It may be unfair to single out Lord's, but as the Home of Cricket it is the most striking example. How many draws on the trot is it now? 7? That's unacceptable, even in English weather.That's been the aim since 2001. The first time the realisation dawned that we couldn't be doing with these three-day Tests regular like was the opening Test in 2001, which was a three-day game and meant that 13 days' play had been lost to early finishes and\or rain out of the last
For the rest of that summer, pitches - at all Test grounds, not just Lord's - offered progressively less to bowlers, culminating in the flattest surface seen in this country for many, many years at The Oval. And from 2002 onwards, pitches at virtually all grounds - Headingley sometimes excepted and very occasionally other grounds as well - have been flat, flat and more flat.
Because much as us cricket affectionados would indeed prefer three days of riveting cricket to five days of torpor, unfortunately TV executives (not all of whom care greatly for cricket) don't - they want their schedules to be filled as per guides. And the reality is that without TV, cricket would be crippled, so it's only fair that we try to be accommodating to TV.
This excess of flat pitches hasn't precluded a decent few results, because despite the fact batting has been far easier now than from 2000 backwards, England's batsmen have gotten worse and opposition's aren't always as good as they used to be. But it's utterly unfair to single Lord's out, because the disease spreads everywhere. Lord's has simply suffered from lost play at the wrong times.
And yes, ideally we'd eliminate lost play entirely. Even if this means we don't get every ball telecast live on the additional days.
But you bait everyone equally!!!I don't want to open up an unnecessary can of worms with the Indian posters, so I'll decline to give examples.
Plenty tuned in but most tuned out when Younis Khan was out.I want to know though- who actually watched the fifth day in Karachi today that made it so appealing to TV executives?
That is true, and Sachin Tendulkar is overrated.But you bait everyone equally!!!
Get rid of the minor nations, Zimbabwe , Bangladesh, Kenya.
Make test series, at least three tests, every time.
You are kidding? English cricket in 1989 was of a shambolic, amateurish standard - and it showed, as the Test team hit its lowest ebb. Since 1990, many things have gotten better and professionalism (in terms of attention-to-detail) is unrecogniseable.The entire English Cricket System, it is incapable of doing anything right and hasn't raised the standard of the english game for the last 20 years.
This may well be true, but at the end of the day they aren't really producing better players than back then in the test arena.You are kidding? English cricket in 1989 was of a shambolic, amateurish standard - and it showed, as the Test team hit its lowest ebb. Since 1990, many things have gotten better and professionalism (in terms of attention-to-detail) is unrecogniseable.
Seriously, a good-attituded county cricketer from 2009 would go back to 1989 and be utterly horrified by what he encountered. The work done, especially by Lord MacLaurin and Tim Lamb in the late-1990s, was excellent and they deserve considerable credit for dragging the English game out of its utterly diabolical state and into one of semi-professionalism (in the sense of attention-to-detail) and a culture of making some amount of effort that we see today.
Ah now let's not be silly. England are pretty mediocre, but the England of the 90s were truly horrid.This may well be true, but at the end of the day they aren't really producing better players than back then in the test arena.
Personally I don't England were that much worse in the 1990's than they were in the 80s or even than right now, it's just that opposition bowling attacks were far stronger, e.g. Wasim & Waqar, Ambrose & Walsh, Mcgrath & co, Donald & Pollock. Nowadays English pitches are flatter and there aren't too many really good quicks about (though several are emerging) so there's plenty of opportunity for mediocre batsmen to cash in. Cricinfo made a list of the 10 flattest pitches over the last 5 years and 3 of them were in England (Lords, Oval, Headingley). I'm sure that wasn't the case in the 90's.Ah now let's not be silly. England are pretty mediocre, but the England of the 90s were truly horrid.
County cricket ain't easy to bat in. Check out the respective records of batsmen and bowlers in England compared to other countries, even recently. Compare to Australia and India. Flat pitches are not to blame.Personally I don't England were that much worse in the 1990's than they were in the 80s or even than right now, it's just that opposition bowling attacks were far stronger, e.g. Wasim & Waqar, Ambrose & Walsh, Mcgrath & co, Donald & Pollock. Nowadays English pitches are flatter and there aren't too many really good quicks about (though several are emerging) so there's plenty of opportunity for mediocre batsmen to cash in. Cricinfo made a list of the 10 flattest pitches over the last 5 years and 3 of them were in England (Lords, Oval, Headingley). I'm sure that wasn't the case in the 90's.
England are not that much better currently or for most of the last decade than they were in the 1990s. In both decades, they were\are considerably better than they were '86 to '89 though.Ah now let's not be silly. England are pretty mediocre, but the England of the 90s were truly horrid.
Nonetheless there's no doubt that batting in county - and international in England - cricket between 2001 and 2006 (when the ball was generally of a poor quality and very difficult to get to swing as much as it should and from 2002 the pitches at many grounds were often routinely non-seaming) was far, far easier than at just about any point. Scoring-rates and numbers of runs skyrocketed.County cricket ain't easy to bat in. Check out the respective records of batsmen and bowlers in England compared to other countries, even recently. Compare to Australia and India. Flat pitches are not to blame.Personally I don't England were that much worse in the 1990's than they were in the 80s or even than right now, it's just that opposition bowling attacks were far stronger, e.g. Wasim & Waqar, Ambrose & Walsh, Mcgrath & co, Donald & Pollock. Nowadays English pitches are flatter and there aren't too many really good quicks about (though several are emerging) so there's plenty of opportunity for mediocre batsmen to cash in. Cricinfo made a list of the 10 flattest pitches over the last 5 years and 3 of them were in England (Lords, Oval, Headingley). I'm sure that wasn't the case in the 90's.
No, that's not true. You're thinking of their football team. The England cricket team is subject to the most ridiculous of knee-jerk reactions at every possible junction. They lose a wicket in the first five overs of an innings and all you can hear is "WE'RE USELESS! HOW CAN WE EVER HOPE TO BEAT AUSTRALIA WHEN WE LOSE A WICKET TO A NEW BALL!" (because everything in the English media regarding cricket mentions the Ashes in some way or another). Then, when someone bowls a good spell against New Zealand or the West Indies and takes five wickets it's all "Bring on Australia! We can do it! Yeah!"England are jsut ****ing random, no consistency whatsoever, except their media always think they're gun, even when they suck.
In saying that, lots of England players rule, luff Caddick and Gough and Sidearse.
i wasn't having a crack or saying NZ are better (we're a mini England) I just think their media are ****ed. Sidebottom>everybody.No, that's not true. You're thinking of their football team. The England cricket team is subject to the most ridiculous of knee-jerk reactions at every possible junction. They lose a wicket in the first five overs of an innings and all you can hear is "WE'RE USELESS! HOW CAN WE EVER HOPE TO BEAT AUSTRALIA WHEN WE LOSE A WICKET TO A NEW BALL!" (because everything in the English media regarding cricket mentions the Ashes in some way or another). Then, when someone bowls a good spell against New Zealand or the West Indies and takes five wickets it's all "Bring on Australia! We can do it! Yeah!"
The truth is that England are a pretty decent cricketing side who have their good days and their bad days. They're a class above the West Indies and New Zealand in tests- that's not to say those teams can't compete with them though- and a class below India, South Africa and Australia. Strangely, the media here only works in extremes.