***Official*** South Africa in India 2015

[aussie]

Yeah, absolutely and I hate pitches where Steyn can do well but not Philander, for similar reasons. But I have seen tests go longer on far worser pitches than this one simply because batsmen played better or bowlers bowled worse. At the end of the day, wherever you go in India, with the dry conditions that are prevalent most of the time, you will see pitches that are a lot more dusty and prone to breaking up than countries which have a longer winter period. Pitches that help fast bowlers and "seamers" across 5 days are good for the game but if that happens with a spinner, suddenly it is not good cricket. Of course it is not, coz these set of batsmen are no good at playing it. tbb can cry all he wants but the fact is teams like Australia, Windies and now RSA have simply not been good enough in cricket skills required to compete in such conditions and its fair enough they get found out on it, just like we were when we had to play on greentops.

Could you clarify what you mean by the bold, not sure that I follow clearly. Thanks..

 

[StephenZA]

OK, have read different people’s opinions and spoken to some people that actually understand batting at higher level than I do. I’ve come to the following conclusions.

First let me get this out there, a few more runs could have been scored on this pitch. But everybody keeps talking about the spin on the pitch, the fact the pitch spun was not an issue. However it was slow low and inconsistent from practically the first ball bowled. So survival required elements of luck particularly against spin bowlers. Quality batsmen with good technique can cope with consistent bounce, seam, swing and turn. No batsmen, without luck, can survive against inconsistent anything for a long time. This is why you see batsmen getting out playing uncharacteristic and “poor” shots (or no shot) in this first test match, basically because they did not have a “good” shot to play in their mind, due to uncertainty. Thus, what makes the pitch poor was not because it was turning from day one, but because it was inconsistent from the first session of play and it just got worse. Variation from bowlers makes a difference but most of the variation came from the pitch not the bowlers in this match.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a pitch asked for by the Indian team management, (which I have no problem with) I think the look of sheepishness/relief on Kohli’s face when he won the toss said it all, in that they realized it had been overdone. If he had lost that toss and SA had put 250 on the board, the shoe could very much have been on the other foot! I do not think that the curator wanted to produce this bad a pitch, I think he was asked to produce a turner and went a bit over board, India has not produced this sort of pitch in a long time.

My point though is that the argument seems to be around whether the pitch spinning from day one is bad... not it’s not, just like a green pitch where the ball seams day one is not bad. However day 5 pitches are difficult not because they spin or seam but because they tend to have inconsistent bounce and movement. And a day one pitch should not be comparable to a day 5 pitch.

I did enjoy the match because it was exciting and I always had hope SA could maybe do something special. I am very much looking forward to the next test.

 

[Heboric]

OK, have read different people’s opinions and spoken to some people that actually understand batting at higher level than I do. I’ve come to the following conclusions.

First let me get this out there, a few more runs could have been scored on this pitch. But everybody keeps talking about the spin on the pitch, the fact the pitch spun was not an issue. However it was slow low and inconsistent from practically the first ball bowled. So survival required elements of luck particularly against spin bowlers. Quality batsmen with good technique can cope with consistent bounce, seam, swing and turn. No batsmen, without luck, can survive against inconsistent anything for a long time. This is why you see batsmen getting out playing uncharacteristic and “poor” shots (or no shot) in this first test match, basically because they did not have a “good” shot to play in their mind, due to uncertainty. Thus, what makes the pitch poor was not because it was turning from day one, but because it was inconsistent from the first session of play and it just got worse. Variation from bowlers makes a difference but most of the variation came from the pitch not the bowlers in this match.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a pitch asked for by the Indian team management, (which I have no problem with) I think the look of sheepishness/relief on Kohli’s face when he won the toss said it all, in that they realized it had been overdone. If he had lost that toss and SA had put 250 on the board, the shoe could very much have been on the other foot! I do not think that the curator wanted to produce this bad a pitch, I think he was asked to produce a turner and went a bit over board, India has not produced this sort of pitch in a long time.

My point though is that the argument seems to be around whether the pitch spinning from day one is bad... not it’s not, just like a green pitch where the ball seams day one is not bad. However day 5 pitches are difficult not because they spin or seam but because they tend to have inconsistent bounce and movement. And a day one pitch should not be comparable to a day 5 pitch.

I did enjoy the match because it was exciting and I always had hope SA could maybe do something special. I am very much looking forward to the next test.

I also dont mind it spinning. Its just when a toss is so crucial that it gives such an advantage to the team winning it.

It is like day night games at Newlands a few years back. They could have handed out the winners cheque at the toss.

 

[honestbharani]

TBF to him, that could apply to basically 90% of the Indian population.

Which one?

 

[honestbharani]

Could you clarify what you mean by the bold, not sure that I follow clearly. Thanks..

