Lords Pitch

[deeps]

besides the balls keeping low, i love watching the ball seaming around heaps.

i'm not a fan of flat pitches where any old batsman can make a good score. On seaming pitches, only a good batsman can handle the situation and make good scores.

There should be more seaming pitches in world cricket.

It's more exciting then watching every ball fly to the boundary for four

 

[Linda]

I love general seamer friendly conditions with green tops and/or uneven bounce. It makes for great cricket viewing IMO.

I'm not the biggest fan of balls bouncing shin high though. Especially on day 1.

Well put. Agreed.

 

[King_Ponting]

You remember wrong or you wernt following the game.......balls were keeping low quiete frequently.......atleast 10 of mcGrath's balls kept low during his spell.

And its convinient when you guys produce a bad pitch that its good bowling and poor batting...i suppose we can say then that in Mumbai it was good bowling and **** poor batting too, eh ?

Not in the slightest. In mumbai batsman got wickets, at lords bowlers got wickets. See the difference? Now when that happens we obviously know that its rubbish and also quite obviously doctored to suit the indian team

 

[honestbharani]

To be fair, both Laxman and Tendulkar handled the best bowling attack in the world with a great degree of self assurance on the same track. It was just that when delivered from a flatter trajectory, the balls skidded through and that, coupled with the uneven bounce and the fact that the batters (from both sides) expected the spinners to toss up the ball (and thus were surprised when they sent it down flat), was what led to so many wickets on the second day. It wasn't the best test pitch, but it wasn't the worst. I think some credit should be given to blokes like Clarke and Kartik who immediately worked out that delivering balls flat was the way to go on that track. Had it been the first innings, I have no doubt that both sides would have batted better the second time around, because they were simply taken aback (esp. Australia when Kartik didn't flight them, which he always does) by the change in tactics. Surely, if it was so good for spinners, why didn't Kumble do anything of note there?

 

[C_C]

You did not even watch the match. Sounds like you dont really know what you are talking about.


Author: Cavalier_Carver
Date: 22-07-05 17:05

Dont know what to make of it but according to the bowlers, the pitch wasnt a 17wicket on 1st day kinda pitch......
All the people i've talked to who've been watching the game live said that it was brilliant bowling from Harmison and McGrath .

i posted my that comment before watching the match..i posted my comments HERE in this thread after watching a few hours of the match.

Not in the slightest. In mumbai batsman got wickets, at lords bowlers got wickets. See the difference? Now when that happens we obviously know that its rubbish and also quite obviously doctored to suit the indian team

Eh ??? batsman got wickets ???

What make you think that Mumbai wasnt a pathetic batting performance from both teams ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Eh ??? batsman got wickets ???
What make you think that Mumbai wasnt a pathetic batting performance from both teams ?

Reference to Clarke taking 6 wickets. For 9.

 

[Shane Warne]

Reference to Clarke taking 6 wickets. For 9.

Didn't Warne play in all the other games in that series then get injured and miss that one?
Figures.

 

[C_C]

Didn't Warne play in all the other games in that series then get injured and miss that one?
Figures.

Wouldnt have made a difference mate...Warne is awesome against everyone but pretty pathetic against india...

Vic- thanks for the clarification...i personally think that the batsmen batted pretty poorly in Mumbai as well and that pitch wasnt much worse than the Lord's pitch.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Wouldnt have made a difference mate...Warne is awesome against everyone but pretty pathetic against india...

Vic- thanks for the clarification...i personally think that the batsmen batted pretty poorly in Mumbai as well and that pitch wasnt much worse than the Lord's pitch.

Warne had a pretty fair series before that game. For anyone other than Warne/Murali, a dozen wickets at 30 in three tests is a pretty good effort. One can only assume if Nathan Hauritz and Michael Clarke got wickets, Warne would have done the same. It's unfortunate that missing that test is probably going to be his last act on Indian soil.

 

[C_C]

Warne had a pretty fair series before that game. For anyone other than Warne/Murali, a dozen wickets at 30 in three tests is a pretty good effort. One can only assume if Nathan Hauritz and Michael Clarke got wickets, Warne would have done the same. It's unfortunate that missing that test is probably going to be his last act on Indian soil.

Cant assume that mate.... not when it comes to Warne vs IND...for McGilla etc. have outshone Warne against India when they played together..... and given that how poor his stats are against IND, it can be seen as a boon for OZ when Warne doesnt play against INZ.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Cant assume that mate.... not when it comes to Warne vs IND...for McGilla etc. have outshone Warne against India when they played together..... and given that how poor his stats are against IND, it can be seen as a boon for OZ when Warne doesnt play against INZ.

