***Official*** West Indies in India

[viktor]

^^ I tend to agree. I didn't watch the Indian innings but in WI innings some of the shots Chanderpaul played could have come off only on such a flat track, especially some of his hoicks/ pulls to leg..just pick the ball of a length and pow!!

 

[Dravid]

I was really mad at Sreesanth this match. He dropped the easiest catch ever when Shiv was on the early 100s, and the next over gave away around 20 runs I think

 

[Pratters]

Wasim Akram is a once in a lifetime bowler though. As in, Pakistan would do exceptionally well to find a bowler as great in my lifetime. It's also worth noting that Wasim retired in 2003 and flat wickets have gotten even flatter since then, as evidenced by the Aus-NZ series a year and some back and the Aus-SA epic.

The fact is that even very good bowlers get tonked on very dead pitches. And there are a lot of very dead pitches in the world today. Taking wickets in ODI cricket on those pitches is more down to using the new ball and the batsmen playing poor shots than to bowling superbly. There's only so much you can do on an easy pitch with no seam movement and with no reverse swing about. Line and length? Predictable. Bang.

Not easy to take wickets on flatter wickets which is why it becomes all the more significant when some one can manage to do it. Most cannot. Just as a brilliant batting performance might be the difference between two sides on a bolwer friendly wicket or a low scoring game (Michael Hussey for instance in a game 3 days back), a brilliant bowling spell can be the difference on a batsman dominated wicket. Your point of how often it happens is very legitimate. Teams cannot do it in every match but if they have a bowling attack which can do it on occasions, it can make all the difference towards a world cup victory. At large bowling sides do become much less potent on flatter wickets though as you say..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Although technically he should have been out, I'd say Chanders played well enough that he deserved a not out.

52*
8
51
13
57*
27
60
101
149

What a run of form.

Career average of 44.44 opening the batting in ODIs. He passes fifty on average once every 3 innings. That's better than Adam Gilchrist and Chris Gayle. In 128 innings not opening, Chanders has never scored a hundred. In 66 opening, he has 5. At that rate he would have almost 20 if he opened as many times as Tendulkar.

Furthermore, he averages 57.88 in his last 22 ODI innings, with 2 hundreds and 8 fifties. Chanderpaul would walk into a World XI right now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not easy to take wickets on flatter wickets which is why it becomes all the more significant when some one can manage to do it. Most cannot. Just as a brilliant batting performance might be the difference between two sides on a bolwer friendly wicket or a low scoring game (Michael Hussey for instance in a game 3 days back), a brilliant bowling spell can be the difference on a batsman dominated wicket.

You can't compare batting against quality bowlers on a bowler-friendly wicket to bowling against quality batsmen on a dead wicket. In terms of batting in the former conditions, a lot of thing come into play - field placings, fielding, luck - and no bowler is going to rattle off over after over of superb deliveries. And even superb deliveries don't always take wickets, even if the batting isn't anything special.

In terms of bowling in the latter conditions, there's only so much you can do with the ball, regardless of how good a bowler you are. Bar ball tampering, there are some pitches where even top class bowlers are going to get hit.

I'm not saying that it's not easy to take wickets on some of the surfaces around these days. I'm saying that it's damn near impossible for bowlers to produce wicket-taking balls on some of the surfaces around. As I've said twice before, there's only so much a bowler can do with a ball to take a wicket.

 

[Pratters]

I compared to show both aspects can make all the difference and not regarding the difficulty aspect. As I said earlier,

Teams cannot do it in every match but if they have a bowling attack which can do it on occasions, it can make all the difference.

This is exactly why Pakistan might be a very dangerous side in this world cup for me for example.

 

[adharcric]

That was one of the most exciting one day games. I didn't watch the game but this can't be any where close to that game (which I know you are not saying). The Chanders inning may have reminded you of that game.

I'd have to agree. This was an exciting match but very few compare to that match.
I can still remember six required off the last ball and Moin Khan skying it to Zaheer with Miandad's antics in the background.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I compared to show both aspects can make all the difference and not regarding the difficulty aspect. As I said earlier,

Teams cannot do it in every match but if they have a bowling attack which can do it on occasions, it can make all the difference.

This is exactly why Pakistan might be a very dangerous side in this world cup for me for example.

Are you reading my posts?

My point is that bowlers are human beings and human beings can only do so many things with a cricket ball within the laws of the game (and indeed common decency). There are pitches in the world today that bowling wicket-taking deliveries just is not a realistic option, regardless of the quality of bowler. I've seen some pitches that I'm certain even Malcolm Marshall would have done enough for an MBE if he could produce just one wicket-taking delivery. It's an indictment of the way that the game is so weighted toward batsmen these days, more than anything else.

 

[gunner]

cant believe i missed this match

but then again i wouldnt lose sleep over a cricket match not involving pakistan cos it started at 3am here

 

[Pratters]

Well, the pitches are not that flat according to me where most flat wickets are concerned. This thread by Laurz showed a stat regarding teams not being able to score more than 300 when McGrath has been playing for Australia in recent times for example v when he was not playing. I would imagine McGrath would have been taking wickets as well in the matches he played and if teams are not scoring more than 300 that often, it does mean a bowler is making a difference even on the flattest of pitches.