That came out wrong. I meant I Hate pitches that suit someone like Philander coz he is heavily dependant on certain type of tracks to do well, like Jadeja, when compared to Steyn who can be quite lethal even in reasonably easier conditions.

 

[honestbharani]

OK, have read different people’s opinions and spoken to some people that actually understand batting at higher level than I do. I’ve come to the following conclusions.

First let me get this out there, a few more runs could have been scored on this pitch. But everybody keeps talking about the spin on the pitch, the fact the pitch spun was not an issue. However it was slow low and inconsistent from practically the first ball bowled. So survival required elements of luck particularly against spin bowlers. Quality batsmen with good technique can cope with consistent bounce, seam, swing and turn. No batsmen, without luck, can survive against inconsistent anything for a long time. This is why you see batsmen getting out playing uncharacteristic and “poor” shots (or no shot) in this first test match, basically because they did not have a “good” shot to play in their mind, due to uncertainty. Thus, what makes the pitch poor was not because it was turning from day one, but because it was inconsistent from the first session of play and it just got worse. Variation from bowlers makes a difference but most of the variation came from the pitch not the bowlers in this match.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a pitch asked for by the Indian team management, (which I have no problem with) I think the look of sheepishness/relief on Kohli’s face when he won the toss said it all, in that they realized it had been overdone. If he had lost that toss and SA had put 250 on the board, the shoe could very much have been on the other foot! I do not think that the curator wanted to produce this bad a pitch, I think he was asked to produce a turner and went a bit over board, India has not produced this sort of pitch in a long time.

My point though is that the argument seems to be around whether the pitch spinning from day one is bad... not it’s not, just like a green pitch where the ball seams day one is not bad. However day 5 pitches are difficult not because they spin or seam but because they tend to have inconsistent bounce and movement. And a day one pitch should not be comparable to a day 5 pitch.

I did enjoy the match because it was exciting and I always had hope SA could maybe do something special. I am very much looking forward to the next test.

If it was slow and low, how was it inconsistent? Nothing ever really reared up. I agree with that general idea but this pitch was honestly not so ****ing difficult to bat on as both sets of batsmen made it out to be. A few balls kicked off a spinner's good length and it was obvious one end of the pitch looked much worse than the other or even the middle of the pitch and I agree, if it was done willingly, it is very wrong. But a) I dont think it was planned to let one end alone be that rough b) The square has aged a lot and gotten a lot softer and c) When you make conditions so spin friendly that even a normal spinner becomes a threat, it is playing into the opposition's hand. India won a number of tests overseas where the pitch negated the quality of seamers between the two sides and it can so easily happen to India if they nullify their own spinners' quality advantage against RSA.

 

[StephenZA]

If it was slow and low, how was it inconsistent? Nothing ever really reared up. I agree with that general idea but this pitch was honestly not so ****ing difficult to bat on as both sets of batsmen made it out to be. A few balls kicked off a spinner's good length and it was obvious one end of the pitch looked much worse than the other or even the middle of the pitch and I agree, if it was done willingly, it is very wrong. But a) I dont think it was planned to let one end alone be that rough b) The square has aged a lot and gotten a lot softer and c) When you make conditions so spin friendly that even a normal spinner becomes a threat, it is playing into the opposition's hand. India won a number of tests overseas where the pitch negated the quality of seamers between the two sides and it can so easily happen to India if they nullify their own spinners' quality advantage against RSA.

I`ve highlighted the difference section in bold to answer from a imo viewpoint
1) Inconsistent is not just about the bounce being inconsistent. There where a few balls that did stay very low but inconsistent was also about inconsistent spin. A ball bowled at approximately the same length and speed using the same action sometimes spun prodigious and sometimes did not that is inconsistent.. yes there was variation by the bowlers themselves but using Elgar (who does not have great variation) as an example most of his wickets came from straight balls... but the wickets came about because he was spinning the occasional ball doing nothing different. Thus rather than natural bowler variation it was pitch variation. Day 5 good, day 1 not good!
2) I stated that they did not want a pitch that bad, it was overdone, for the exact reason you said, it can make any spin bowler dangerous and thus nullify the Indian advantage. Hence also my comment about the wry smile from Kohli when he won the toss!
3) The excuse that the pitch is so old is exactly that an excuse.... there was many articles indicating that they wanted a turning pitch (understandably), there was even an article before the match regarding how the curator, who was known for being open regarding his pitches with the journalists, was keeping it covered and hiding it a couple of days out and being very coy. There is no doubt the Indian management asked for a turning pitch but it was overdone, everybody realizes that.

