Your opinion on 3rd test wicket?

[sunilz]

It's funny reading some of the comments:

Joe Root's 5/8 is proof that pitch was poor
but India getting all out on 36 in proof that India can't play fast bowling.

Fact is had India held onto the catches at Adelaide , Aus would have been all out on 120 and even Adelaide test would have been over inside 2 days.

Pink ball is bigger problem than pitch. It should be stopped in international cricket unless we get its better version after successful trial in domestic matches.

 

[centurymaker]

Why do you think blokes were playing poor shots? If Root's spell was the only evidence in support of it being a poor pitch you'd have a point, but the highest completed innings score in a match lasting two days was 140 odd.

If India had another bat on that wicket, I am dead certain that they would have got 200+. Guys like Pujara and Kohli are not going to get out to straight deliveries again. They would have learnt from what they saw the Pink ball do.

When England did come out to bowl in last innings. Leach and Root did try to pick up wickets again but Rohit and Gill were more aware of how to play on the pitch against the Pink ball. (ofcourse no pressure as well) But they looked at ease. On the other hand, England just learnt nothing batting the 2nd time.

 

[centurymaker]

So, in short, both teams struggled to compile respectable scores on the same pitch.

India only batted ONCE and for the very first time against a spinning/skidding Pink ball.

If they had another full innings, I would backed them to get 200+, especially if India had batted first in this match, there's no way India wouldn't have got 200 or 250 on Day 1

England crumbled on day 1 and even worse on day 2 to significantly bring down the true average on the pitch.

 

[Chrish]

Adelaide pitch was not poor. Teams were actually able to cross 200+ unlike this fiasco.

Sign of a poor pitch is uneven bounce and turn on day one and two; some deliveries turning miles while others going straight. It creates lottery element rather than relying on actual skill. Spinners taking a new ball on day two says it all.

IMO points from this game shouldn't be counted toward that world final (not that it will happen).

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, a couple of things needs to be clarified here:

1. This pitch had variable turn and progressively variable bounce (Gill was keeping out some balls that were keeping pretty low towards the end)
2. The pink ball lacquer just made the straight ball very very difficult to negotiate which meant collapses happened faster than usual.

Had this been a regular day test, I feel you might have seen both, or at least one, side make 250+. It would still be a bad pitch IMO but we may not have had this two day test which seems to have polarized and extremized the views on this pitch.

 

[Burgey]

because Pant does Pant things and the rest are tailenders. (well Sundar's a 21 year old allrounder in his 3rd Test and Ashwin #CanBat but the point broadly stands)

Don't think Root nabs a cheap 5 fer if he was bowling at the top order, as evident by Leach's bowling figures.

I think a pitch like that plays a part in the shots people play tbh

 

[sunilz]

Adelaide pitch was not poor. Teams were actually able to cross 200+ unlike this fiasco.

Sign of a poor pitch is uneven bounce and turn on day one and two; some deliveries turning miles while others going straight. It creates lottery element rather than relying on actual skill. Spinners taking a new ball on day two says it all.

IMO points from this game shouldn't be counted toward that world final (not that it will happen).

Only India crossed 200 once .
And Aus would have been all out on 120 if Paine had been caught earlier.

On this pitch had India won the toss, 1st innings score would have been > 200 and then people would be complaining about toss.

 

[Chrish]

Only India crossed 200 once .
And Aus would have been all out on 120 if Paine had been caught earlier.

On this pitch had India won the toss, 1st innings score would have been > 200 and then people would be complaining about toss.

If my auntie had a dick etc.. Look these arguments are silly. I will say it again; if both sides **** up this royally and spinners start taking new pill on day 2, it paints the accurate picture about the nature of wicket. I mean the game hasn't even lasted 2 days ffs.

 

[sunilz]

If my auntie had a dick etc.. Look these arguments are silly. I will say it again; if both sides **** up this royally and spinners start taking new pill on day 2, it paints the accurate picture about the nature of wicket. I mean the game hasn't even lasted 2 days ffs.

So we can't discuss hypothetical situation now. So what is the point of all those ATG threads when we know that these players will never play together.

Adelaide test was over in 2 days 1 session. So now benchmark for poor pitch is that match should last atleast 2 days.

