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

[Gnske]

Good to see this dead Horse is still being kicked

 

[artvandalay]

From what I have seen, Bhogle wants India to beat the other teams on their terms. But is okay with us losing away on their terms too.

This has really not been true for a while now. Wherever we have toured since 2013 at least, we have generally had pretty sporting wickets if a little in favor of the home side owing to support/weather conditions/familiarity etc. With some exceptions like the Durban wicket in 2013 which actually suited our style of play slightly more. It's entirely possible to make a 'good' pitch that enhances your strengths and affords a good contest while also having a good game of cricket all round, that didn't happen in the first and third tests here. It's not just India, I felt the Mumbai pitch in 2004 was poor while the pitch in a test match played in Trent Bridge in 2002 between SAF and England was not a good one either despite being very bowler friendly and Smith criticized it later on because of how crucial it rendered the toss. So too the kind of pitches where Sri Lanka made 900 against us in the late 90s in a test match at Colombo. A 'bad pitch' as has been mentioned previously need not only be a dangerous one for the batsmans' physical well being. Nor is a bowler friendly pitch a 'bad one' by any means. It isn't such a black and white thing.
All this seems to point to is that India were afraid of competing with SAF on anything approaching a level playing field, which is not wrong. We were a powerhouse at home in the 90s where people like Venkatapathy Raju looked unplayable, didn't help us much when we went overseas at all. I think that maybe what Harsha is referring to.

 

[harsh.ag]

All this seems to point to is that India were afraid of competing with SAF on anything approaching a level playing field, which is not wrong. We were a powerhouse at home in the 90s where people like Venkatapathy Raju looked unplayable, didn't help us much when we went overseas at all. I think that maybe what Harsha is referring to.

Yeah, but he is wrong on this point, We became good overseas because of the rise of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, and Ganguly, not because of our bowlers (one can hardly call Agarkar, the early Zaheer, Nehra etc. good performers overseas). And these guys didn't become good because of the changing nature of pitches in India. Ganguly and Dravid scored centuries in England in their debut series itself.

That's where Bhogle goes wrong. He is conflating "good, sporting" pitches in India with the ability of players to play well overseas. The players become good on the basis of how they train and practice, as well as other factors.

 

[Heboric]

What the **** has 2008 got to with anything?

South Africa lost here and in the First Test and would've more than likely lost the Second but for rain. I'm even going to say they'll lose the Fourth regardless of who wins the toss. Maybe that should tell you more about the situation?

Im talking about Australia vs India in Sydney and the reaction afterwards.

There was no "thats just cricket chaps" reaction afterwards.

Thank you.

Burp

 

[Jono]

Have a horrible busy run at work Wed-Fri... literally miss the whole test.

Wahh ****ing wahhh.

 

[harry1234]

Watch The India Vs South Africa Delhi Test Match For Rs 10

 

[Daemon]

Watch The India Vs South Africa Delhi Test Match For Rs 10

@tec15 @social @bahnz

 

[indiaholic]

@tec15 @social @bahnz

 

[cnerd123]

This has really not been true for a while now. Wherever we have toured since 2013 at least, we have generally had pretty sporting wickets if a little in favor of the home side owing to support/weather conditions/familiarity etc. With some exceptions like the Durban wicket in 2013 which actually suited our style of play slightly more. It's entirely possible to make a 'good' pitch that enhances your strengths and affords a good contest while also having a good game of cricket all round, that didn't happen in the first and third tests here. It's not just India, I felt the Mumbai pitch in 2004 was poor while the pitch in a test match played in Trent Bridge in 2002 between SAF and England was not a good one either despite being very bowler friendly and Smith criticized it later on because of how crucial it rendered the toss. So too the kind of pitches where Sri Lanka made 900 against us in the late 90s in a test match at Colombo. A 'bad pitch' as has been mentioned previously need not only be a dangerous one for the batsmans' physical well being. Nor is a bowler friendly pitch a 'bad one' by any means. It isn't such a black and white thing.
All this seems to point to is that India were afraid of competing with SAF on anything approaching a level playing field, which is not wrong. We were a powerhouse at home in the 90s where people like Venkatapathy Raju looked unplayable, didn't help us much when we went overseas at all. I think that maybe what Harsha is referring to.

