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

[Burgey]

Surely you gotta accept that batting in Australia of late has been easier than pretty much anywhere else in the world.

It was easy for England the trip before last. SA found it easy. Everyone else not so much

 

[Coronis]

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

Why not?

 

[Victor Ian]

Everytime I get to the supposedly last page and think 'phew' I see another 2 pages of stuff. Every time I have a comment it is past it's used by. Keep fighting the Good fight Jedi

 

[honestbharani]

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.

In other words, like how a couple of the posters denounce pitches of matches they have not even seen.

 

[honestbharani]

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.



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

This last series against RSA itself was not like that. Every other pitch was fine. The only pitch which assisted spinners TOO much was Nagpur and even that was not to ridiculous standards. It is just that the media started a stupid bandwagon and the ICC jumped on it. I don't see it being any worse than a Leeds wicket or a flat track like Perth or even Nagpur in 2012 against England. Now, THAT was the pitch that deserved a ban. Don't ban a pitch because stupid T20 age batsmen can't handle seam or swing or pace or spin that extend the advantage to the bowler. Ban pitches that give next to no chance for bowlers to even beat the bat.

 

[Dan]

tbf Jedi, I think one factor you aren't considering in the '**** spinners took wickets in India while **** batsmen didn't make runs in Australia' point is that Australian fast bowling on roads >> Indian batting vs spin >>>>> South African batting against spin.

I think the success of Harmer/Tahir is in some part attributable to the decks (obviously), but also in some part attributed to most of the Indian batsmen being **** against spin. I don't think it's coincidence that, in an era of Ranji pitches that either seem to be strips of Karnataka interstate (minus the speedbumps) or a greentop straight out of Derbyshire in April, that India aren't nearly as good against spin as they once were.

Meanwhile I think the success of Indian spinners was accentuated by South Africa being terri-bad at playing spin (because their spinners are all **** at domestic level and home pitches aren't helpful), as well as being a result of turning decks.

If the Indians were as comfortable batting on dustbowls as Australian quicks are bowling on home roads, I can't imagine Tahir/Harmer averaging mid-20s (I mean, look at Warne/Murali stats in India). Elgar still jamming his way to a <30 average is believable though; Elgar's all about dat jam.

The pitches certainly affect the balance between bat and ball (and types of ball) -- nobody can deny that -- but at the same time a mismatch between the skills players have, and the skills those pitches require, exacerbate the scale of that difference.

 

[honestbharani]

But Dan, batsmen have nothing to do with bowlers and their bowling averages. Its all about the pitches.

 

[TheJediBrah]

tbf Jedi, I think one factor you aren't considering in the '**** spinners took wickets in India while **** batsmen didn't make runs in Australia' point is that Australian fast bowling on roads >> Indian batting vs spin >>>>> South African batting against spin.

I think the success of Harmer/Tahir is in some part attributable to the decks (obviously), but also in some part attributed to most of the Indian batsmen being **** against spin. I don't think it's coincidence that, in an era of Ranji pitches that either seem to be strips of Karnataka interstate (minus the speedbumps) or a greentop straight out of Derbyshire in April, that India aren't nearly as good against spin as they once were.

Meanwhile I think the success of Indian spinners was accentuated by South Africa being terri-bad at playing spin (because their spinners are all **** at domestic level and home pitches aren't helpful), as well as being a result of turning decks.

If the Indians were as comfortable batting on dustbowls as Australian quicks are bowling on home roads, I can't imagine Tahir/Harmer averaging mid-20s (I mean, look at Warne/Murali stats in India). Elgar still jamming his way to a <30 average is believable though; Elgar's all about dat jam.

The pitches certainly affect the balance between bat and ball (and types of ball) -- nobody can deny that -- but at the same time a mismatch between the skills players have, and the skills those pitches require, exacerbate the scale of that difference.

I wonder if that means that Australian bowlers rankings are lower than they should be if they're always bowling on roads?

 

[honestbharani]

I wonder if that means that Australian bowlers rankings are lower than they should be if they're always bowling on roads?

