2015 Final Test Rankings - Steve Smith #1, Williamson #2, Voges #11

[TheJediBrah]

Meh as if the pitches were born through a natural process rather than by people.

They pretty much are tbh. The people preparing the pitches in Australia aren't thinking "lets make a fast bouncy flat pitch to help our payers win".

And the result is a lot of recent pitches, maybe because they're drop ins, have been flat slow and (see India tour last year) largely negate Fast bowlers like Mitch Johnson. Johnson was so sick of having to bowl on those pitches he almost retired right then and there.

 

[hendrix]

Certainly we're better equipped to bowl out sides on flat decks than many other teams, but I still think more traditional, faster Australian decks would have been preferred by all.

This being the key point.

 

[morgieb]

How is NZ a good place to bat this year? England and the Convicts were both bowled out pretty cheaply

Tests =! ODI's.

 

[Spark]

This being the key point.

Yeah, but we drew all those games anyway. So it didn't exactly help.

Nullifying the opposition attack more than your own is all well and good, but if it ends up making it near-impossible to take 20 wickets then that's no good for anyone.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, but we drew all those games anyway. So it didn't exactly help.

Nullifying the opposition attack more than your own is all well and good, but if it ends up making it near-impossible to take 20 wickets then that's no good for anyone.

yeah I agree but it comes back to one of my pet peeves which is home teams (particularly NZ) requesting pitches that actually even up the contest.

Australia haven't been guilty of that except for the test they lost (Hobart) and one they might've lost (Adelaide day-nighter). Same thing for England vs India at Lord's, NZ vs India at the Basin (almost), NZ vs SL (almost twice) etc etc.

Over the last half decade, Australia's pitches have suited them just as much as India's and Pakistan's.

 

[Athlai]

**** bait thread

 

[Spark]

yeah I agree but it comes back to one of my pet peeves which is home teams (particularly NZ) requesting pitches that actually even up the contest.

Australia haven't been guilty of that except for the test they lost (Hobart) and one they might've lost (Adelaide day-nighter). Same thing for England vs India at Lord's, NZ vs India at the Basin (almost), NZ vs SL (almost twice) etc etc.

Over the last half decade, Australia's pitches have suited them just as much as India's and Pakistan's.

Yeah, true. I don't think that's really helped us overall though, because I reckon we'd win on slightly spicier pitches anyway (so long as they were fast) and would be better suited for trickier conditions overseas.

 

[Dan]

Whether one wants to call it doctoring or not, and irrespective of advantages given to either side, I think we can all agree that Australian decks have been pretty **** for a few years now. They're basically at the point of being anti-cricket roads.

Adelaide with the pink ball being the obvious exception.

 

[Stace]

do people actually think that? Sad state of ignorance

The pitches are just the way they are, and if the players have "evolved"/selected for to suit those conditions then that's that.

Not even remotely similar to deliberately preparing dustbowls because you know the touring side has better fast bowlers/not as good spinners or at playing spin.

How did Kohli evolve on those flat AUS pitches? Last English summer he averaged 13 in England without getting a 50 once then 3 months later he goes and averages 86 in AUS getting 4 tons, also since then he has been averaging low 30's in 8 Test's with 1 century.

Also Voges averaged 28 in England even though he is very experienced on them pitches but is averaging 165 in AUS, of course it is inflated by WI but was still looking comfortable against NZ averaging 71

Mitchell Johnson was complaining about the flat pitches against India last year, can you really say its not a batting paradise?

 

[TheJediBrah]

yeah I agree but it comes back to one of my pet peeves which is home teams (particularly NZ) requesting pitches that actually even up the contest.

Australia haven't been guilty of that except for the test they lost (Hobart) and one they might've lost (Adelaide day-nighter).

Why would making the game more interesting be a pet peeve? The Adelaide Test was far more exciting than the other two (and not solely made to "even the contest" IMO, but more to protect the pink ball)
and the Hobart test was meh but surely still better than if you had Aus making 550/4 dec and NZ all out 250 both innings like you would in the other conditions.

Over the last half decade, Australia's pitches have suited them just as much as India's and Pakistan's.

Not sure about Pakistan, as those pitches seem to suit Pakistan just out of happenstance and natural development similar to Australia's, but that's just not true at all. Many Indian pitches have been completely exaggerated when non-subcontinental sides toured and it's been completely unsubtle.

Like I said earlier, you don't see tail-enders bashing 100s in Aus because the pitches are flat, but when you see Simon Harmer and Dean Elgar bowling more overs and taking more wickets than Steyn/Morkel/Philander et al don't kid yourself.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Whether one wants to call it doctoring or not, and irrespective of advantages given to either side, I think we can all agree that Australian decks have been pretty **** for a few years now. They're basically at the point of being anti-cricket roads.

Adelaide with the pink ball being the obvious exception.

Some people are blaming the drop-ins. I don't know but it's ****ing **** for watching cricket.

The Perth test used to be a highlight of the summer. This summer it was a joke.

 

[Daemon]

I really think hard and true pitches are where the gap between Australian cricketers and the others is the largest. Obviously too flat and they end up in draws, but over a series of such pitches, it's nearly impossible to beat them atm. On the other hand on decks with a bit in them it's easier to picture a touring side having a couple of good sessions and getting really on top of them like in the D/N recently. That's not to say Australia don't enjoy an advantage on those tracks as well but I really think it's a smaller one.

 

[hendrix]

Why would making the game more interesting be a pet peeve? The Adelaide Test was far more exciting than the other two (and not solely made to "even the contest" IMO, but more to protect the pink ball)
and the Hobart test was meh but surely still better than if you had Aus making 550/4 dec and NZ all out 250 both innings like you would in the other conditions.