1) As Harsh has said, conflicting India's performances overseas with the pitches offered up for Tests at home makes no sense. Test pitches are made to win games; if India want to do better overseas they need to prepare better domestic pitches, have more warm up games, and generally have better prep for the overseas tours overall.

2) I know the message coming from the Indian dressing room has been that these turners have been prepared to nullify SA, but everyone is ignoring that India's own batsmen are poor against spin bowling (Did no one watch the SL tour?) AND that the last time we did this it backfired and we lost to England. OS has been posting this for days and no one is acknowledging it.

3) Basically, you don't like low-scoring games. You don't like pitches where batting is incredibly difficult. So based on your standards, this is a poor pitch. Well and good then. Nice to clarify that.

For most of us here on CricketWeb, we loved this wicket. We love close, exciting games. The first Test was very close till SA's implosion in the 4th innings. The test here would have been close had SA not imploded for 79 in their first innings. There have been some good batting performances, it has been exciting to watch, and the pitches haven't been dangerous. So we all approve.

We disagree that there needs to be some sort of standardised level above and below with a pitch is 'poor'. The beauty of cricket to us is the incredibly wide and diverse range of pitches and conditions you can encounter. No pitch is ever a bad pitch unless its dangerous, it makes a result impossible, it produces poor to watch cricket, or it takes skill out of the equation. None of that applies here (plz don't start with the 'lottery' BS - the batsmen who have showed the most skill and application have scored the most runs/batted the longest, the best bowlers for the conditions have taken the most wickets, so all in all skill is triumphing over luck). So we all like this.

So keep your jingoistic accusations and weak appeals to authority to yourself. You think this pitch is poor because it doesn't fit your definition of ' Good' cricket. Alright cool. None of us agree with you. Lets leave it at that.

 

[Daemon]

Check out this civil debate on twitter

Michael Clarke @MClarke23
Good cricket = Something for everyone. Swing and seam early, good for batting, spin day 3,4,5. Someone wins and someone loses

Herschelle Gibbs @hershybru
@MClarke23 why not something completely different pup? No test should ever be the same just for the sake of lasting 5 days..

Michael Clarke @MClarke23
Sure, don't mind that buddy. Different country, different conditions. https://twitter.com/hershybru/status/669788996663418880 …

 

[Howe_zat]

Gibbs coming across pretty well on this tbf

 

[harsh.ag]

Dravid on the mark here.

Dravid criticises substandard Ranji Trophy pitches | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Of the 96 matches played in the 2015-16 Ranji Trophy so far, seven finished in two days while 14 ended on the third.
"It's disappointing to see this," Dravid said in Kolkata, where he is with the U-19 team, two days after Odisha lost to Bengal inside two days at a new venue in Kalyani. "I don't want to specifically mention the Bengal game, but all around in the Ranji Trophy this year teams are producing poor wickets - square turners where matches are finishing in two or three days. I don't think it's good for the health of Indian cricket."

"It's a little different at the international level, though, since you are looking for wickets and to win matches," he said. "But at the Ranji Trophy level, we are looking to prepare the players for the international stage. What I have seen recently, these wickets are poor. I really don't think it's good for Indian cricket because if you think about them it's a waste of time, energy and money.

"The reason for the Ranji Trophy is not only to decide the winner in the end. It also has a job to develop and prepare cricketers for the international stage. And if we keep playing on bad wickets like these, we are not goiing to develop and produce good cricketers."

Dravid said state associations and curators needed to find a balance in laying out a pitch. "We need to nip this in the bud. We need to start forcing teams to preparing good wickets. We don't want green tops but we don't want wickets either where matches finish in two days, and people bowling darts get six-seven wickets. I think we need to be very careful that we don't go down that path.

