ICC Warns SL for Galle pitch

[Migara]

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

There had been many shocking pitches which provided 90 overs of more shocking ball behavior, but has gone scott free.

 

[robelinda]

Well what do you propose we do about it.....

 

[Furball]

How about a pitch starting uneven and then flattens out?

Haha, that's a good point. I still don't think the pitch should be offering dramatically uneven bounce to start with.

 

[NasserFan207]

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 100%.

Its a ****ing disgrace mate. Brilliant post.

Should clarify that I don't want every pitch to play the same way, but its all about variety. I want to see different pitches behaving differently and offering different challenges. Makes cricket twice as interesting.

As for the danger aspect **** that ****. I haven't seen a genuinely dangerous pitch in about ten years. With the protective equipment available to batsmen these days they don't have a leg to stand on. Man up ffs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Agreeing with the Bench, T_C & rob here, it wasn't a good pitch. The ball was going through the surface on the first morning and the uneven bounce was making batting a lottery. I'm all for a contest, but when the contest becomes a toss of a coin as to whether the ball will scoot through at ankle height, there's no contest between bat and ball and no test of either party's skills.

If anyone wants to start a petition to get rid of roads, I'll sign it, but defending what was a poor pitch because wickets that resemble tarmacadam aren't also punished is just a two wrongs making a right rehash.

 

[GotSpin]

Agreed 100%.

Its a ****ing disgrace mate. Brilliant post.

Should clarify that I don't want every pitch to play the same way, but its all about variety. I want to see different pitches behaving differently and offering different challenges. Makes cricket twice as interesting.

As for the danger aspect **** that ****. I haven't seen a genuinely dangerous pitch in about ten years. With the protective equipment available to batsmen these days they don't have a leg to stand on. Man up ffs.

Indeed. Wouldn't want things to be hard for the poor innocent batsmen

 

[NasserFan207]

Agreeing with the Bench, T_C & rob here, it wasn't a good pitch. The ball was going through the surface on the first morning and the uneven bounce was making batting a lottery. I'm all for a contest, but when the contest becomes a toss of a coin as to whether the ball will scoot through at ankle height, there's no contest between bat and ball and no test of either party's skills.

If anyone wants to start a petition to get rid of roads, I'll sign it, but defending what was a poor pitch because wickets that resemble tarmacadam aren't also punished is just a two wrongs making a right rehash.

Sorry, but I watched the first days play and it was NOT a lottery. Hussey summed up the conditions and played a brilliant innings, where he played the ball late and adjusted to the bounce. That innings was what won Australia the game imo.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's pretty much impossible to adjust to uneven bounce of the sort there was at Galle; the best a batsman can hope for is to play it off the pitch and hope he doesn't get one that stays low or explodes off a length.

 

[NasserFan207]

It's pretty much impossible to adjust to uneven bounce of the sort there was at Galle; the best a batsman can hope for is to play it off the pitch and hope he doesn't get one that stays low or explodes off a length.

You're exaggerating mate. Truly unplayable balls weren't that common day 1. In fact several wickets resulted from poor batting. Its basically impossible to almost reach 300 on a 'lottery'.

 

[Migara]

Well what do you propose we do about it.....

Nothing. Why should a pitch deteriorate only at the end of the match? How about reversal of the behavior? That will add another dimension to the game.

Actually, Asgiriya pitch of Kandy behaves exactly in the same way. Some serious movement and variable bounce on first day and gradually flattens out to be a belter on day 5. It has produced some thrilling encounters esp. between Aus and SL.

 

[Migara]

It's pretty much impossible to adjust to uneven bounce of the sort there was at Galle; the best a batsman can hope for is to play it off the pitch and hope he doesn't get one that stays low or explodes off a length.

But haven't seen a **** dismissal like that KP got off Herath in this match. Nothing kept THAT low. On the other hand this mystical explosions were less than number of fingers of two hands.

 

[hang on]

Nothing. Why should a pitch deteriorate only at the end of the match? How about reversal of the behavior? That will add another dimension to the game.

Actually, Asgiriya pitch of Kandy behaves exactly in the same way. Some serious movement and variable bounce on first day and gradually flattens out to be a belter on day 5. It has produced some thrilling encounters esp. between Aus and SL.

wow. the chappies there have got their entropy thingy worked out rather well. how is the time machine going, by the way?

only being partly facetious!

regarding uneven bounce, the ability to play late and adjust quickly (sometimes half ****) is also a skill. as long as the danger dimension is not off the charts (and it hardly should be given the amount of protection around), i don't at all see a problem with galle or kanpur(?) or similar pitches.