And once again more than pitch, I am blaming pink ball.

 

[centurymaker]

Only India crossed 200 once .
And Aus would have been all out on 120 if Paine had been caught earlier.

On this pitch had India won the toss, 1st innings score would have been > 200 and then people would be complaining about toss.

Totally agree with you. The complaints would have been about the toss and how India have taken an unfair advantage by batting first and scoring 250. And then match would have gone into the 3rd day as well.

 

[centurymaker]

If my auntie had a dick etc.. Look these arguments are silly. I will say it again; if both sides **** up this royally and spinners start taking new pill on day 2, it paints the accurate picture about the nature of wicket. I mean the game hasn't even lasted 2 days ffs.

Pathetic reply!

India ONLY batted ONE full innings so how did India 'screw' up royally with the bat? Test match is not one innings long. You get a chance to learn from your mistakes and redeem yourself in second innings.


so I cannot say India screwed up royally with the bat based on one innings of 145 and other 49/0.

 

[Chrish]

So we can't discuss hypothetical situation now. So what is the point of all those ATG threads when we know that these players will never play together.

You absolutely can but pointing out dropped catches is nonsensical. I mean it's like saying if Paine had been a good keeper and held onto his catches, India wouldn't have won the series. See that?

India is a better team than England in these conditions, but that doesn't mean conditions dished out provided proper balance between bat and ball.

 

[Spark]

Only India crossed 200 once .
And Aus would have been all out on 120 if Paine had been caught earlier.

On this pitch had India won the toss, 1st innings score would have been > 200 and then people would be complaining about toss.

It's not just about the scoreboard though. It's about the actual behaviour of the pitch that you observe when watching the game; in my view that's more important than the scoreboard. The short length of the game is a byproduct of that.

 

[honestbharani]

spinners start taking new pill on day

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, btw. Its a very anglocentric view of cricket that ball should not spin on day 1 or spinners should not bowl with new ball in a test etc. as if it is some indicator of a bad pitch, it is not.

This one was a bad pitch, however, because of the inconsistency in the turn and then later, the bounce. The pink ball just accentuated these issues and we had such a game that ended in 2 days. But even otherwise, it would still be a bad pitch IMO.

 

[Chrish]

Wicket in the first game was garbage as well where one side could pile up 1000 runs. I personally think this 3rd test wicket could have easily backfired on India like we saw in Pune. Traditional turning deck (2nd test) rather than square turner (this one) suits India far better.

 

[nzfan]

IMO the pitch is not as minefield if you're able to get to 74/2 - England in the first dig, 98/2 - India in the first dig and 49/0 India in the second dig.

I think the players just didn't have solid game plans and ability to cope with the pressure for longer periods of time.

 

[Kirkut]

Axar Patel's first over against England in 2nd innings sums up the pitch best.

 

[Kirkut]

Adelaide pitch was not poor. Teams were actually able to cross 200+ unlike this fiasco.

Sign of a poor pitch is uneven bounce and turn on day one and two; some deliveries turning miles while others going straight. It creates lottery element rather than relying on actual skill. Spinners taking a new ball on day two says it all.

IMO points from this game shouldn't be counted toward that world final (not that it will happen).

The 36 all out pitch? That was a good batting wicket. 36 all out came against some unplayable seam bowling.

 

[Starfighter]

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, btw. Its a very anglocentric view of cricket that ball should not spin on day 1 or spinners should not bowl with new ball in a test etc. as if it is some indicator of a bad pitch, it is not.

Well interestingly enough, two spinners opening the bowling has historically been very rare and most of India's (and other Asian teams') instances have come since 2000, and it's been a trend that has accelerated recently. Back in the quartet days India would have any medium pacer who happened to be on hand open the bowling.

 

[honestbharani]

Well interestingly enough, two spinners opening the bowling has historically been very rare and most of India's (and other Asian teams') instances have come since 2000, and it's been a trend that has accelerated recently. Back in the quartet days India would have any medium pacer who happened to be on hand open the bowling.

Yeah, it was actually all started by Mark Greatbatch IMO. Then you had more and more spinners open the bowling in the LO stuff and slowly they brought over those skillsets into tests and Ashwin has perfected it into an art now.