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

[cnerd123]

Let the record show that I didn't start this debate again, nor am I engaging in it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah but they never give official warnings for pitches where both sides score 600 runs each in the first innings. Not a fair contest between bat and ball seems okay then.

good point. FYI the state of the WACA pitch was really denounced in the media and by the players and fans. It was not good enough.

 

[harsh.ag]

good point. FYI the state of the WACA pitch was really denounced in the media and by the players and fans. It was not good enough.

FYI, FYI should only be used for obscure pieces of information that the other person may not know.

 

[TheJediBrah]

FYI, FYI should only be used for obscure pieces of information that the other person may not know.

FYI, ok

 

[TNT]

Yeah but they never give official warnings for pitches where both sides score 600 runs each in the first innings. Not a fair contest between bat and ball seems okay then.

Because that why its called a test match cricket to test the abilities of the players over time, its not called pot luck cricket and who ever gets bundled out for the lowest score on a dodgy track.

 

[harsh.ag]

Because that why its called a test match cricket to test the abilities of the players over time, its not called pot luck cricket and who ever gets bundled out for the lowest score on a dodgy track.

Okay, I get where you are coming from.

Now, you are referring to it as pot luck cricket only when regular bowling can get you in trouble with a greater probability than on a "fair contest" pitch. However, when shots like playing through the line which should have a high probability of getting you in trouble on a "fair contest" pitch instead gets you lots of boundaries, why do you refuse to call it pot luck cricket?

Doesn't it all come down to raising and lowering of probabilities? Why is one fair and the other not?

 

[TNT]

Okay, I get where you are coming from.

Now, you are referring to it as pot luck cricket only when regular bowling can get you in trouble with a greater probability than on a "fair contest" pitch. However, when shots like playing through the line which should have a high probability of getting you in trouble on a "fair contest" pitch instead gets you lots of boundaries, why do you refuse to call it pot luck cricket?

Doesn't it all come down to raising and lowering of probabilities? Why is one fair and the other not?

Even on a flat pitch the bowler has the ability to set a player up to take his wicket, not all wickets come from the pitch, fielding positioning can also do a lot to induce the batsmen to make a mistake. Batsmen will make mistakes even on roads and its up to the bowling side to stay focussed and alert. Other things like dropped catches and can be critical along with bowlers drying up the runs and forcing the error. The pitch may be flat but the bowler is not without avenues to get wickets.

Non of that comes into it on dustbowls it just shooting fish in a barrel, no skill, no planning just ugly cricket.

 

[cnerd123]

I agree with TNT.

I disagree that the Nagpur pitch meets what TNT is describing tho. If it really was potluck cricket then India woudnt have dominated so comfortably, and the best batsmen wouldnt have continued to constantly be the top scorers.

But I'm not going to get into this again.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The Perth pitch had good batsmen making a lot of runs against some good/some ordinary bowling. It didn't have **** batsmen making big scores because there wasn't a fair contest.

The India/SA pitch had some average spin bowlers and some good ones bowling unplayable deliveries with no consistency in bounce and turn and dominating some good batsmen. And it reduced the influence of player skill on the results of the game.

I think both pitches had uneven contests (You had Mitchell Starc bowling brilliantly at Perth with little to show for it) but you can understand why the ICC officially denounced one and not the other IMO.

 

[cnerd123]

The India/SA pitch had some average spin bowlers and some good ones bowling unplayable deliveries with no consistency in bounce and turn and dominating some good batsmen. And it reduced the influence of player skill on the results of the game.

Morkel and Abbot bowled better spells than any of SA spinners managed

Good batsmen got dominated as a result of their own poor techniques and decision making

Ashwin and Jadeja got a lot more wickets through accurate bowling and outwitting batsmen than by unplayable deliveries

India could have easily scored a lot more runs in the third test if not for some dumb declaration style batting in the second innings

The narrative you are pushing is blatantly false

Okay this is my last post on the topic I promise.

 

[harsh.ag]

Even on a flat pitch the bowler has the ability to set a player up to take his wicket, not all wickets come from the pitch, fielding positioning can also do a lot to induce the batsmen to make a mistake. Batsmen will make mistakes even on roads and its up to the bowling side to stay focussed and alert. Other things like dropped catches and can be critical along with bowlers drying up the runs and forcing the error. The pitch may be flat but the bowler is not without avenues to get wickets.

