Won't have any effect at all - remember the Denness Test?Jungle Jumbo said:Can't the ICC take Test status from the games? Not sure this would affect the BCCI or the statisticians though.
Is the "Denness test" counted in official stats as a test?Neil Pickup said:Won't have any effect at all - remember the Denness Test?
Umpires is the only real stumbling-block I can see, if they want to put their corporate foot down.Neil Pickup said:Won't have any effect at all - remember the Denness Test?
Not AFAIK - my point was that it won't stop the BCCI/etc in the same way as it never stopped Packer.BoyBrumby said:Is the "Denness test" counted in official stats as a test?
FWIW I read somewhere recently that India brings in over 50% of revenue to world cricket now, so it's inevitable they're going to want a larger slice of the pie.
EDIT: Article here: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/theobserver/story/0,,1681566,00.html
Filter's there for a reason. Don't avoid it.Wazim said:Very wise a$$ comment there. First of all, if you are commenting on the recent Lahore pitch, then do some research. The weather did not allow to make a sporting track.
In the 13 prior tests to this current one, there have only been 2 drawn matches in Pakistan(and those two both going down to the wire). England series we made good wickets, considering we did win 2 out of the 3 games!
my most recent memory of Australia going to asia was their match against India at Mumbai. What a pitch.Wazim said:Very wise a$$ comment there. First of all, if you are commenting on the recent Lahore pitch, then do some research. The weather did not allow to make a sporting track.
In the 13 prior tests to this current one, there have only been 2 drawn matches in Pakistan(and those two both going down to the wire). England series we made good wickets, considering we did win 2 out of the 3 games!
I don't get it. If OZ can have a traditional minefield pitch like WACA ( albeit its been toned down recently- till mid/late 90s atleast it was a pacer's paradise), whats wrong with having a spinner's minefield again ?Slats4ever said:my most recent memory of Australia going to asia was their match against India at Mumbai. What a pitch.
Minefield? How can a ground where the average runs per wicket in the 4th innings is 29 (up until the end of the millenium) and where there has never been a side bowled out for less than 100 in the 4th innings be described as a "minefield"?C_C said:I don't get it. If OZ can have a traditional minefield pitch like WACA ( albeit its been toned down recently- till mid/late 90s atleast it was a pacer's paradise), whats wrong with having a spinner's minefield again ?
Well there have been several low-scoring affairs on WACA as well - i think if you play on a type of pitch long enough, you will produce almost all spectrum of scores but the average would reflect the nature of the pitch. Ie, there have been quite a few matches on WACA where one side ( or both) failed to make 100 or barely made 200. And there have been a few matches were 400+ has been achieved too.But overall, WACA has been a bowling paradise-its been a minefield a few times and semi-batting friendly a few. I think a pitch like Mumbai is much the same way, except it is for spin what WACA is for pace. And if the same type of pitch is produced in Mumbai match after match, i am sure you'd see a team or two whack 300 or 400+.vic_orthdox said:Minefield? How can a ground where the average runs per wicket in the 4th innings is 29 (up until the end of the millenium) and where there has never been a side bowled out for less than 100 in the 4th innings be described as a "minefield"?
How does 4th innings come into it when assessing the WACA ? It doesnt bounce sky high only in the 4th innings there.vic_orthdox said:Minefield? How can a ground where the average runs per wicket in the 4th innings is 29 (up until the end of the millenium) and where there has never been a side bowled out for less than 100 in the 4th innings be described as a "minefield"?
And playes from OZ/ENG have traditionally struggled on spinning wickets. In anycase, WACA is one of the favourite haunting grounds of fast bowlers, so much so that the OZ media went up in arms for WACA being picked as a designated venue for OZ-WI series in the early 90s, given the reputation of the WI pace battery. The average innings score at WACA is also one of the lowest in the late 90s and before period.social said:The WACA traditionally has been accepted as a fantastic cricket wicket AND excellent to bat on once players were used to its' intricacies.
However, players from the sub-continent (and AUS vs the WI) have generally struggled there because of its pace and bounce.
Except for rare occasions, it could never be described as a minefield.
What's the problem with a bit of bounce anyway, shorty?Deja moo said:How does 4th innings come into it when assessing the WACA ? It doesnt bounce sky high only in the 4th innings there.
Oh, just shut up.C_C said:And as usual, cultural bias against spin-friendly wickets rears its ugly head yet again ( but not pace-friendly wickets!).
luckyeddie said:What's the problem with a bit of bounce anyway, shorty?
(Someone to accuse me of being 'heightist' in 5....4....3....)
I was brought up on a diet of the likes of Dexter and Cowdrey.C_C said:None whatsoever. Just like there is no problem with nimble footwork and square-turners.