Just to reiterate: None of this takes away from the fact the India coped better than SA and deserved to win, I am not complaining about the results or even the pitch being dry and spinning. But it was not a good test pitch. I expect the next test pitches for the rest of the series to turn considerably as well but I think they will not be as poor quality. India do not want to lose a toss on a pitch like that..

 

[cnerd123]

I think whether or not a pitch is 'poor' really depends on how you define 'poor'. Do you want a pitch that has something in it for everyone? Then yea, this is poor. Do you want a pitch that provides a fair balance between bat and ball? Then this pitch was pretty good. Do you want a pitch that makes for exciting viewing? Then this pitch was fantastic.

I liked this pitch and this match, but that's my personal preference and I can understand why others will disagree.

 

[StephenZA]

I think whether or not a pitch is 'poor' really depends on how you define 'poor'. Do you want a pitch that has something in it for everyone? Then yea, this is poor. Do you want a pitch that provides a fair balance between bat and ball? Then this pitch was pretty good. Do you want a pitch that makes for exciting viewing? Then this pitch was fantastic.

I liked this pitch and this match, but that's my personal preference and I can understand why others will disagree.

I do not think this pitch was a "fair" (meaning equal) contest between bat and ball, it was heavily weighted for the bowlers... but this pitch did make for very exciting viewing.

 

[Howe_zat]

People who talk about what is a 'good' pitch seem to imply that every match should have that 'good' pitch, which is nonsense. I would hate for every game to be like this one as it'd lead to no place for pace bowlers but that's irrelevant. Test cricket is largely about succeeding despite conditions changing.

England didn't bowl a spinner on the first morning of the Trent Bridge test where Aus were bowled out for 60 because they only had to take advantage of the surface. It wasn't consistent for both sides either, it was bound to have the ball moving more on the first morning. If you accept that pitch is still part of cricket, which you should, then so was this one. It's having both that makes Test cricket great.

 

[kami10]

Khaya Zondo

Decentish squads - surprised QDK isn't in the Test squad, but maybe it's better for the time being, let him get some game time at home and in the LOIs.

Zondo is an interesting pick, thought he'd make the side at some point.

Zondo should play in ODI for southafrica yet with some reason, he was not selected , well just like indian team. Gurkeerat deserves to play yet he not selects at.but sanjay manjrekar thinks
zondo will be in the test team soon.Good luck to young man. he is amazing, traditional proteas hitter.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&r...7ZTXiy4X3_Vzg7TZA&sig2=3o18dwhmaopkPFiAYUCQ5A

 

[honestbharani]

I`ve highlighted the difference section in bold to answer from a imo viewpoint
1) Inconsistent is not just about the bounce being inconsistent. There where a few balls that did stay very low but inconsistent was also about inconsistent spin. A ball bowled at approximately the same length and speed using the same action sometimes spun prodigious and sometimes did not that is inconsistent.. yes there was variation by the bowlers themselves but using Elgar (who does not have great variation) as an example most of his wickets came from straight balls... but the wickets came about because he was spinning the occasional ball doing nothing different. Thus rather than natural bowler variation it was pitch variation. Day 5 good, day 1 not good!
2) I stated that they did not want a pitch that bad, it was overdone, for the exact reason you said, it can make any spin bowler dangerous and thus nullify the Indian advantage. Hence also my comment about the wry smile from Kohli when he won the toss!
3) The excuse that the pitch is so old is exactly that an excuse.... there was many articles indicating that they wanted a turning pitch (understandably), there was even an article before the match regarding how the curator, who was known for being open regarding his pitches with the journalists, was keeping it covered and hiding it a couple of days out and being very coy. There is no doubt the Indian management asked for a turning pitch but it was overdone, everybody realizes that.

Just to reiterate: None of this takes away from the fact the India coped better than SA and deserved to win, I am not complaining about the results or even the pitch being dry and spinning. But it was not a good test pitch. I expect the next test pitches for the rest of the series to turn considerably as well but I think they will not be as poor quality. India do not want to lose a toss on a pitch like that..

I can see where you are coming from with the first two points, but that third point, you got it wrong IMO. When the square has gotten so soft, it is not easy to prepare the pitch. I was part of the group who helped out pitch preparation at my college grounds and while I was never very active there, it is obvious that you can easily get it wrong. I am sure they were trying to prepare a wicket that would suit India but what I meant was that your second point, about the degree to which it was dry and taking turn, might have happened because of how old the square was.

 

[StephenZA]

I can see where you are coming from with the first two points, but that third point, you got it wrong IMO. When the square has gotten so soft, it is not easy to prepare the pitch. I was part of the group who helped out pitch preparation at my college grounds and while I was never very active there, it is obvious that you can easily get it wrong. I am sure they were trying to prepare a wicket that would suit India but what I meant was that your second point, about the degree to which it was dry and taking turn, might have happened because of how old the square was.

