, but possible), or if it becomes a regular occurance where Tests end in 2 days, I've no problem with it whatsoever.

I don't have a problem if a pitch becomes uneven; it shouldn't start that way.

 

[Top_Cat]

The Galle pitch was not any of those things.

However, to address too much 'uneveness'. All I have to say is (to the batsmen): get over it. Boo hoo, it sucks to bat on a pitch. Sucks more to be a fast bowler and break your back on some of these flat pitches that keep getting served up.

Unless it gets to dangerous territory (unlikely these days with protection, but possible), or if it becomes a regular occurance where Tests end in 2 days, I've no problem with it whatsoever.

No offence but you're clearly biased on this issue.

That said, I agree with the last point, if it's an occasional thing, like roads, that's fine with me. Sometimes the vagaries of pitch prep and climate make decks like this inevitable. And in fairness to groundsmen, it's harder to avoid flat pitches in avoiding ones which don't change the balance of bat and ball too far. But it should never be the norm and should be called what it is, an undesirable Test pitch. When it starts before lunch on day 1, there's really no excuse for it either. It's fairly preventable and, whilst Galle wasn't dangerous, the wrong weather conditions or soil changes and it could easily have been and if it had, you're skating close to an abandonment which is a big ****ing deal (ask those responsible for Sabina Park in '98). This is just the ICC being proactive for a change.

 

[Migara]

I don't have a problem if a pitch becomes uneven; it shouldn't start that way.

How about a pitch starting uneven and then flattens out?

 

[robelinda]

Not a single person could've predicted that wicket would flatten out later in the match, it was shocking on day one.