Was the pitch UNFAIR for England? Should India be SANCTIONED for the pitch?

[Deleted member 37658]

Hi all,

I am very interested to know what you all think about the pitch used between India and England in the 2nd test match.

People like Michael Vaughan, Simon Hughes and Jonathan Agnew have all criticized the pitch and Simon Hughes has suggested that India should be fined WTC points, because of it.

However, Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann have all defended the pitch.

My views: the pitch was perfectly fine and acceptable. Each country produces its own pitch, each country has its own conditions. Don't come to India and expect English conditions!!! In Bangladesh, you will get Bangladesh conditions. In India, you will get Indian conditions.

I was reading a very interesting article that suggested how it would be VERY hypocritical for Australian legends to condemn the pitch.
It is worth a read, click here to access the article!

Please comment down below your thoughts, I would also appreciate it if you answered the poll!!

 

[Spark]

Hi all,

I am very interested to know what you all think about the pitch used between India and England in the 2nd test match.

People like Michael Vaughan, Simon Hughes and Jonathan Agnew have all criticized the pitch and Simon Hughes has suggested that India should be fined WTC points, because of it.

However, Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann have all defended the pitch.

My views: the pitch was perfectly fine and acceptable. Each country produces its own pitch, each country has its own conditions. Don't come to India and expect English conditions!!! In Bangladesh, you will get Bangladesh conditions. In India, you will get Indian conditions.

I was reading a very interesting article that suggested how it would be VERY hypocritical for Australian legends to condemn the pitch.
It is worth a read, click here to access the article!

Please comment down below your thoughts, I would also appreciate it if you answered the poll!!

I was reading a very interesting article that suggested how it would be VERY hypocritical for Australian legends to condemn the pitch.

Michael Vaughan, Simon Hughes and Jonathan Agnew

Australian legends

 

[JOJOXI]

I said no it was fine but in truth, I think it wasn't a great pitch, bits of the surface loosening from Day 1 but don't think it was 'unfair' on England. India backed themselves to win in a game dominated by spinners and they were vindicated, it was a good toss to win no doubt, but so was the 1st Test. If this pitch was 'unfair' specifically on England, every Test pitch is unfair as pitches change through the match meaning one team gets the better of the conditions 99.99% of the time. That advantage might be relatively minimal or be batting first on a flat pitch that spins big later but is an advantage all the same.

As to whether India get sanctioned I don't think they will and don't know why they would. Would the ground be sanctioned I think they should be, whether they are is another question. A 'poor' pitch which carries 3 demerit points shows one of a few qualities - I've quoted the relevant ones below.

"The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match"

"The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match"

"The pitch displays excessive moisture making its playing characteristics unpredictable, or excessive dryness leading to the surface to deteriorate."


The first 2 of those characteristics are debatable and probably depend on if you are an England or India fan. However, the last quote I'm not sure what case you could make to say the pitch wasn't excessively dry. Comments on the pitch suggest it was dust and rubble mostly whilst a pitch exploding through the top of the pitch on Day 1 is excessively dry and undoubtedly led to the surface deteriorating.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

A wicket is as good as its curator.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Nothing wrong with it but don't want to see its like in the remaining two Tests. If only because England are patently not up to competing on such wickets, technically or mentally, and the series would lose any competitive edge it has.

 

[Senile Sentry]

So you all clicked that link

 

[GIMH]

Terrible pitch, I don't acknowledge the result

 

[Shri]

I said no it was fine but in truth, I think it wasn't a great pitch, bits of the surface loosening from Day 1 but don't think it was 'unfair' on England. India backed themselves to win in a game dominated by spinners and they were vindicated, it was a good toss to win no doubt, but so was the 1st Test. If this pitch was 'unfair' specifically on England, every Test pitch is unfair as pitches change through the match meaning one team gets the better of the conditions 99.99% of the time. That advantage might be relatively minimal or be batting first on a flat pitch that spins big later but is an advantage all the same.

As to whether India get sanctioned I don't think they will and don't know why they would. Would the ground be sanctioned I think they should be, whether they are is another question. A 'poor' pitch which carries 3 demerit points shows one of a few qualities - I've quoted the relevant ones below.

"The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match"

"The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match"

"The pitch displays excessive moisture making its playing characteristics unpredictable, or excessive dryness leading to the surface to deteriorate."


The first 2 of those characteristics are debatable and probably depend on if you are an England or India fan. However, the last quote I'm not sure what case you could make to say the pitch wasn't excessively dry. Comments on the pitch suggest it was dust and rubble mostly whilst a pitch exploding through the top of the pitch on Day 1 is excessively dry and undoubtedly led to the surface deteriorating.

#8 made a 3rd innings 100 lol

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

#8 made a 3rd innings 100 lol

That would be the Indian #8.

Further evidence that the pitch was UNFAIR for England.

 

[Shri]

SHOULD ENG LEARN TO PLAY SPIN

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Couldn't hurt.

 

[honestbharani]

Woakes did that to us at Lords right? Its only fair we repay. You repaid Jayant Yadav with Sam Curran, after all.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Woakes did that to us at Lords right? Its only fair we repay. You repaid Jayant Yadav with Sam Curran, after all.

Not at all comparable. Chris Woakes has a beautiful soul and had the decency to score his Test century from #7.

 

[Deleted member 37658]

So you all clicked that link

Did you click the link??

