Why does that matter? That's what the Indians batted on. Like Trent Bridge 2007, fielding first basically meant that unless you ****ed-up big-time, you had a very substantial chance of winning the game. If your seamers bowled well (which in both cases they did) you couldn't lose.
I'm aware of that. That pitch was not merely a seamer but also uneven. SA's climate in December is also substantially different to India's in April.
Because wickets don't change in two hours...
Nothing but the wicket was condemned by the ICC and the match referee who was from the subcontinent and knows all about spin friendly wickets thought the wicket was a joke. No excuses for South Africa because they were actually in a good position at one point but when the likes of Hashim Amla are turning the ball square then there is cause for concern.
Those two I've just mentioned did.
The weather has a huge effect on how the pitch changes. A green pitch might stay green in overcast conditions for a day or even the whole match, but dry-out completely in a couple of hours under a very hot sun.
That's because India performed better than SA on the seamer, SA were frankly shocking in that Test. I wouldn't have been surprised if the SAfricans would've outperformed the Indians had the last 2 Tests of the 2006/07 series been played on seamers as well, because they emphatically upped their game. That they were able to beat them even on the flat pitch and even more remarkably, on the turner at Newlands, attests to how much of an improvement there was between the First and Second Tests.
This brings me to an interesting point. I think we can fairly safely say that Australia should beat New Zealand 2-0, but let's say the series' against SA go 1-1 (in Aus) and 2-0 (in SA). I don't think, under such circumstances, you could say Australia were the best around - but nor could you say such a thing about anyone else. The demands of the cricket fan is often that "someone has to be number-one" but it's simply not true. There are times when there's no obvious #1, and should SA do well against Aus (for example, draw away and win at home) then I'd say April 2009 would be one.
India in 2001? How? IIRC, the umpiring was bad, but not unlike 2007-08.
The 1991 series in the WI was closer than the result would show. The Aussies utterly dominated the ODI series and essentially won two Tests (rained killed off their chances in the first), the WI won two and one was very even (again, rain-affected). Was a very close series but WI batted better overall, nothing in it with the bowling.
wickets are over rated. You get the ridiculously flat ones.. You also get the grass courts served up like NZ back in late 2002-early 2003 and sometimes you get dustbowls.. That is what variety is all about. Sure, it is ridiculously helpful for a spinner but the same is true in some pitches for fast bowlers and in most pitches for batsmen....... As long as it is not physically dangerous, get the hell on with playing cricket.......
The funny thing about that particular match is that the bookies clearly hadn't read the pitch report and had the draw at 5/4f. It did look borderline dangerous at times i thought, but as TT says no excuses for SA.wickets are over rated. You get the ridiculously flat ones.. You also get the grass courts served up like NZ back in late 2002-early 2003 and sometimes you get dustbowls.. That is what variety is all about. Sure, it is ridiculously helpful for a spinner but the same is true in some pitches for fast bowlers and in most pitches for batsmen....... As long as it is not physically dangerous, get the hell on with playing cricket.......
Complaining about pitches .........
Yes have the DVD at that series. The amount of times McDermott/Hughes went through the top order & then Dujon & the tail would wag, if Warne had arrived then Australia wold have definately won. The windies pacers won that series for them.
There is no way Australia didn't deserve to lose in Sri Lanka in 1999/2000. Sri Lanka completely outplayed them. Even if they were fortunate that Australia ended-up with nine men in the First Test which they won, they dominated the Second before being denied by rain, then were saved by rain in the Third (which would've been a dead game had the Second not been disrupted).
It's a fascinating series that, and while it was closer than 2-0, I still think West Indies had as good a chance of victory in the First Test as Australia did. Obviously Australia were patently denied in the other rain-affected game, think it was the Third? I'd like to think that West Indies would've won the First Test TBH, though of course we'll never know. In the end Australia's only actual victory was in a dead game - who knows how different that might've been had it been live.
As I say, Australia's victory in 1995 was almost as unconvincing to me as West Indies' in 1992/93 - which you yourself said not long ago should've been a 2-2 draw and was a sincere miscarriage of justice.
Nah, no way. Donald always was up with the best seamers around and often THE best, and even if there wasn't anyone else who was World XI material, they had a virtual full hand of good, Test-class players (Hudson, Kirsten, Wessels, Cronje, Rhodes, McMillan, Matthews, PS de Villiers, Symcox). It'd be possible to argue that the side straight after readmission was SA's best since readmission.
It was worse, really. At least England were outdone by good bowlers who had excellent support that morning. The Aussies were even more ahead in the game before India came back and looked like surviving until being snuffed-out by a part-timer (SRT), albeit a pretty good bowler as far as part-timers go.
WI series was weird. The Aussies were unfortunate with the McDermott dismissal but he was out LBW several times before that point. Which, in some way, made up for all the LBW's they were denied in Brisbane which would have seen them go up in the series 2-0 going into the Sydney Test. if they had, maybe Lara wouldn't have made 277? Who knows?
Given Warne wasn't a Test-class bowler until 2 years after that series, I don't think "if Warne had arrived" is something you can "if" on. You might as well say if Benaud had still been playing.
That SCG game would surely have been a draw even if Lara hadn't made that 277 though? And Lara being Lara, and given that most people said that was his best innings of all, I'd never want to imagine the series scoreline would've stopped him playing well.
Like I said, the main bowlers (Donald, DeVillers) were excellent. The back-up (Matthews/Snell/McMillan) were solid. None of the batters were brilliant, though. Test-class, sure but none of them were going to win matches off their own bat. Lacked that touch of brilliance, even Gary Kirsten. Don't think any of them averaged over 45 in Tests? Any side where Jonty is batting at 6 in their Test side is struggling for numbers.....
Not so simple. Lara started off struggling in that knock, like everyone else did. They lost both openers early and the ball was zipping everywhere. Then it rained some more, the ball got water-logged and the movement went south. Suddenly, it was a very, very slow deck. Lara, like most of the WI players, fed off the fact they were doing well in the ODI's, no coincidence their form in both forms of the game coincided. Lara, after his initial struggles, fed off the form of Richardson, who had played well in the series to that point. Was pretty clear Ritchie guided him fairly strongly towards his ton. Once he got there, the genius Lara came out and started playing his shots and Ritchie just played around him.