No , this isn’t the same thing .And? Isn't that the point of playing away? You can absolutely use the same argument that India are preparing pitches suit for Ashwin/Jadeja or at least against the general batting skills of players from Australia and England - the most common tourists.
Also I'm not sure that NZ really know what pitches are being prepared for them given the selectorial ineptitude shown in the recent Australia series.
It's because he's a no frills, effective finger spinner. He doesn't have to do anything special like mystery balls or huge drift and turn to be effective, especially in IndiaThe stats show Jadeja is definitely above any Indian spinner, not named Ashwin. But the eye test clearly says otherwise. It’s odd .
Not really if you aren't Subs. In India, Jadeja is head and shoulders above Lyon. But considering the types of pitches they have built there careers on and longevity, Lyon is better in my book; as are Kumble, Underwood, Chandra, Bedi, Benaud, Herath, Gupte and Saqlain.View attachment 39797
But Shouldn’t Lyon out bowl him on these dustbowls ?
Same for Ashwin and Lyon ( when both played )
That's fair. I personally don't have him in my Top 5 Indian spinners, but if you rate him so highly for his home record, I won't complain anymore.Yes. The interesting exercise which Sunilz has mentioned above is something that I have done myself quite sometime back. And not just with Lyon, with all the other spinners who've played with him in the same tests, It's very rare that he gets a spin conducive pitch away due to which the record of other spinners in the tests with him is all bad. Jadeja comes out on top comfortably compared to them all, home or away, which is one big reason why I think he is underrated as a bowler compared to others.
But there is no hiding the fact that his away record taken without considering other factors is not great. So, it's fine if others vote him down for that.
Hope springs eternalI was hoping we might avoid discussion on current voting but rather comment on results.
I am sorry for bringing up that topic. I just wanted the votes to be fair and not a meme. But as stated by CA and Xix, they voted genuinely so I won't say anything on this matter.I was hoping we might avoid discussion on current voting but rather comment on results.
So serious question, what's pitch doctoring? One, like 70% of all pitches where fast bowlers are effective or the one and only country where the opposition had to play 3 spinners?No , this isn’t the same thing .
Look at record of Indian pacers in matches involving NZ/SA in INDView attachment 39799
Absolute pitch doctoring by NZ/SA against IND in last 10 years
That's fine and nothing wrong with it. But then when you agree those pitches are seam friendly with nothing in them for spinners, why do you judge spinners based on their performances specifically on those pitches instead of spin friendly pitches where they've done well? Bit like asking a fish to climb a tree and failing them for not able to do it.So serious question, what's pitch doctoring? One, like 70% of all pitches where fast bowlers are effective or the one and only country where the opposition had to play 3 spinners?
Ever since covered pitches were the norm, the world game gravitated towards fast bowling. Every nation had a pitch or two that took spin or was flat but only one country, possibly 2 that went against that trend.
So which is doctoring?
South Africa and New Zealand have always been known for seam friendly pitches. NZ historically and SA since re-induction.
There is nothing wrong with producing seam friendly pitches . Both AUS and ENG also do it . But don’t produce pitches where your spinners don’t pick a single wicket in 10 yearsSo serious question, what's pitch doctoring? One, like 70% of all pitches where fast bowlers are effective or the one and only country where the opposition had to play 3 spinners?
Ever since covered pitches were the norm, the world game gravitated towards fast bowling. Every nation had a pitch or two that took spin or was flat but only one country, possibly 2 that went against that trend.
So which is doctoring?
South Africa and New Zealand have always been known for seam friendly pitches. NZ historically and SA since re-induction.
“historic” NZ just had pitches where 3 spinners took 5fers including a debutant so this narrative of them only being able to produce seam pitches is false, likewise SA had pitches that ragged for miles against Bangladesh where they beat them at their own game, these ones just dont appear when India seem to tour funnily enoughSo serious question, what's pitch doctoring? One, like 70% of all pitches where fast bowlers are effective or the one and only country where the opposition had to play 3 spinners?
Ever since covered pitches were the norm, the world game gravitated towards fast bowling. Every nation had a pitch or two that took spin or was flat but only one country, possibly 2 that went against that trend.
So which is doctoring?
South Africa and New Zealand have always been known for seam friendly pitches. NZ historically and SA since re-induction.
Damn, those numbers holy ****There is nothing wrong with producing seam friendly pitches . Both AUS and ENG also do it . But don’t produce pitches where your spinners don’t pick a single wicket in 10 years View attachment 39801
Similarly SA produced pitches where Maharaj averages 122 against IND
View attachment 39802
How you are OK with these type of pitches where spinners have 0 role ?
This is not 1 or 2 Test . It is a sample size of 10 years .
cant expect anything else from someone who thinks the best times were when 4 quicks would run in and demolish batsmen who probably never faced that level of bowling elsewhereThere is nothing wrong with producing seam friendly pitches . Both AUS and ENG also do it . But don’t produce pitches where your spinners don’t pick a single wicket in 10 years View attachment 39801
Similarly SA produced pitches where Maharaj averages 122 against IND
View attachment 39802
How you are OK with these type of pitches where spinners have 0 role ?
This is not 1 or 2 Test . It is a sample size of 10 years .
are u even surprised?Damn, those numbers holy ****
Not particularly.are u even surprised?