 

[artvandalay]

Yeah, but he is wrong on this point, We became good overseas because of the rise of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman, and Ganguly, not because of our bowlers (one can hardly call Agarkar, the early Zaheer, Nehra etc. good performers overseas). And these guys didn't become good because of the changing nature of pitches in India. Ganguly and Dravid scored centuries in England in their debut series itself.

That's where Bhogle goes wrong. He is conflating "good, sporting" pitches in India with the ability of players to play well overseas. The players become good on the basis of how they train and practice, as well as other factors.

I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the pitches in your backyard have no effect on how well you can perform when you're away from that comfort zone. Even with that much vaunted batting lineup we used to struggle abroad quite often and the most common suggestions to rectify it then used to be to leave more grass on the pitches in India where domestic cricket was being played.

1) As Harsh has said, conflicting India's performances overseas with the pitches offered up for Tests at home makes no sense. Test pitches are made to win games; if India want to do better overseas they need to prepare better domestic pitches, have more warm up games, and generally have better prep for the overseas tours overall.

Having a good pitch and the role it plays in developing your players for tougher challenges overseas is not the same subject. The people criticizing the pitch are not doing it solely because it will not help us develop and improve, the game also on the whole suffers as a spectacle. You can't move the goalposts later and say that winning at all costs is what matters when you want to justify your position.

2) I know the message coming from the Indian dressing room has been that these turners have been prepared to nullify SA, but everyone is ignoring that India's own batsmen are poor against spin bowling (Did no one watch the SL tour?) AND that the last time we did this it backfired and we lost to England. OS has been posting this for days and no one is acknowledging it.

Still better by enough to win it even if they're not as good as they can be. It doesn't backfire more often that not at home, plus a rank turner and a bad pitch are not the same. You cannot seem to grasp that distinction.

3) Basically, you don't like low-scoring games. You don't like pitches where batting is incredibly difficult. So based on your standards, this is a poor pitch. Well and good then. Nice to clarify that.

Wrong again, i wanted a good pitch that produces good cricket, as vague as that may seem to you. The test match going on in Adelaide is a low scoring one yet I think it's a good pitch. Don't put words in peoples mouths.

For most of us here on CricketWeb, we loved this wicket. We love close, exciting games. The first Test was very close till SA's implosion in the 4th innings. The test here would have been close had SA not imploded for 79 in their first innings. There have been some good batting performances, it has been exciting to watch, and the pitches haven't been dangerous. So we all approve.

We disagree that there needs to be some sort of standardised level above and below with a pitch is 'poor'. The beauty of cricket to us is the incredibly wide and diverse range of pitches and conditions you can encounter. No pitch is ever a bad pitch unless its dangerous, it makes a result impossible, it produces poor to watch cricket, or it takes skill out of the equation. None of that applies here (plz don't start with the 'lottery' BS - the batsmen who have showed the most skill and application have scored the most runs/batted the longest, the best bowlers for the conditions have taken the most wickets, so all in all skill is triumphing over luck). So we all like this.

So keep your jingoistic accusations and weak appeals to authority to yourself. You think this pitch is poor because it doesn't fit your definition of ' Good' cricket. Alright cool. None of us agree with you. Lets leave it at that.

Apart from you, no one mentioned 'dangerous pitches' so give it a rest. The highest individual score made here was a grand total of 40 odd so yes the batsmen who showed skill and application really were rewarded. I'm not sure what was so enjoyable seeing the ball spit from day one and average tweakers looking orders of magnitude more menacing than they would otherwise be, but still fair enough though I'm not sure you can tar the whole board with the same brush and say most of them would have enjoyed it. For others they don't need a rigid textbook definition of a bad pitch when they can draw conclusions based on what they see and what they know without the reassurance of a herd who share what they believe in.
As for the jingoism, the defensiveness being exhibited by people like you over the past day who cannot tolerate anything that aligns with what they think is acceptable is worse than anything you've accused me of. Also please do speak for yourself.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the pitches in your backyard have no effect on how well you can perform when you're away from that comfort zone. Even with that much vaunted batting lineup we used to struggle abroad quite often and the most common suggestions to rectify it then used to be to leave more grass on the pitches in India where domestic cricket was being played.

