Test Cricket - Information

[FaaipDeOiad]

Do you think, Richard, you could keep your psychotic ideas for a thread which isn't somebody new to the game asking serious questions?

Stefano, teams winning the toss usually bat first, particularly in test matches. In tests, batting first usually allows you to utilise the best of the batting conditions, as the pitch is likely to deteriorate as the match draws on, with spinners in particular often becoming most effective on the fourth and fifth days of a test match as the pitch wears down from use. It also allows you to set the tone of the match by getting a score on the board anf building pressure on the opposition. Usually a team will only elect to bowl if conditions are particularly conducive to bowling and they believe they can dismiss the opposition cheaply and put themselves on the front foot. This could be, for example, if there is a noticable amount of grass on the wicket to assist the seam bowlers, or if the overhead conditions are overcast and suited to swing bowling.

In ODIs it is a bit more varied, and depends somewhat on the philosophy of the captains and the teams involved. Some teams (for example Australia currently) will usually bat first, having confidence in their ability to set a target and defend it, while others prefer to chase. Sometimes the conditions have an impact as well... in certain situations the ball swings more in the evening, meaning that in day night matches teams might like to bat first. Conditions are also hotter in the day, increasing the difficulties faced by a side fielding and bowling in the heat, while the team batting first will get to do so in cooler temperatures.

Generally speaking, batting first is most common in either format, but to a much larger degree in tests.

 

[C_C]

Well to be honest, whether you bat first or bowl first has a lot to do with your evaluation of the pitch and a historical understanding of that locale.

Sometimes it is best to bat first, sometimes it is best to bat last.

Usually, the pitch deteriorates as the match progresses and a deteriorating pitch is hard to bat on, particularly against spinners, as a deteriorating pitch gives uneven bounce along with exgaggerated movement after pitching. Pacers who move the ball do well but pacers who depend heavily on bounce dont do so well - because usually you get the highest consistent bounce in the first day of the match.

In test cricket, the pitch deterioration factor is much more pronounced, as the pitch sees wear and tear almost five times as much as in one-day cricket.
In places like the subcontinent for example, it is usually a good idea to bat first- because initially, there is not much help from the pitch as far as deviation goes and the bounce is consistent. However, as the match progresses, the pitches crumble rapidly and thus spinners rule the day from the 4th day onwards.
On certain pitches, like WACA or some pitches in england for example, it is a good idea to bat second- since these pitches give extremely high bounce on the first few days( WACA) or exgaggerated movement ( some places in england) that makes life very hard for the players early on. But as the match progresses, the bounce becomes lower(albeit a bit less predictable) and movement becomes less pronounced and the team batting second has an easier time, since those pitches don't deteriorate enough to give spinners a huge advantage like they do in the subcontinent.

In ODI cricket, when it is a day match, it makes minimal difference on conditions, since the pitch doesnt deteriorate much and choosing to bat first or last has a lot to do with the individual strategies of the teams concerned.

If it is a day-night venture, when the team batting second bats under the floodlights, there are pros and cons which you have to work out.
In most locales, as night sets in, the dew becomes heavier and the ball becomes slippery to grip and control. As such, bowlers have a tougher time.
But playing under the floodlights, you get less light than during the day and the ball is harder to spot as well-making the batsmen's life tougher as well.
In venues such as Lahore or Kolkata, the dew is very heavy and the bowling side struggles more than the batting side
In other locales, the dew isnt so heavy and the bowling side does better.

There is ofcourse, team temperament and stragety in the play as well - for example, some teams, such as India, are usually strong at setting a target but not so good at chasing one. Teams like RSA in the late 90s for example, made their bread and butter chasing second.
I would say(this is an opinion, not a fact) that teams with poor bowling attacks have a tougher time defending the target unless they've batted extremely well, as the opposition batsmen have an easier time pacing their innings, as the bowling isnt too hot and they have an exact target to chase(as opposed to setting a target, where you are simply aiming for as much runs as possible).. For a team with good bowling attack, bowling first or bowling second makes minimal difference.