 

[Deleted member 37658]

Nothing wrong with it but don't want to see its like in the remaining two Tests. If only because England are patently not up to competing on such wickets, technically or mentally, and the series would lose any competitive edge it has.

I agree with you, I do want to see some closer matches, with fifth day thrillers

 

[Deleted member 37658]

I said no it was fine but in truth, I think it wasn't a great pitch, bits of the surface loosening from Day 1 but don't think it was 'unfair' on England. India backed themselves to win in a game dominated by spinners and they were vindicated, it was a good toss to win no doubt, but so was the 1st Test. If this pitch was 'unfair' specifically on England, every Test pitch is unfair as pitches change through the match meaning one team gets the better of the conditions 99.99% of the time. That advantage might be relatively minimal or be batting first on a flat pitch that spins big later but is an advantage all the same.

As to whether India get sanctioned I don't think they will and don't know why they would. Would the ground be sanctioned I think they should be, whether they are is another question. A 'poor' pitch which carries 3 demerit points shows one of a few qualities - I've quoted the relevant ones below.

"The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match"

"The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match"

"The pitch displays excessive moisture making its playing characteristics unpredictable, or excessive dryness leading to the surface to deteriorate."


The first 2 of those characteristics are debatable and probably depend on if you are an England or India fan. However, the last quote I'm not sure what case you could make to say the pitch wasn't excessively dry. Comments on the pitch suggest it was dust and rubble mostly whilst a pitch exploding through the top of the pitch on Day 1 is excessively dry and undoubtedly led to the surface deteriorating.

I agree with you in a way. If you read the article I posted, you will see that though the pitch may have favored India, it would be unfair to sanction them, because in the past, teams have produced worse pitches that have gone without criticism. It's better explained on the article.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It wasn't a great pitch, but it wasn't "unfair to England", and the idea of sanctions is bollox.

 

[Deleted member 37658]

It wasn't a great pitch, but it wasn't "unfair to England", and the idea of sanctions is bollox.

I agree, India shouldn't be sanctioned, because, in the past, we have seen other pitches that weren't so great, nonetheless, they received no criticism, unlike India. There is a good example on the article I linked.

 

[Howe_zat]

King Cricket makes a very good point that the idea of pitches turning consistently is often assumed to be impossible by the recieved wisdom. So even when that happens, some people prefer to ignore that it happened and talk about deteriorating pitches and the advantage from the toss being unfair instead.

Turn v deterioration
For partly cultural, but largely climatic reasons, most British pitches aren’t very ‘grippy’. They only really offer spin when they deteriorate. A by-product of this is that UK cricket fans tend to see ‘turn’ and ‘deterioration’ as one and the same thing.

“If the ball is spinning,” they reason, “the pitch must be crumbling to pieces.”

Visible turn on day one therefore hits them alongside a parallel assumption that the match will become a joke before too long.

But it is entirely possible for a ball to spin and for the pitch to not yet be in pieces. It is possible to see a puff of dust and for it to be just a puff of dust and not the immediate creation of a crevasse.

Early turn is therefore just a starting point – and quite often a fairer one.

Because marked deterioration of a pitch is a far bigger threat to the ‘fairness’ of a match than constant turn throughout the game. When a pitch gets significantly harder to bat on, it puts the team batting second at more of a disadvantage. (It is also worth pointing out that cricket is a fundamentally unfair game anyway and that overcoming both the opposition and any unfairness you’re presented with is actually half of the point.)

To wrap all of this up, while early spin can sometimes be the precursor to chaos, it is also possible for a ball to turn on the first day and for the pitch to stay pretty much in one piece for the rest of the match.

‘Turn’ and ‘deterioration’ are not the same thing.

In this test, the ball turned impressively on day one, as well as being the sort of pitch where a good player of spin that's used to the conditions can makea really good hundred if he bats well. A lot of commentary on day one was saying 'what's it going to be like on day three and four?' with an air of ominousness. What actually happened is that the the pitch was basically the same on days three and four.

The whinging was prewritten as soon as Moeen Ali took wickets on day one and nothing about how the pitch really played out was going to stop it.

 

[centurymaker]

King Cricket makes a very good point that the idea of pitches turning consistently is often assumed to be impossible by the recieved wisdom. So even when that happens, some people prefer to ignore that it happened and talk about deteriorating pitches and the advantage from the toss being unfair instead.



In this test, the ball turned impressively on day one, as well as being the sort of pitch where a good player of spin that's used to the conditions can makea really good hundred if he bats well. A lot of commentary on day one was saying 'what's it going to be like on day three and four?' with an air of ominousness. What actually happened is that the the pitch was basically the same on days three and four.

The whinging was prewritten as soon as Moeen Ali took wickets on day one and nothing about how the pitch really played out was going to stop it.

You are spot on.

As I said in the other thread, the commentators are so dumb-witted that they kept going on about the 2nd innings being unplayable. Without realising what you have highlighted.

In fact, the pitch, as I expected, got slower on day 3 / day 4 making adjusting to spin a bit easier.

The way Moeen wacked sixes for fun right at the end and way Kohli batted proved that if you are not carrying any demons about the pitch in your head, and play to the pitch of the ball or fully back, you could score with relative ease.

Pitch didn't get 'significantly' more difficult as match went on contrary to BS almost all commentators were feeding us.

If team like India had to chase a target of around 280-300 in 4th innings on the pitch on day 4, I would back them to get it 3 times out of 5.