Not sure about Pakistan, as those pitches seem to suit Pakistan just out of happenstance and natural development similar to Australia's, but that's just not true at all. Many Indian pitches have been completely exaggerated when non-subcontinental sides toured and it's been completely unsubtle.

Like I said earlier, you don't see tail-enders bashing 100s in Aus because the pitches are flat, but when you see Simon Harmer and Dean Elgar bowling more overs and taking more wickets than Steyn/Morkel/Philander et al don't kid yourself.

It's a pet peeve of mine not because of the game itself, but because of the coaching and journalism surrounding it. "Their batsmen can't play on grassy wickets" needs to come with the counter which is "Ishant Sharma turned into a good bowler on those pitches"...probably harsh on Ishant as he does appear to have turned a corner recently but you take my point. Coaches and the media propel the myth that exaggerated home conditions is an advantage when it's ofen not.

Simon Harmer and Dean Elgar are exactly my point. Neither of them are even a patch on Ravi Ashwin yet they were both very successful. If the pitches had been a little more subtle Elgar probably wouldn't have even bowled at all, Harmer wouldn't have been particularly successful, but Ashwin would have (with the proviso that he would've had to work a little harder for his wickets).

Yes, Australia had to work very ard for their wickets. This is a good thing as it meant their middle order was never exposed on flat pitches. NZ, Windies, England...everyone but South Africa and Australia has a bowling attack that really struggles to take wickets on roads with the Kookaburra.

 

[TNT]

How did Kohli evolve on those flat AUS pitches? Last English summer he averaged 13 in England without getting a 50 once then 3 months later he goes and averages 86 in AUS getting 4 tons, also since then he has been averaging low 30's in 8 Test's with 1 century.

Also Voges averaged 28 in England even though he is very experienced on them pitches but is averaging 165 in AUS, of course it is inflated by WI but was still looking comfortable against NZ averaging 71

Mitchell Johnson was complaining about the flat pitches against India last year, can you really say its not a batting paradise?

OK if its a batting paradise how do Australia get twenty wickets a match.

 

[hendrix]

OK if its a batting paradise how do Australia get twenty wickets a match.

because they have better bowlers for flat, fast pitches with a Kookaburra than anyone else in the world.

 

[TNT]

because they have better bowlers for flat, fast pitches with a Kookaburra than anyone else in the world.

So its not a batting paradise, you cant say its a batting paradise when teams cant score enough runs to win a match. If it was a batting paradise then surely the batsmen would have the upper hand over the bowlers. How does it work when its a batting paradise but the bowlers are winning the match.

 

[hendrix]

So its not a batting paradise, you cant say its a batting paradise when teams cant score enough runs to win a match. If it was a batting paradise then surely the batsmen would have the upper hand over the bowlers. How does it work when its a batting paradise but the bowlers are winning the match.

You are absolutely right.

Just making the point that the conditions have suited Australia's strengths and weaknesses very well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's a pet peeve of mine not because of the game itself, but because of the coaching and journalism surrounding it. "Their batsmen can't play on grassy wickets" needs to come with the counter which is "Ishant Sharma turned into a good bowler on those pitches"...probably harsh on Ishant as he does appear to have turned a corner recently but you take my point. Coaches and the media propel the myth that exaggerated home conditions is an advantage when it's ofen not.

Simon Harmer and Dean Elgar are exactly my point. Neither of them are even a patch on Ravi Ashwin yet they were both very successful. If the pitches had been a little more subtle Elgar probably wouldn't have even bowled at all, Harmer wouldn't have been particularly successful, but Ashwin would have (with the proviso that he would've had to work a little harder for his wickets).

Yes, Australia had to work very ard for their wickets. This is a good thing as it meant their middle order was never exposed on flat pitches. NZ, Windies, England...everyone but South Africa and Australia has a bowling attack that really struggles to take wickets on roads with the Kookaburra.

Yeah from what you're saying I agree with you completely

So its not a batting paradise, you cant say its a batting paradise when teams cant score enough runs to win a match. If it was a batting paradise then surely the batsmen would have the upper hand over the bowlers. How does it work when its a batting paradise but the bowlers are winning the match.

another good post, and shows why comparing "Australian roads" to "Indian dustbowls" is asinine

 

[TheJediBrah]

You are absolutely right.

Just making the point that the conditions have suited Australia's strengths and weaknesses very well.

But nowhere near as much as they could.

And tbh I still see this as more a matter of "you have to be a good bowler to take wickets, and a good batsman to score runs" and Australia have had both to an extent that recent opposition haven't. Not just that it suits Australia's players, but Australia's players are still good enough to take 20 wickets despite conditions. You could argue that greentops would suit other teams more but IMO that's primarily because the more helpful a wicket is the more luck is involved and less skill required by a bowler to take wickets, hence evening out the contest.

recent Aus pitches haven't really bit that "fast" at all btw

 

[Contra]

Many Indian pitches have been completely exaggerated when non-subcontinental sides toured and it's been completely unsubtle.

No sub-continent side has toured India since SL 09. And no, Indian pitches haven't been exaggerated at all, yes you run into the odd bowler friendly wicket every now and then, but that happens everywhere. For the most part India just beat the opposition fair and square.

Also don't forget that Ashwin took a load of wickets in SL as well, nailing their best batsmen 4/4 times. The guy's a solid bowler and deserves his #1 ranking as much as anyone, it's as simple as that.