Agree about domestic cricket pitches (see post above wrt what Dravid is saying). But doesn't apply to tests.

 

[Dan]

Clarke's 100% right on the 'good cricket' bit IMO. The best cricket match is one where every single player, irrespective of their playing style, is involved in the game, able to test one another at every level. This game marginalised fast bowlers to a significant extent; it wasn't 'good cricket' in that sense. The WACA marginalised bowlers. English greentops marginalise spinners.

That best cricket match can never happen.

But watching batsmen being tested by high-class spin on a spin-friendly track? It may not meet that definition of 'good' cricket, but its ****ing enthralling viewing. Which, in itself, is ****ing awesome to have from time to time. It'd suck if it happened every single game across the world, but it doesn't. We have a multiplicity of Test conditions, and that's great. We shouldn't feel obliged to homogenise them to conform to some arbitrary standard of average-ness, with average help for seamers on Day 1, average help for batsmen on Day 2 and 3, and average help for spinners on Day 5. It'd make for overwhelmingly average Test cricket.

 

[Dan]

I think Dravid is simultaneously right and wrong, ftr. You don't want all Ranji pitches to turn square from Day 1, but you do want some to. You don't want all Ranji pitches to be greentops, but it is helpful when some are. You don't want all Ranjipitches to be roads, but, again, some being roads are helpful.

You want the multiplicity of Test conditions replicated at FC level; no country does that and until they do, the inability of international teams to win away will likely continue (barring the advent of a ridiculous ATG level team)

 

[cnerd123]

he people criticizing the pitch are not doing it solely because it will not help us develop and improve, the game also on the whole suffers as a spectacle

Wrong again, i wanted a good pitch that produces good cricket, as vague as that may seem to you.

I'm not sure what was so enjoyable seeing the ball spit from day one and average tweakers looking orders of magnitude more menacing than they would otherwise be,

Yea see being vague about what 'good' cricket is is a huge problem. Why is only a certain style or brand of cricket 'good' ? Why is it good when in Adelaide we see a highest score of 60 and batsmen are succumbing to bounce and swing, yet bad when the highest score is 40 and batsmen are succumbing to spin? This is so inconsistent. Why is one form of bowling or one style of playing cricket superior to another? This is what all of us who like this pitch are saying. A narrow definition of 'good' and 'bad' cricket is not what we subscribe to.

'Average tweakers' is such BS too considering the spinners were of the caliber of Ashwin Jadeja and Mishra. Harmer and Tahir didn't look as menacing, and Elgar actually bowled well in the 4 wicket hall, as hard as it may be to grasp. But then again, say whatever fits your narrative.

You found this game unwatchable but most of us here loved it. If you can't appreciate spin dominated cricket and watching batsmen with poor techniques and temperaments gets found out, that's your issue.

 

[Gnske]

Even if you definitively hate this kind of pitch for whatever reason, you have to admit it exposes the batsmen beautifully and you get to see just how much they trust their technique. Only Amla and Duminy really looked like they had a clue in the end and maybe du Plessis who looked like he learned a thing or two from his horrid faux pas.

The pitch just brutally exposed the issues already present with the SA batsmen, you can see how the rest were so bereft of confidence. Van Zyl and Vilas in particular are at different ends of the spectrum, one has no footwork and prods with heavenly hope and Vilas dances down like a man who is afraid of the ball hitting the pitch.

AB was similar surprisingly, he's such a genius yet during those two innings you could have mistaken him for Vilas with all the tangles he was getting in dancing back and forth.


Won't kick the dead horse over the pitch but it was interesting viewing.

 

[Daemon]

ab bought into his own hype and just tried to do too much in this last innings imo

but he's ab so he'll probably do the same next test and spank jadeja around for a while during his 50

 

[Daemon]

Also posting in this thread was a good investment, Jono likes are flowing fast and free atm