 

[centurymaker]

You're exaggerating mate. Truly unplayable balls weren't that common day 1. In fact several wickets resulted from poor batting. Its basically impossible to almost reach 300 on a 'lottery'.

yup. it was an ok pitch, not poor.

 

[silentstriker]

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

.

That's a weird word to use. Yes, I want to see matches were there is a contest between bat and ball and some where the ball has the edge and some where the bat has the edge. That's cricket.

There were around 840 runs scored, with a century and two scores in the nineties, with three out of the four innings yielding 200+ runs. Sorry but that's not unreasonable as far as I'm concerned. No one says **** when fast bowling friendly pitches are produced and around 840 runs are scored. That was a great pitch and a great match too.

Unless you can tell me the pitch was dangerous, I don't buy the argument.

 

[Top_Cat]

There were around 840 runs scored, with a century and two scores in the nineties, with three out of the four innings yielding 200+ runs. Sorry but that's not unreasonable as far as I'm concerned. No one says **** when fast bowling friendly pitches are produced and around 840 runs are scored. That was a great pitch and a great match too.

Unless you can tell me the pitch was dangerous, I don't buy the argument.

It's simpler than that. With few exceptions;

A green pitch which has good pace and carry, whilst bowler-friendly, still requires the bowlers to be good enough to take advantage of them with just about every mode of dismissal still available to them. And just about every shot is still available to batsmen, they just have to be good enough to play them and be mindful of the movement. Bowlers who bowl badly on green pitches still get spanked. It's a test of skill.

A slow pitch generally means you need to reign in attacking shots and any ball not on the stumps is wasted. Bowl straight, wait for the batsman to make a mistake, play straight wait for the bowler to bowl a loose one. Most wickets on slow pitches are caught in front or bowled/LBW. Can make plodding bowlers look a million bucks and is more a test of patience.

Test cricket has a place for both as an occasional thing but, in my opinion, the average spectator would prefer the former no matter how close the game.

As for why a cricket ground/club might be warned/penalised for one but not the other, well, both are undesirable from the point of view of the health of cricket but, generally, the former isn't as easily preventable whilst the latter most definitely is.

There's a lot of subjectivity about this whole thing, granted. But personally, watching cricket on a slow deck would be somewhere near the bottom of the pile for me and I doubt I'm alone.

 

[silentstriker]

To each his own. I found the Galle test pretty absorbing.

 

[benchmark00]

Relax guys, Top_**** has this.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

It's pretty much impossible to adjust to uneven bounce of the sort there was at Galle; the best a batsman can hope for is to play it off the pitch and hope he doesn't get one that stays low or explodes off a length.

Essentially on the first day, you mean? The track was a minefield that day but true merit did not go unrewarded, as a certain Mike Hussey would agree with. It was more a classy than a chancy knock as I'm sure many people who saw the test (yourself included, most likely) would fondly recall.

Tbf, the track did ease out progressively and was at its best when the Mahela-Angelo partnership flourished. The track wasn't the worst *, IMHO and did not pose a physical threat which, I think, should be the one reason for coming down very hard on curators. A lot of the batting technique on display (from both sides) was inadequate and the pitch was made to look worse than it was.



* over the entire duration of the test

 

[Prince EWS]

Agreeing with the Bench, T_C & rob here, it wasn't a good pitch. The ball was going through the surface on the first morning and the uneven bounce was making batting a lottery. I'm all for a contest, but when the contest becomes a toss of a coin as to whether the ball will scoot through at ankle height, there's no contest between bat and ball and no test of either party's skills.

If anyone wants to start a petition to get rid of roads, I'll sign it, but defending what was a poor pitch because wickets that resemble tarmacadam aren't also punished is just a two wrongs making a right rehash.

I don't think it was a good pitch either, and I certainly wouldn't want to see every Test played on such a thing. As has been pointed out, there's a difference between having a pitch that takes lots of spin from day one and having a pitch that is completely inconsistent in bounce throughout.

That said, as a one-off, I don't have that much of a problem with it. I don't think we should be warning pitches like that unless they become commonplace at a venue or throughout a series; it's fine to have a pitch like that once a blue moon, as much as it is fine to have a road once in a blue moon. Overall trends are what should be monitored more than anything.