Non of that comes into it on dustbowls it just shooting fish in a barrel, no skill, no planning just ugly cricket.

That's a good argument.

So if you think the pitches in Nagpur or other Indian "dustbowls" were like shooting fish in a barrel with no skill and planning involved, how come Vijay and ABdV were more successful than the other batsmen?

Or maybe they weren't the kind of pitches you are talking about. They just increased the probability of batsmen getting out. Esp batsmen who did not have a great technique when it comes to playing spin.

 

[TNT]

That's the difference between a great bowler and the rest, a great bowler takes the pitch out of the equation, guile, patience, skill, ability to pick up what others cant, ability to make minute adjustments and being able to sledge, put them on a road and they will still get wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Morkel and Abbot bowled better spells than any of SA spinners managed

Good batsmen got dominated as a result of their own poor techniques and decision making

Ashwin and Jadeja got a lot more wickets through accurate bowling and outwitting batsmen than by unplayable deliveries

India could have easily scored a lot more runs in the third test if not for some dumb declaration style batting in the second innings

The narrative you are pushing is blatantly false

Okay this is my last post on the topic I promise.

I'm not pushing any narrative. I'm just saying I can sympathise with why the ICC denounced one of the pitches and not the other.

 

[TNT]

That's a good argument.

So if you think the pitches in Nagpur or other Indian "dustbowls" were like shooting fish in a barrel with no skill and planning involved, how come Vijay and ABdV were more successful than the other batsmen?

Or maybe they weren't the kind of pitches you are talking about. They just increased the probability of batsmen getting out. Esp batsmen who did not have a great technique when it comes to playing spin.

The same reason a very very good batsman like Amla failed, pot luck.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm not pushing any narrative. I'm just saying I can sympathise with why the ICC denounced one of the pitches and not the other.

Yea I can understand it too. A cursory look at the scorecards + all the talk about the pitch and casual fans calling it terrible probably swayed the match referees' and the ICC's judgement. I still don't agree with it though. Giving the pitch more credit/blame than it deserves.

 

[harsh.ag]

The same reason a very very good batsman like Amla failed, pot luck.

Yeah, Amla's been failing for a while now, so let's take that into account.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yea I can understand it too. A cursory look at the scorecards + all the talk about the pitch and casual fans calling it terrible probably swayed the match referees' and the ICC's judgement. I still don't agree with it though. Giving the pitch more credit/blame than it deserves.

I'm happy with just saying that both pitches were **** & provided an uneven contest and every attempt should be made not to repeat it. Trying to decide which was worse is pointless IMO.

Seriously, Ross Taylor making 290 is NOT OK PEOPLE

 

[cnerd123]

I'm happy with just saying that both pitches were **** & provided an uneven contest and every attempt should be made not to repeat it. Trying to decide which was worse is pointless IMO.

Seriously, Ross Taylor making 290 is NOT OK PEOPLE

Yea fair enough. Either outlaw both or outlaw neither. I lean towards neither myself. I only dont like pitches that pose physical harm, that turn the game into one completely based on luck (which has never ever happened in Tests as far as I am aware of), or that make a result absolutely impossible (which has happened a fair bit)

 

[TNT]

I'm happy with just saying that both pitches were **** & provided an uneven contest and every attempt should be made not to repeat it. Trying to decide which was worse is pointless IMO.

Seriously, Ross Taylor making 290 is NOT OK PEOPLE

Did you throw up when McCullum made 302 against India?.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yea fair enough. Either outlaw both or outlaw neither. I lean towards neither myself. I only dont like pitches that pose physical harm, that turn the game into one completely based on luck (which has never ever happened in Tests as far as I am aware of), or that make a result absolutely impossible (which has happened a fair bit)

I'm reminded of the 4th Test in 2004 Aus v Ind where Michael Clarke took 6/9 and Murali Kartik took a lot of wickets. India bowled just 8 overs of pace in the whole match.

I'm not a fan of pitches like that practically remove an entire aspect of the game (ie. seam bowling) and allow guys like Elgar and Clarke to take huge hauls.

As long as that doesn't become the norm, I can accept it. But if Aus tour India next and every pitch they play on is like that, or like the Nagpur pitch, a lot people will be very vocal and rightly so.

Did you throw up when McCullum made 302 against India?.

I thought McCullum was actually a good player there for a while