 

[Richard]

Do you think, Richard, you could keep your psychotic ideas for a thread which isn't somebody new to the game asking serious questions?

So... please explain how anything I said in that post was psychotic?

 

[vic_orthdox]

So... please explain how anything I said in that post was psychotic?

...

As for the advantages of batting\fielding, the advantages of batting first are very, very few and far between

On the assumption that your talking about both forms of the game...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

...


On the assumption that your talking about both forms of the game...

Indeed.

 

[Richard]

Well that's a rather strange assumption given that the entire post was talking about the one-day game.
In Test-matches, obviously, it's usually going to be 50\50 depending on such factors as immidiate conditions, amount conditions are going to change and strengths of relative teams.

 

[Richard]

Stefano, teams winning the toss usually bat first, particularly in test matches. In tests, batting first usually allows you to utilise the best of the batting conditions, as the pitch is likely to deteriorate as the match draws on, with spinners in particular often becoming most effective on the fourth and fifth days of a test match as the pitch wears down from use.

Tha happens very, very rarely these days - these days a pitch either helps spin or it doesn't. Pitches that go from non-turners to turners are exceptionally rare.
Nor, in the last 3 years, have conditions often got significantly worse for batting as the match wears on.

Generally speaking, batting first is most common in either format, but to a much larger degree in tests.

No, of late (as it was earlier on, but changed for some unaccountable reason pretty much throughout the 80s and 90s) most teams have had a definate preference for batting second (Australia are obviously an exception given that they're likely to win equally whatever they do).

 

[archie mac]

No, of late (as it was earlier on, but changed for some unaccountable reason pretty much throughout the 80s and 90s) most teams have had a definate preference for batting second (Australia are obviously an exception given that they're likely to win equally whatever they do).

Vic Richardson gave his grandson Chappelli some advice when he became captain of Aust. "If you win the toss 9 out of 10 times bat, on the other occasion when you think you should bowl; bat!" (not and excact quote)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Vic Richardson gave his grandson Chappelli some advice when he became captain of Aust. "If you win the toss 9 out of 10 times bat, on the other occasion when you think you should bowl; bat!" (not and excact quote)

Yeah, great quote.

 

[C_C]

Stefano- a disclaimer for you.

As some folks have already expressed, owing to your beginner's status in cricket, disregard all notions pertaining to cricket bandied around by Richard.
Its not that he is talking tripe all the time, its just that he talks tripe most of the time and for a newcommer to the game's fundamentals, you are ill equipped to make that determination and should you listen to his notions, you stand a good chance for hopelessly confusing yourself or formenting a wrong notion regarding cricket.
Regards.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Stefano- a disclaimer for you.

As some folks have already expressed, owing to your beginner's status in cricket, disregard all notions pertaining to cricket bandied around by Richard.
Its not that he is talking tripe all the time, its just that he talks tripe most of the time and for a newcommer to the game's fundamentals, you are ill equipped to make that determination and should you listen to his notions, you stand a good chance for hopelessly confusing yourself or formenting a wrong notion regarding cricket.
Regards.

 

[Richard]

Vic Richardson gave his grandson Chappelli some advice when he became captain of Aust. "If you win the toss 9 out of 10 times bat, on the other occasion when you think you should bowl; bat!" (not and excact quote)

Exactly, which sums-up Richardson's time very well.
An even better one was the WG Grace quote: "If it looks like a good pitch, I bat. If it looks like there might be something for the bowlers I think for a bit... then I bat. If it looks like there's a lot in it for the bowlers I think a bit longer... then I bat."
But since the days of completely covered pitches that theorem is no longer prudent or wise.
There are many occasions where to bat first is a bad decision.
Perhaps most often, though, it's not really particularly significant - you've got equal opportunities as long as you bat and bowl well.

 

[Richard]

Stefano- a disclaimer for you.