I am going to move on from the earlier debate and answer this. Yes, I do think the Aussie bowlers are much better than their rankings show, esp. Starc and Pattinson. Still doesn't change the fact that these wickets give them the best chance of winning than any other kind of track, because whatever advantage their bowlers will gain, their batsmen will lose that much more and it brings in bowlers who don't have the same pace and strength into the game that much more.

 

[Victor Ian]

"You've got to be prepared to lose, to win" - by Someone.

I have been generally disappointed in watching Test matches in Australia since this tendency for all wickets to start being homogeneous roads surfaced. My guess... I think if it is asked for from anywhere, it is to do with television, which generates most of the money, would have a large influence and the most to lose by airing two days of happy days repeats when tests are finished within three days. I think it is beyond coincidence that ALL Australian pitches have moved towards roadiness at the same time.

I think these kind of tracks hurt Australian cricket as the players are not getting to play in conditions that might prepare them better when they play elsewhere. I am sold on the idea that Australia should produce tracks with 'spice' in them and wish they would 'doctor' pitches according to what the players want rather than other interests.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I am going to move on from the earlier debate and answer this. Yes, I do think the Aussie bowlers are much better than their rankings show, esp. Starc and Pattinson. Still doesn't change the fact that these wickets give them the best chance of winning than any other kind of track, because whatever advantage their bowlers will gain, their batsmen will lose that much more and it brings in bowlers who don't have the same pace and strength into the game that much more.

this is where you're wrong. The wickets could be far bouncier and have a lot more pace, would help them a hell of a lot more than the slow dead **** they've been dishing up

 

[Shady Slim]

surprised there is no mention of the channel nine theory

the one where they're asked to prepare dead roads to ensure m a x i m u m r a t i n g s

 

[TheJediBrah]

surprised there is no mention of the channel nine theory

the one where they're asked to prepare dead roads to ensure m a x i m u m r a t i n g s

been mentioned a few times, probably not as much as it could have because it goes without saying that it's obviously the reason for recent flat pitches

 

[honestbharani]

this is where you're wrong. The wickets could be far bouncier and have a lot more pace, would help them a hell of a lot more than the slow dead **** they've been dishing up

Again, I think only their bowlers. Bounce can be used by good spinners and reasonably nippy seamers (which their oppositions like India would have had) and it will be a chance they are taking. With these type of wickets, you are essentially guaranteeing that they cannot lose, at all. They might win and even if they don't, the game will go for 5 days and so C9 will be happy. There is next to no chance of them ever losing on the type of wickets that were prepared these past couple of seasons though.

 

[harsh.ag]

this is where you're wrong. The wickets could be far bouncier and have a lot more pace, would help them a hell of a lot more than the slow dead **** they've been dishing up

In which case, the gap between their bowlers and their opposition would also become more narrow. Or at least could become more arrow. They opt not to take that risk.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In which case, the gap between their bowlers and their opposition would also become more narrow. Or at least could become more arrow. They opt not to take that risk.

Disagree completely. It would help their bowlers a lot more than it would help the opposition, widening the gap. Except for SA probably.

 

[harsh.ag]

Disagree completely. It would help their bowlers a lot more than it would help the opposition, widening the gap. Except for SA probably.

Revealed preference says the Aussie management does not agree.

 

[TNT]

I think these kind of tracks hurt Australian cricket as the players are not getting to play in conditions that might prepare them better when they play elsewhere. I am sold on the idea that Australia should produce tracks with 'spice' in them and wish they would 'doctor' pitches according to what the players want rather than other interests.

There is no evidence to prove this though, in reality the evidence points the other way.

 

[TNT]

So juicing up the wickets so matches will finish inside two days.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Revealed preference says the Aussie management does not agree.

No, the exact opposite is the case

If you mean preference by the television provider, yes. But certainly not preference of the players or management. And they've been very vocal about it as well.

We can argue about what would help Australia's team win all we like, but when it comes to whether or not they are asking for these pitches, it's an unambiguous NO.