-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
'No Doctoring' of the pitch at the Oval
- Thread starter huxleypig
- Start date
tooextracool
International Coach
Broad's wickets were got through swing in the air and cut off the pitch, not uneven bounce. His performance came out of the blue for most of those who have followed his career but it doesn't make him any less deserving or take away the varnish from that spell.
Regarding the 'ridiculous sideways movement', you and I both know that no other bowler was able to get that kind of movement all game. He bowled cutters off the pitch and got the ball to move in the air, there isn't much more to it than that. You could argue that the pitch was made to suit his and Swann's style of bowling but whatever it is, it doesn't change the fact that the toss made no difference to the result. 3 out of 4 innings produced scores of 300+ including the last 2 innings of the test match. Like it or not the Aussie 2nd innings performance had very little to do with the toss.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
There was a hour rain delay before the evening session on Day Two.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I personally don't agree with curators dramatically changing the playing characteristics of a surface dependent on what the home team requires. When a wicket has played a certain way for a while and then it is worked on to produce something totally different I don't think that's an ideal scenario.
I would think the English hierarchy would have enjoyed a game where the toss had some affect on the match (how much is debatable) as it gave England their best chance of winning. In the end England needed a result wicket in the 5th Test and they got it. They also played better and won the match, so they should get credit. There's no real excuse for Australia being bowled out for 160. Broad bowled a good spell and we collapsed like he was Malcolm Marshall at the height of his powers.
It'll be interesting to see if the same starts happening in Oz now as we don't have the likes of Warne and McGrath, players who could get us a result on most surfaces. Unfortunately our strengths are also most other team's strengths too, with a pitch that negates spin being our best option.
I would think the English hierarchy would have enjoyed a game where the toss had some affect on the match (how much is debatable) as it gave England their best chance of winning. In the end England needed a result wicket in the 5th Test and they got it. They also played better and won the match, so they should get credit. There's no real excuse for Australia being bowled out for 160. Broad bowled a good spell and we collapsed like he was Malcolm Marshall at the height of his powers.
It'll be interesting to see if the same starts happening in Oz now as we don't have the likes of Warne and McGrath, players who could get us a result on most surfaces. Unfortunately our strengths are also most other team's strengths too, with a pitch that negates spin being our best option.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Why?
I personally reckon it makes winning away a huge accomplishment, which it should be.
That being said, when a team wins a team leads a 3 test series 1-0, and the curators produce bore draw tickets for the last 2 tests (when they'd normally be result wickets), that's worrying. So I guess I don't mind it when result wickets are produced for the benefit of the home team. Just not when draw wickets are produced for the home team's benefit. Not sure if that's hypocritical or not.
Last edited:
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Because you are manufacturing a result in your own team's favour. I don't mind if a wicket plays a certain way due to the conditions etc. That's how it should be. It's how it used to be around the world too. But changing the way a wicket plays dramatically to enhance your team's chances is completely different in my opinion.
Winning away has always been a huge accomplishment, but not due to curators changing the wicket to suit the home team's needs. Different countries have different conditions and it's adapting to those conditions and the different wickets they throw up that's the biggest challenge when it comes to playing away from home.
But personally I don't agree with a curator working hard to change the way the wicket plays for one match. Even though, with wickets flattening out around the world, a result is better than a draw.
I guess it can be argued it's part of having the home team advantage. But I got used to seeing wickets in Australia play the same way regardless of who we were playing year in year out. We could well have produced 5 turners when we played the West Indies in the 80's, but we didn't and in Perth we nearly had our ****ing heads knocked off
I'm not sure if the fact we've had McGrath and Warne recently has prevented us from doing the same as they could exploit any conditions. Maybe we'll see a change now they're gone. I'd like to see the WACA get its bounce back though, the Gabba be good for the seamers for the first day or two, the SCG be good for the spinners, the MCG give a bit early too, and Adelaide remain the hardest of all wickets for the bowlers. Not sure how likely that is to happen though.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
India produce turning wickets, whether it be the first test or last, because they have spinners in their team.
If a time comes when they have a fast bowling attack like McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa, I don't think they'll be producing turners.
They've shown they can make green wickets, they choose not to. So your idea of adapting to those conditions is based on years of some nations creating wickets based on what is best for the home side anyway.
If a time comes when they have a fast bowling attack like McGrath, Gillespie and Kaspa, I don't think they'll be producing turners.
They've shown they can make green wickets, they choose not to. So your idea of adapting to those conditions is based on years of some nations creating wickets based on what is best for the home side anyway.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Possibly not, but is the climate necessarily conducive to year round green tops? Do India produce turning wickets because they have decent spinners, or do they produce decent spinners because a majority of their wickets are often dusty turners? There's only so much you can do in certain climates to change the nature of the strip.
Certainly the time of year and climate come into it, but I don't like seeing wickets changed dramatically when there hasn't been an outside influence. I think there's a huge difference between certain types of players being favoured over the decades due to the playing nature of the wickets in their home country and a wicket being changed for one game.
I think I remember one instance where there was a greentop in India a few years back and it favoured Australia with the curator refusing to change it despite Ganguly's (I think he was the captain then!?) demands. Think there'd been rain leading up to the match. He was a good man
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah figured your reply would be regarding the climate. Can't say I'm an expert to answer honestly, but the Nagpur match you're talking about is exactly what I was thinking with India being able to make green wickets, but choosing not to.
The curator at the ground, in reality, did all he could to inhibit India having a chance of retaining the Border Gavaskar Trophy in 2004. I actually didn't oppose that move, because I figured its best for our batsmen to be able to learn to bat on wickets like that, but it wasn't the smartest move for the series.
All he had to do was mow grass off the wicket, and he chose not to. I have no problem with him not doing that, but if he actually did listen to Ganguly and the Indian camp, I don't see that necessarily being a bad thing.
Guess we just have different opinions.
The curator at the ground, in reality, did all he could to inhibit India having a chance of retaining the Border Gavaskar Trophy in 2004. I actually didn't oppose that move, because I figured its best for our batsmen to be able to learn to bat on wickets like that, but it wasn't the smartest move for the series.
All he had to do was mow grass off the wicket, and he chose not to. I have no problem with him not doing that, but if he actually did listen to Ganguly and the Indian camp, I don't see that necessarily being a bad thing.
Guess we just have different opinions.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, that's when I have a problem too. Nothing wrong with what happened for this test at all in my books- no one wants a series tied at 1-1 to end in a bore draw, which is what would have quite possibly happened if they'd retained the traditional Oval wicket. Nothing wrong either with India producing a raging turner when 1-0 down to South Africa, but if I'm entirely honest the pitches they prepared when 1-0 up against Australia did leave a slightly sour taste in the mouth. I want to see two teams trying to beat each other, not one side trying to beat the pitch.