***Official*** 5th Test at the SCG

[Pothas]

Yeah If the wickets are like this I would expect India to score plenty of runs. England are just one of the very worst sides at making big runs on flat wickets.

 

[TNT]

England had not commenced their second innings at Melbourne. Even in England's first, it took Australia 144 overs to bowl them out.

FYI thats not the first drawn test match in cricket.

 

[TNT]

Hmm, we didn't exactly have an easy time taking 20 wickets last time around.

And it shouldent be easy, test cricket is all about working hard over five days to win a match, not bowling teams out in 60 overs and playing golf for the last two days.

 

[S.Kennedy]

FYI thats not the first drawn test match in cricket.

Yes but I keep hearing the excuse that Australia kept taking 20 wickets. It is not even just an issue of wickets. The MCG was a dead wickets, not a batting road/belters in the truest sense. When you have Warner going at 37 that tells you all you need to know.

 

[stephen]

Hmm, we didn't exactly have an easy time taking 20 wickets last time around.

Those pitches were far worse than these ones.

The problem that cricket in Australia has had since 00 is the decline of the Windies as a force in world cricket. Cricket was so exciting during the 90s when we'd have the Windies with a competitive 5 match series. Since their decline only South Africa has become consistently competitive. They also are the only other country that prepares pitches that are helpful to quick bowlers. NZ and England produce good swing bowling conditions but swing bowlers are as condition-dependent as spinners. Genuine quicks/seamers can take wickets anywhere.

The decline of the Windies as a fast bowling force and the rise of Asian spin-focused cricket has hurt the genuine entertainment value of tests in this country.

 

[Spark]

Those pitches were far worse than these ones.

The problem that cricket in Australia has had since 00 is the decline of the Windies as a force in world cricket. Cricket was so exciting during the 90s when we'd have the Windies with a competitive 5 match series. Since their decline only South Africa has become consistently competitive. They also are the only other country that prepares pitches that are helpful to quick bowlers. NZ and England produce good swing bowling conditions but swing bowlers are as condition-dependent as spinners. Genuine quicks/seamers can take wickets anywhere.

The decline of the Windies as a fast bowling force and the rise of Asian spin-focused cricket has hurt the genuine entertainment value of tests in this country.

hmm.jpeg

 

[stephen]

Yes but I keep hearing the excuse that Australia kept taking 20 wickets. It is not even just an issue of wickets. The MCG was a dead wickets, not a batting road/belters in the truest sense. When you have Warner going at 37 that tells you all you need to know.

Yeah Brisbane and the MCG were genuinely slow decks. It didn't make for exciting fast paced cricket.

 

[stephen]

hmm.jpeg

Well we had some decks that were fast last season. We lost badly on them but we had them.

 

[Spark]

Well we had some decks that were fast last season. We lost badly on them but we had them.

Perth wasn't that fast last year IMO. Hobart certainly wasn't, it was just a greentop. I actually remember very little of the D/N Test at Brisbane other than Shafiq's chase though.

 

[Cow]

adelaide is still a shitehawk of a pitch... it's only the pink ball and lights that make it interesting.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It won't happen.

Record crowds and a 4-0 scoreline won't encourage much change.

It's been a pretty boring series anyway. England just weren't good enough and the pitches haven't been very exciting either. I really only enjoyed the Adelaide test

4-0 instead of 5-0 though, which it would have been with more traditionally quick and bouncy wickets. Slowing up Brisbane and Melbourne does nothing to help the Australian team, our team is built around bowlers who use pace and bounce to take wickets and batsmen who use pace and bounce to make runs, quickly.

All it does is make for boring cricket and a few more draws then there needs to be. India have a good batting unit, and if we take away, or reduce, the pace and bounce that is literally the reason they struggle overseas then they'll get away with a few draws like they did last time.

 

[stephen]

If we make the pitches a bit greener then we would help even up teams because it turns worse bowlers into better ones. It also exposes both batting lineups a bit more.

Anyway it'll be very hard for India to ever win here unless they can find some genuine pace bowlers and learn how to bat against genuine pace.

Then again we could fall of a cliff when the current generation of bowlers retire and become the Windies mk 2.