That's not how it works though, is it? Warne had a good series up until that game, and decent spin bowling was almost impossible to play on that pitch. You can't assume just because he got smashed around in earlier series against India that he would ahve got smashed around on that wicket, because not even Hauritz did, and let me tell you Hautiz would struggle to average under 100 against India in normal conditions.

 

[C_C]

Warne had a good series up until that game, and decent spin bowling was almost impossible to play on that pitch.

It wasnt impossible to play on that pitch..... Martyn batted pretty well against Kumble and harbhajan...and Warne didnt have a good series really....his best series by far but an average of over 30 isnt really a good series.....and that too, nearly 50% of his wickets came against tailenders...
Warne has a mental block against IND pretty much...doesnt matter how the pitch is or how his support bowlers are doing, he bolloxes up 9 outta 10 times against IND anyways.So assuming that Warne would've done good on that pitch is very much against the odds.

 

[aussie]

It wasnt impossible to play on that pitch..... Martyn batted pretty well against Kumble and harbhajan...and Warne didnt have a good series really....his best series by far but an average of over 30 isnt really a good series.....and that too, nearly 50% of his wickets came against tailenders...
Warne has a mental block against IND pretty much...doesnt matter how the pitch is or how his support bowlers are doing, he bolloxes up 9 outta 10 times against IND anyways.So assuming that Warne would've done good on that pitch is very much against the odds.

yes it was his best series in India, but i disagree that Warne has a mental blockage India mate, if u really look at it in both the 98 & 2001 series injuries prevented shane from being at his best but the indians did play him well, while when India toured australia in 99 shane was pretty effective.

In 2004 he came their in top form & bowled pretty well his 6/125 in chennai was superb it could have been better if australia weren't sloppy in the field dropping 3 catches off of him, including sehwag. So what if 50% of his victims were tail.

You say even though his support bowlers are doing well it still wont rub off on warne but thats farse mate cause in the 2004 series the success that the seamers had helped shane a lot, because on previous tours he was looked upon has the strike bowler which put a lot of pressure on him. I definately believe that if Warne had played in Mumbai he would have been has effective has all the indian spinners, look Clarke took 6 why would the great Warne take as much or even more....

 

[C_C]

yes it was his best series in India, but i disagree that Warne has a mental blockage India mate, if u really look at it in both the 98 & 2001 series injuries prevented shane from being at his best but the indians did play him well, while when India toured australia in 99 shane was pretty effective.

Umm...Warne got injured AFTER the 98 series, not before....
And Warne was pretty effective in 99 ???? ehhh ?????
He played 3 matches, took 8 wickets @ 41.87...that is effective ?????

In 2004 he came their in top form & bowled pretty well his 6/125 in chennai was superb it could have been better if australia weren't sloppy in the field dropping 3 catches off of him, including sehwag. So what if 50% of his victims were tail.

To be honest, Warne ran into IND when IND were at its worst batting form for quiete a long time...and even then he didnt do excellently.
A few catches were dropped off of him but the batsmen batted extremely poorly as well...Warne got twacked by Pathan and Patel a few times in that series...showing that it wasnt as if he was bowling excellently but rather the batsmen were bolloxing up

You say even though his support bowlers are doing well it still wont rub off on warne but thats farse mate cause in the 2004 series the success that the seamers had helped shane a lot, because on previous tours he was looked upon has the strike bowler which put a lot of pressure on him. I definately believe that if Warne had played in Mumbai he would have been has effective has all the indian spinners, look Clarke took 6 why would the great Warne take as much or even more....

Given Warne's history, there is NO REASON to believe that Warne would've done well in Mumbai...this wasnt the first 'square turner' OZ played in IND and Warne bolloxed up pretty friggin bad a few times before.
A speculation is valid only if it takes the odds into account...saying that 'if Warne played in Mumbai, he would've done better than Clarke' is like saying 'if Agarkar played for OZ, he would've done better than Gillespie'.
Ie, both are not taking the odds and past history into account.
And the seamers have always been successful in IND..atleast the OZ seamers of this generation...that is no excuse really.

 

[marc71178]

Warne had a pretty fair series before that game. For anyone other than Warne/Murali, a dozen wickets at 30 in three tests is a pretty good effort. One can only assume if Nathan Hauritz and Michael Clarke got wickets, Warne would have done the same. It's unfortunate that missing that test is probably going to be his last act on Indian soil.

But it does in a way sum him up after the way in which he missed the game!