They definitely misjudged the degree to which the pitch was breaking up and that may partly be because of the age of the pitch. I believe its pretty normal nowadays to replace a pitch completely every 20 years or so. And maybe once the curator started creating a dry pitch he was unable to recover the pitch into a better strip.... but ultimately this resulted in a poor test wicket but an exciting test match where India and its fans got the result that was wanted. I hope we do not see a wicket like that again in this series (on day one), as it is just going to amplify the toss. Don't mind turn but not something that looks quite as bad as that on the first day. Lets give the batsmen (all the batsmen) some hope of scoring a hundred!

 

[honestbharani]

They definitely misjudged the degree to which the pitch was breaking up and that may partly be because of the age of the pitch. I believe its pretty normal nowadays to replace a pitch completely every 20 years or so. And maybe once the curator started creating a dry pitch he was unable to recover the pitch into a better strip.... but ultimately this resulted in a poor test wicket but an exciting test match where India and its fans got the result that was wanted. I hope we do not see a wicket like that again in this series (on day one), as it is just going to amplify the toss. Don't mind turn but not something that looks quite as bad as that on the first day. Lets give the batsmen (all the batsmen) some hope of scoring a hundred!

DWTA. But since it has been discussed to death, I guess we can just agree to disagree.

 

[aussie]

That came out wrong. I meant I Hate pitches that suit someone like Philander coz he is heavily dependant on certain type of tracks to do well, like Jadeja, when compared to Steyn who can be quite lethal even in reasonably easier conditions.

Cool thanks suspected it might have come out wrong since it didn't sound right.

 

[Contra]

I'm not buying the win the toss win the game argument either. Australia won all 4 tosses back when they toured and lost all 4 games, even back in 2010 they won both tosses and lost the games. England won both their games batting second in 2012 so you have to play well to win, the toss is useless if you don't put in the performance required to justify it.

 

[kami10]

I do not think harmer,duminy and Tahir or piedt, any good spinner. Both southafrica and England need only specialist spinner, just like Kumble ,prasana or Ashwin.part timers are also perform half job.

I think southadrica will win next test at Bangalore, does not matter who will win toss.I think India batted very poorly at Mohali.

 

[Heboric]

I'm not buying the win the toss win the game argument either. Australia won all 4 tosses back when they toured and lost all 4 games, even back in 2010 they won both tosses and lost the games. England won both their games batting second in 2012 so you have to play well to win, the toss is useless if you don't put in the performance required to justify it.

Not necessary, but this pitch yes. Look how the Indian batsmen crumbled against the might of Dean Elgars spin. That clearly shows they would have struggled if they had lost the toss even if the Proteas squeaked 250.

 

[kami10]

Contra
Winning toss and batted first on certain pitches in Asia, seal the series with proper planning
Probably dose not matter in other than Asia.

 

[Pratters]

OK, have read different people’s opinions and spoken to some people that actually understand batting at higher level than I do. I’ve come to the following conclusions.

First let me get this out there, a few more runs could have been scored on this pitch. But everybody keeps talking about the spin on the pitch, the fact the pitch spun was not an issue. However it was slow low and inconsistent from practically the first ball bowled. So survival required elements of luck particularly against spin bowlers. Quality batsmen with good technique can cope with consistent bounce, seam, swing and turn. No batsmen, without luck, can survive against inconsistent anything for a long time. This is why you see batsmen getting out playing uncharacteristic and “poor” shots (or no shot) in this first test match, basically because they did not have a “good” shot to play in their mind, due to uncertainty. Thus, what makes the pitch poor was not because it was turning from day one, but because it was inconsistent from the first session of play and it just got worse. Variation from bowlers makes a difference but most of the variation came from the pitch not the bowlers in this match.

There is no doubt in my mind that this was a pitch asked for by the Indian team management, (which I have no problem with) I think the look of sheepishness/relief on Kohli’s face when he won the toss said it all, in that they realized it had been overdone. If he had lost that toss and SA had put 250 on the board, the shoe could very much have been on the other foot! I do not think that the curator wanted to produce this bad a pitch, I think he was asked to produce a turner and went a bit over board, India has not produced this sort of pitch in a long time.

My point though is that the argument seems to be around whether the pitch spinning from day one is bad... not it’s not, just like a green pitch where the ball seams day one is not bad. However day 5 pitches are difficult not because they spin or seam but because they tend to have inconsistent bounce and movement. And a day one pitch should not be comparable to a day 5 pitch.

I did enjoy the match because it was exciting and I always had hope SA could maybe do something special. I am very much looking forward to the next test.

Top post this. I have seen some respected journalists say that in their time Indian batsmen would have coped far better with the turn. The Gavaskars and the ilk. Maybe a bit better but I doubt it would be a massive improvement.