 

[vcs]

Making Australian pitches greener would probably only result in more bounce and slightly more seam movement if you hit the deck hard, so I'm struggling to see how India would profit. If they played in conditions similar to Hobart 2016, someone like Bhuvaneshwar could be dangerous.

 

[TNT]

Cricket itself is not boring, england cricket team were boring.

 

[turnstyle]

CBF checking if it's already been discussed, but why are the Aussies so bad at scoring double centuries? Only 3 players have scored a double over the last 5 years.

 

[quincywagstaff]

On the radio Ian Chappell was still defending Vince as being 'unlucky' after yet another typically loose shot yesterday. Haven't seen Chappell display such cognitive dissonance about a player since Ricardo Powell. Would be incredibly lucky to keep his spot for the NZ tour, especially on a series where the pitches have generally been batsmen-friendly.

Reckon the weather seemed to drain both sides yesterday. Australia seemed to run out of gas in the last hour and were just looking to stumps and finish it off in more friendlier weather conditions.

 

[Compton]

CBF checking if it's already been discussed, but why are the Aussies so bad at scoring double centuries? Only 3 players have scored a double over the last 5 years.

Compared to whom is that a low number?

 

[JRC67]

Those pitches were far worse than these ones.

The problem that cricket in Australia has had since 00 is the decline of the Windies as a force in world cricket. Cricket was so exciting during the 90s when we'd have the Windies with a competitive 5 match series. Since their decline only South Africa has become consistently competitive. They also are the only other country that prepares pitches that are helpful to quick bowlers. NZ and England produce good swing bowling conditions but swing bowlers are as condition-dependent as spinners. Genuine quicks/seamers can take wickets anywhere.

The decline of the Windies as a fast bowling force and the rise of Asian spin-focused cricket has hurt the genuine entertainment value of tests in this country.

The great West Indes side generally lost in India so it's not true that genuine quicks can take wickets anywhere. Some quicks can cut down there pace and tend to be more successful in England, than out and out quick bowlers. The West Indes quicks all benefited from playing in England and knew the right speed to bowl on each wicket. Marshall often brought back his pace as did Imran Khan.

I think these shorter compacted tours aren't helping make cricket competitive:
Players aren't really getting time to get used to conditions
There's very limited opportunity to get back in form between tests ... the home side can call up a player doing well in domestic cricket but the away team reserves may not have played for 5 weeks

 

[Furball]

There is plenty for the bowlers, in fact four Australian bowlers took 20 wickets in the series, what you mean is they should make pitches for teams that dont have bowlers that do hard work and need conditions to suit them.

Blaming the wickets is horseshit, england won four of the five tosses so if anything they had the easier conditions but their bowlers just gave up and coasted. weak as piss to blame the pitches.

You're forgetting that the Australian line up is a) used to bowling in Australian conditions and b) bowling at a batting lineup not used to the conditions.

I'm all for different conditions testing players all over the world but let's not pretend that Australian pitches are brilliant. They're ****ing god awful.

And this isn't sour grapes, 2013/14 was at least interesting to watch with Johnson scaring the **** out of England's lineup. I was lucky enough to catch the start of Australia's 2nd dig at Adelaide live, which has been about the only part of the series that I've caught live that's been worth it (admittedly I haven't been making a huge effort.) At no point during the series other than that morning have I looked at the scorecard when I've woken up and thought 'I wish I'd been up to watch that' or 'wow, better check the highlights tonight'.

 

[S.Kennedy]

The great West Indes side generally lost in India so it's not true that genuine quicks can take wickets anywhere. Some quicks can cut down there pace and tend to be more successful in England, than out and out quick bowlers. The West Indes quicks all benefited from playing in England and knew the right speed to bowl on each wicket. Marshall often brought back his pace as did Imran Khan.

I think these shorter compacted tours aren't helping make cricket competitive:
Players aren't really getting time to get used to conditions
There's very limited opportunity to get back in form between tests ... the home side can call up a player doing well in domestic cricket but the away team reserves may not have played for 5 weeks

'78-79. Then India lost one and drew two at home till they defeated the West Indies in '02-03, and by then the great era of West Indies dominance was all but over.