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

[91Jmay]

To be fair to Australia (which is something I don't enjoy being) there are a few occasions where oppo has batted first and been knocked over for far less than 500. Their bowlers suit these conditions as well because of extra pace and/or height.

 

[cnerd123]

When the general consensus from people who have played the game, are knowleadgable , who have been succesfull at the game, who love the game and who arent really biased cause they arent south african or indian is the pitch is bad, than i'd say chances are the pitch really is bad

This + similar posts deserves a proper response.

These former cricketers are just that, former cricketers. They're view of the game comes from the view of having played it.

As such, every former batsman-turned-commentator is going to look at this pitch and be like 'nah, that's **** heap'.
Every fast bowler-turned-expert is going to look at that pitch and be like 'wtf am I going to do here?' (Even tho Morne, Ishant and Rabada proved them wrong by being very effective)
Every spinner-turned-expert is going to be envious that guys like Ashwin and Jadeja were going to bag a bunch of cheap wickets and be grumpy that they didn't get the same opportunities. In any case, they'll concede the pitch offers them a huge advantage, and in order to not piss the other guys off, will generally be diplomatic and agree with the consensus.

Does this actually make the pitch poor? Depends on how you define 'poor'. If a pitch where a batsman has to bat 200 balls to cross a fifty, where they never feel settled, where decent-but-not-ATG spinners tear apart a side is poor, then yes this is poor.

But if you define poor as a pitch where:
- the toss defines the outcome
- the cricket is unwatchable
- the batsmen are in serious physical danger
- every mediocre player of a certain type (spinner, medium pacer, batsman) is made to look fantastic
- batting for long periods requires more luck than skill

Then this pitch is no poor because it was very evident that it was none of those things, and I want you to find me an 'expert' who disagrees.

This pitch was very spin-bowling friendly. Very hard to bat on. No one disagrees. But when you use words such as 'unplayable', 'lottery' and 'minefield' then you are just flat out wrong and deserve to be called up on it.

Gavaskar was critical of the batsmen's shot making and footwork during commentary. And he should know. He faced some fantastic spinners on pitches every bit as 'poor' as this and succeeded. If you want an expert's opinion you might as well take his.

 

[cnerd123]

Also I am baffled that people who claim to have watched this game actually think that the batsmen's lack of technique had nothing to do with their dismissals. Maybe it's a result of having been so used to watching guys like Rahane, Kohli, ABDV, Amla and Faf fill their boots on pitches with pace/bounce/swing/seam that we've all forgotten what batting against good spin bowling on spinning wickets looks like.

India were generally pretty dire batting in Sri Lanka against Herath and co too. Pujara and Vijay were the best batsmen on show there, no surprise they've been our best here too.

 

[Pratters]

*****, instead of understanding the point why people call the pitch poor, you are again dumbing down the argument to suit your narrative. Don't like the word lottery? Don't use it. Hardly makes the point irrelevant. When Wasim Akram, Matthew Hayden and Kallis criticise the pitch, you think they are also talking out of their asses?

 

[cnerd123]

Shock and horror - former fast bowler and batsmen raised up on fast bowling dislike a turning wicket.

They're criticising it for balance between bat and ball. They're not calling it unplayable or a lottery. Which is what you guys are. And you guys are wrong. So stop it.

 

[Tec15]

The lengths some Indian fans are going to defend this pitch; BCCI drone Gavaskar is a completely unbiased and impeachable source;The pitch wasn't bad; Only application and better footwork and technique was needed; Yeah, yeah sure.

 

[Pratters]

Akram called the wicket diabolical and compared it to an akhada (wrestling ring). Again, you are dumbing down the opposition to suit your narrative:

former fast bowler and batsmen raised up on fast bowling dislike a turning wicket.

 

[cnerd123]

Actually I haven't read/heard what Hayden etc. have said about the pitch, but I assume it's either a moan because they'd suck on this wicket rather than any allegations that it was dangerous/took skill out of the game. Link plz?

 

[harsh.ag]

It's an Indian thing

Cricket fan says the pitch is poor and he/she is disappointed that the match will be a let down

Indian fan takes it as a personal insult and feigns indignation

Indian fan is then exasperated when team cant replicate same results overseas and trolls players

Wash/rinse/recycle

Know you are exasperated by *****, but this is not true for CW Indian fans, from what I have seen. If you are talking about the majority of Indian fans, then it would be true.

The only thing that is insulting for mine is when, instead of arguing the merits of the argument, I have seen one opinion being formed and stuck to. This has been backed up by appealing to scorecards and authority figures and the few wickets that were lost to jaffas.

All of you disappeared when Du Plessis and Amla were batting today. And came out mud-slinging as soon as they got out. At least ***** was there all along, acknowledging the limits of the pitch, but arguing against it not being "a good pitch".

 

[Pratters]

Besides, Pakistan legend Wasim Akram had compared the pitch to a akhara (wrestling pit) and called cricket's world body International Cricket Council (ICC) to "get into preparing Test pitches" in a newspaper article.

In his Times of India column, Akram wrote: "I think the ICC should ... get into preparing Test pitches all over the world, or start deducting points that will affect a team's ranking. Till then we will keep getting these akharas (wrestling pits) like the one in Jamtha, where the ball hardly comes on to the bat."

Other comments.

 

[Pratters]

Know you are exasperated by *****, but this is not true for CW Indian fans, from what I have seen. If you are talking about the majority of Indian fans, then it would be true.

The only thing that is insulting for mine is when, instead of arguing the merits of the argument, I have seen one opinion being formed and stuck to. This has been backed up by appealing to scorecards and authority figures and the few wickets that were lost to jaffas.