Now you can say that McGrath is a once in a life time bowler as well but I am sure that if you bring up stats for other bowlers like Murali or Bond or Akhtar for example, they would have admirable stats as well even on flatter wickets. Even on wickets where bowlers can do very little, because the batsmen are looking to make runs as opposed to test matches where batsmen have all the time, a quality bowler/bowling attack can take wickets and make the crucial difference.

I stand by my point..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How many times has McGrath played on a truly flat pitch in recent times though? When I say flat, I mean like Aus-v-SA-05 flat or WI-v-Ind-07 flat or NZ-v-Aus-05 flat.

You're yet to explain what a bowler can do to get wickets on a pitch of easy pace, easy bounce, no seam movement and no reverse swing about. And there have been pitches and conditions such as that on occasion in recent times. So by all means stand by your point, but answer my question. How would McGrath take wickets in those conditions?

This pitch was being called a bowler's nightmare well before a ball was bowled on it.

 

[JaiMurugan]

Was hoping to see Uthappa or JOginder

 

[Jono]

Although technically he should have been out, I'd say Chanders played well enough that he deserved a not out.

52*
8
51
13
57*
27
60
101
149

What a run of form.

Career average of 44.44 opening the batting in ODIs. He passes fifty on average once every 3 innings. That's better than Adam Gilchrist and Chris Gayle. In 128 innings not opening, Chanders has never scored a hundred. In 66 opening, he has 5. At that rate he would have almost 20 if he opened as many times as Tendulkar.

Furthermore, he averages 57.88 in his last 22 ODI innings, with 2 hundreds and 8 fifties. Chanderpaul would walk into a World XI right now.

I was honestly going to ask this before the match, more to do with Gayle's incredibly brilliant batting over the last year mind you, but does the WI have the best ODI opening partnership in world cricket? I'd say yes. Both Gayle and Chanders have experience, big hitting, ability to play long innings, good to very good techniques (put into context with the tracks ODI cricket is generally played on) and excellent chemistry when they bat.

 

[adharcric]

Now that Gilly-Hayden has fallen apart, they certainly are the best.

 

[Pratters]

Liam, I am not sure how many times McGrath has played on a flat wicket in recent times and if you say he hasn't and thus hasn't taken wickets or on those lines, I trust you on that. I am not going to seek out to show stats to prove the point that bowlers can take wickets and make all the difference on flat pitches.

I hope you don't take it other wise and thanks for the debate.

Regards.

 

[Jono]

I think when you bowl on a mega flat wicket (not your general 280-300 chases, but as Liam pointed out, stuff like Ind vs. Pak 04, NZ vs. SA 05, Aus vs. SA 05 and of course Ind vs. WI 07) the new ball becomes imperative. Its almost impossible to rip out int'l quality batsman when the ball is absolutely doing nothing in the middle overs, it generally requires a bad shot (often due to the batsman having to over-attack because he's chasing a large target) or terrific piece of fielding. The odd slower ball or bouncer may induce a wicket, but not too often.

Hence when the new white pill is swinging a bit, its almost vital that you snag a wicket or two. I mean the game may have been different had Sachin held the slips catch off Sreesanth's bowling when Gayle edged one. Sometimes even that isn't enough (see Dipenaar's wicket in the SA vs. Aus 434 chase), and if that occurs, spinners (whether flight bowlers or darts) become a very useful commodity.

Obviously a McGrath or Pollock are harder to get away on the mega flat tracks than a Bradshaw or Sreesanth or Lee, for various reasons (ability, experience, aura of the bowler) but I do think Liam made an interesting point. McGrath hasn't bowled on any of the mega flat tracks that have popped up in ODI cricket over the last 4-5 years. He wouldn't go for Mick Lewis figures I'd say, simply because of who it is, but if Murali can go for 99 runs in a ODI, any bowler can.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I never asked for stats, Pratyush. I asked for an answer based on common sense and knowledge of the sport. What can a bowler do on such pitches?

 

[JustTool]

The Tendulkar Mystery

The Tendulkar Mystery

http://www.cricketnext.com/blogs/sanjayjha/652/22759/the-tendulkar-mystery.html

 

[Fusion]

The Tendulkar Mystery

http://www.cricketnext.com/blogs/sanjayjha/652/22759/the-tendulkar-mystery.html

Just out of curiousity, are all 620 of your posts about bashing Tendulkar? I'm thinking it's time to get another habit really...

 

[Prince EWS]

I never asked for stats, Pratyush. I asked for an answer based on common sense and knowledge of the sport. What can a bowler do on such pitches?

While genuinely beating the batsman's defences may be completely out of the question on some pitches, the fact that the pitches are so flat means that the batsmen will take greater risk in order to score more quickly and build larger and larger scores. Hence, the bowlers can dismiss them by outfoxing them or simply bowling in areas which are harder to score from, forcing false shots.

Good ODI bowlers will be able to do this while poor ODI bowlers won't have the control, experience or cricketing minds to do it. Attributes of genuine bowling talent such as swing, seam and carry became far less important and are neutralised throughout the bowlers, however the ability to out-think the batsman, and the attribute of accurate bowling, become far more important.

Even on the flattest of pitches, you will see a contest between bat and ball, as one side attempts to out-bat the other and hence take greater risks against the bowling. It is possible to be a genuinely good bowler on these pitches - we just don't see it as clearly because the ingredients of a good bowler change significantly from the physical and practical to the mental. The challenge of selectors in the modern era of ODIs is to identify which bowlers are able to display the accuracy along with, most importantly, mental composure and cricket naus, to prosper in such conditions.