As some folks have already expressed, owing to your beginner's status in cricket, disregard all notions pertaining to cricket bandied around by Richard.
Its not that he is talking tripe all the time, its just that he talks tripe most of the time and for a newcommer to the game's fundamentals, you are ill equipped to make that determination and should you listen to his notions, you stand a good chance for hopelessly confusing yourself or formenting a wrong notion regarding cricket.
Regards.

Shame you're one of a very small number who think that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Exactly, which sums-up Richardson's time very well.
An even better one was the WG Grace quote: "If it looks like a good pitch, I bat. If it looks like there might be something for the bowlers I think for a bit... then I bat. If it looks like there's a lot in it for the bowlers I think a bit longer... then I bat."
But since the days of completely covered pitches that theorem is no longer prudent or wise.
There are many occasions where to bat first is a bad decision.
Perhaps most often, though, it's not really particularly significant - you've got equal opportunities as long as you bat and bowl well.

Feel free to correct me, my knowledge on pre-cover conventions of cricket is not all that strong. But I would have thought that the introduction of covers would have reduced the number of sticky wickets, which are notoriously hard to bat on, and you would prefer to be bowling first on a wicket of this type, in the knowledge that the wicket will dry out and become easier to bat on.

Although (and I do a wonderful job of arguing against myself) I guess that these wickets were also often a lot more likely to crumble and become hard to bat on last, in combination with all the dints left in the pitch by the ball, and massive footmarks. Anyways, feedback appreciated.

 

[Swervy]

Feel free to correct me, my knowledge on pre-cover conventions of cricket is not all that strong. But I would have thought that the introduction of covers would have reduced the number of sticky wickets, which are notoriously hard to bat on, and you would prefer to be bowling first on a wicket of this type, in the knowledge that the wicket will dry out and become easier to bat on.

Although (and I do a wonderful job of arguing against myself) I guess that these wickets were also often a lot more likely to crumble and become hard to bat on last, in combination with all the dints left in the pitch by the ball, and massive footmarks. Anyways, feedback appreciated.

I may be wrong...but I think pitches were allowed to be covered before a match started, but not whilst the match was on...I think!!!!

If that was the case, it would be the case that a sticky wicket (ie one which had got rained on, then the sun starts to dry it out) would only occur after a game had started. It was actually the drying out process that made the batting tougher

Anyway..as I say..I might be wrong about the covering the pitch before a game

How about this match to illustrate the effect of a sticky wicket.
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0327

 

[vic_orthdox]

But what I'm talking about is when covers weren't even invented. Weren't covers only first ever used sometime around the 1950s? Or was that when they were first used during matches?

 

[Swervy]

But what I'm talking about is when covers weren't even invented. Weren't covers only first ever used in somewhere around the 1950s? Or was that when they were first used during matches?

you have got me stumped there

best ask SJS, he can remember when cricket bats were curved

 

[marc71178]

Shame you're one of a very small number who think that.

A strange defintion of small you have.

 

[Swervy]

A strange defintion of small you have.

thats what my girlfriends say

 

[Richard]

Feel free to correct me, my knowledge on pre-cover conventions of cricket is not all that strong. But I would have thought that the introduction of covers would have reduced the number of sticky wickets, which are notoriously hard to bat on, and you would prefer to be bowling first on a wicket of this type, in the knowledge that the wicket will dry out and become easier to bat on.

Although (and I do a wonderful job of arguing against myself) I guess that these wickets were also often a lot more likely to crumble and become hard to bat on last, in combination with all the dints left in the pitch by the ball, and massive footmarks. Anyways, feedback appreciated.

That (the 2nd paragraph) is the general idea, and it's why in the pre-total-pitch-covering era (can't actually remember which year it was when covering was compulsary both overnight and during rain-breaks) batting first was almost always the most sensible idea.
Yes, covering eliminated stickies, but most wickets didn't start sticky, so it was about the only time you could be guranteed to know what you were batting on.