All of you disappeared when Du Plessis and Amla were batting today. And came out mud-slinging as soon as they got out. At least ***** was there all along, acknowledging the limits of the pitch, but arguing against it not being "a good pitch".

No one disappeared any where. ***** called me out. I explained why I believe the pitch is poor while Faf and Amla were still batting. Social appeared soon enough as well.

 

[cnerd123]

Besides, Pakistan legend Wasim Akram had compared the pitch to a akhara (wrestling pit) and called cricket's world body International Cricket Council (ICC) to "get into preparing Test pitches" in a newspaper article.

In his Times of India column, Akram wrote: "I think the ICC should ... get into preparing Test pitches all over the world, or start deducting points that will affect a team's ranking. Till then we will keep getting these akharas (wrestling pits) like the one in Jamtha, where the ball hardly comes on to the bat."

Aha. So he didn't call it unsafe or luck dependant did he?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Also I am baffled that people who claim to have watched this game actually think that the batsmen's lack of technique had nothing to do with their dismissals. Maybe it's a result of having been so used to watching guys like Rahane, Kohli, ABDV, Amla and Faf fill their boots on pitches with pace/bounce/swing/seam that we've all forgotten what batting against good spin bowling on spinning wickets looks like.

India were generally pretty dire batting in Sri Lanka against Herath and co too. Pujara and Vijay were the best batsmen on show there, no surprise they've been our best here too.

But there is plenty of evidence to suggest both Amla and ABDV (former in particular) are excellent players of spin. Evidence also suggests that Pujara is also a very good player of spin. Let's put it this way, you have some of the best test batsmen playing in this series, and we haven't had one single century and the series is almost over.

I am not criticising the pitch for that, but you need to understand why people are talking about the pitch. There are reasons. Kohli, Rahane, Amla and ABD are 4 of the best test batsmen in world cricket today. Yet how many have even a half century..as I said earlier, whether justified or not, this talk is inevitable.

 

[Tec15]

Nothing to do with the pitch turning square and offering uneven bounce from day one. It was just poor technique from the South Africans. Mishra bowled what would have been a short pitched filthy long hop on any other pitch, but which became a low grubber that bowled Faf but that's just poor technique. Gavaskar said so. I'm sure Mishra, Jadeja and Ashwin will replicate this form outside India, unless pitch doctoring comes into play.

 

[Pratters]

Aha. So he didn't call it unsafe or luck dependant did he?

Thanks for proving my point.

A pitch doesn't have to be unsafe to be poor. He thinks the ICC should deduct points from teams for such pitches. What else do you want him to say?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Shock and horror - former fast bowler and batsmen raised up on fast bowling dislike a turning wicket.

They're criticising it for balance between bat and ball. They're not calling it unplayable or a lottery. Which is what you guys are. And you guys are wrong. So stop it.

Ok this is unfair. You are just going to dismiss every former player who has a different view as 'so called expert' or having an 'agenda' but Gavaskar is fine because he did not criticise the pitch. Gavaskar is not a so called expert but Akram is.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You have argued over a fair few posts yesterday actually. You think you are right, I think I am right. Only difference is you are wahhing when I disagree with you.

No, I'm "waahing" because it staggers me that anyone could have his arguments disproved and still carry on the pretense that he's presented a valid opinion. This isn't kindergarten. There is only so many times one can insist that every kid gets to go home with a participation trophy.

 

[Tec15]

All of you disappeared when Du Plessis and Amla were batting today. And came out mud-slinging as soon as they got out. At least ***** was there all along, acknowledging the limits of the pitch, but arguing against it not being "a good pitch".

Who disappeared? I was there even though the Amla-Du Plessis partnership was used to disingenuously argue that the pitch wasn't that bad at all and only "application and technique" was needed. People like you even tried to lay the blame for their dismissals on bad batting and absolve the pitch. Yeah, I'd like to see Mishra bowl those deliveries anywhere else.

 

[Pratters]

No, I'm "waahing" because it staggers me that anyone could have his arguments disproved and still carry on the pretense that he's presented a valid opinion. This isn't kindergarten. There is only so many times one can insist that every kid gets to go home with a participation trophy.

Nothing has been 'disproved'. I am not your mum either who will tell your pitch is a garden of roses even when it is a pit of cowdung.

 

[social]

If I am being cynical, I would probably put Channel 9's criticism of these pitches down to New Zealand matching Australia's score in the second test and scoring 600 plus. Had they folded like they did in the first test and Australia were 2-0, I doubt we would see these conversations because this has been the narrative for most of Australia's home wins over the last few years.
Win the toss, bat first, get 400-500 plus,
Bowl out opposition for <220
Then get a quickfire 250,
Bowl out opposition for another 200-250 runs and win by over 200 run margin.

Clearly winning the toss provides an incredible advantage to teams batting first. The only times when Australia haven't managed to pull it off were when Kohli or Williamson played out of their skins to match the score.

Nope

Firstly, you need to be aware of the fact that their commentary team is made up of former captains like Taylor and Chappell who believe that a good test is set up by a first innings score of 300-350 and have been beating this drum forever

Secondly, 9 is a network that derives its income from advertising revenue and that will decrease over time if viewers tune out and this is inevitable if runfests continue to prevail

What's more, 9, for all its faults, has a record of revolutionising sports broadcasting in every sport it touches (e.g. cricket, rugby codes, swimming, athletics, formula 1, etc.)

If Oz cricket has to cop a few black eyes to keep the dollars rolling in, history says that they will gladly do it until the team starts winning again