• 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*** India in Australia 2011/12

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Have always wondered whether a tool which visualises the topography of the pitch would be feasible. Would be interesting to see how much it changes over 5 days.
Last season they used to have a thing which gets a section of the pitch and zooms up close to it and see how it looks. Not what you're saying, but they've obviously thought about it.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
A guy playing his 67th Test Match, with an average of 50, with a technique like his, should be stepping up to bat number 3 while Australia have such an inexperienced top order.
And their inexperienced top order players should be playing out of position at 6?
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
A guy playing his 67th Test Match, with an average of 50, with a technique like his, should be stepping up to bat number 3 while Australia have such an inexperienced top order.
The top 3 are all First Class openers. Ponting and Clarke are both experienced.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Last season they used to have a thing which gets a section of the pitch and zooms up close to it and see how it looks. Not what you're saying, but they've obviously thought about it.
Yeah I vaguely remember it, was more about seeing how much rougher the pitch looked or how much the grass had changed from memory? Honestly don't remember.

Something like what I'm suggesting, you'd think you'd need a laser scan of some sort. Wouldn't be cheap.
 

Top