What is wrong with doctoring of pitch ?

[trundler]

I, for one, desperately want my board to doctor pitches that gives them the best chance of winning instead of preparing putrid roads.

 

[CricAddict]

Like someone said earlier, this poll needs more options which I think even those who voted yes will agree.

If pitch doctoring means terrible viewing and not awarding good cricket or danger to players, then answer is No.
If pitch doctoring means getting the pitch to favor spin/pace relative to the home team's strengths and at the same time awarding good cricket, then answer is Yes.

 

[Senile Sentry]

NZ isn’t our kryptonite . Swing is .
We have forgotten how to play moving ball completely.

The two are more or less synonymous these days. We sort of did very well in Eng in 2021.

 

[Shri]

If cheating to win gets your rocks off, go for your life.

which is better? sandpaper followed by losing anyway or winning on a turner?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

This thread has turned to absolute shite. Just some really petty point-scoring **** that is a perfect demonstration of why Off Topic subforum is superior.

EDIT: And it's a shame, as there's a real topic of conversation here.

I was going to add (and I will anyway) that a lot of this can be managed by the current pitch assessment, but perhaps with a little tightening up. Let's not forget that the MCG was given penalty points for putting up a couple of poorly prepared wickets, so with a little adjustment to the criteria of what meets a 'poor' or underperforming wicket then I suspect all comers should be satisfied.

But perhaps that can be lost in all the flag-waving bullshit.

 

[Socerer 01]

i don’t see anything wrong with the last test pitch so why are Aussies moaning?

 

[Victor Ian]

i don’t see anything wrong with the last test pitch so why are Aussies moaning?

I'll have a go. No one is moaning about the pitch. The moaning is about the concept of preparing such a doctored pitch. For all we know, the pitch was doctored as ****, but Australia was so **** that it was never apparent, and the only moaning is about how abjectly poor Australia was. But no one moaned about the pitch (that matters) - just the concept. It is ludicrous to think that such an action is OK. That is flat out against the spirit of cricket. I think it was probably more mind games - the curators just prepared a normal pitch, but made sure those photos got out to get into the heads of the opposition. This is actually worse. Remember when everyone hated Waugh's team for playing mind games. Well...

 

[TheJediBrah]

i don’t see anything wrong with the last test pitch so why are Aussies moaning?

They're not. Don't look at a few outliers and think it's an accurate representation

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'll have a go. No one is moaning about the pitch. The moaning is about the concept of preparing such a doctored pitch. For all we know, the pitch was doctored as ****, but Australia was so **** that it was never apparent, and the only moaning is about how abjectly poor Australia was. But no one moaned about the pitch (that matters) - just the concept. It is ludicrous to think that such an action is OK. That is flat out against the spirit of cricket. I think it was probably more mind games - the curators just prepared a normal pitch, but made sure those photos got out to get into the heads of the opposition. This is actually worse. Remember when everyone hated Waugh's team for playing mind games. Well...

Yeah exactly. It's not about the last test. We were shithouse and deserved to lose. Nothing was going to change that. Like all pictures that get out early about what a pitch is like, it's often not a clear indicator of what it's going to play like. It looked dodgy in isolation, but if it actually was, we never stayed in long enough to find out. Maybe those areas would have cracked/broken up quicker on day 4 and 5, but we'll have to ask if anyone actually played on it on those days, because we didn't.

This is one topic (amongst many) that there'll never be an agreement on. One side thinks saying something stupid to opposition players as part of some form of 'mental disintegration' is one of the worst things you can do, but ****ing around with the pitch is ok. The other thinks the exact opposite.

To be fair, both are pretty ****.

 

[duffer]

New pitch idea: grow weed on it and then burn it off during the match.

I'm a procurement expert if they need help

 

[Senile Sentry]

I'll have a go. No one is moaning about the pitch. The moaning is about the concept of preparing such a doctored pitch. For all we know, the pitch was doctored as ****, but Australia was so **** that it was never apparent, and the only moaning is about how abjectly poor Australia was. But no one moaned about the pitch (that matters) - just the concept. It is ludicrous to think that such an action is OK. That is flat out against the spirit of cricket. I think it was probably more mind games - the curators just prepared a normal pitch, but made sure those photos got out to get into the heads of the opposition. This is actually worse. Remember when everyone hated Waugh's team for playing mind games. Well...

How do one standardize pitch making without sacrificing the individuality of pitches is the difficult question. The ridiculous accusations of pitch doctoring in this scenario just looking at some photos betray the pitfalls associated with this argument.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How do one standardize pitch making without sacrificing the individuality of pitches is the difficult question. The ridiculous accusations of pitch doctoring in this scenario just looking at some photos betray the pitfalls associated with this argument.

You absolutely shouldn't be standardising the pitches in my opinion. Pitches should be a reflection of the local conditions. To me, 'pitch doctoring' is obviously altering the way a pitch usually plays.

 

[Socerer 01]

I'll have a go. No one is moaning about the pitch. The moaning is about the concept of preparing such a doctored pitch. For all we know, the pitch was doctored as ****, but Australia was so **** that it was never apparent, and the only moaning is about how abjectly poor Australia was. But no one moaned about the pitch (that matters) - just the concept. It is ludicrous to think that such an action is OK. That is flat out against the spirit of cricket. I think it was probably more mind games - the curators just prepared a normal pitch, but made sure those photos got out to get into the heads of the opposition. This is actually worse. Remember when everyone hated Waugh's team for playing mind games. Well...

i thought this was an ironic post

the pitch wasn’t even as spin heavy as the ones in the England series. if the pitch was doctored to be bad then India wouldn’t be making 400. heck you’d have a collapse with how poor Indian batsmen are against spin with the exception of very few

Bharat Sundaresan was the one who first got the pics out and he works in Australia for Cricbuzz as far as I know so no.. the curators didn’t “leak” photos out to him to play mind games.. that sounds quite preposterous tbf

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think it was probably more mind games - the curators just prepared a normal pitch, but made sure those photos got out to get into the heads of the opposition.

Lmao what? Source needed. I doubt they're actually that clever.

Imo, the pitch may have played more tricks to the left handers if it'd got to day 4/5 but thankfully Australia were gracious enough to lose before it happened.

 

[Xix2565]

Think it's utter nonsense to even bring up volatile terms like doctoring as if there's a universal baseline for a pitch that exists in all countries. Also not very interesting to imply every curator who creates a pitch you don't like the look off is basically a minion in the grand scheme of cheating the opposition out of the contest.

 

[Victor Ian]

How do one standardize pitch making without sacrificing the individuality of pitches is the difficult question. The ridiculous accusations of pitch doctoring in this scenario just looking at some photos betray the pitfalls associated with this argument.

See. That's just dodging the question. It's a hypothetical. How should a pitch be prepared. I'm of the school of thought that it should be consistent. If you change what it usually is to benefit the home team, that's dodgy. If Australia served up 5 Perth pitches in a season that would not be ok. Further, the goal should be to make the pitch itself consistent. Wear and tear will vary it through a game, but imagine if Australia dished up Perth mid 80s at one end and Brisbane 22 at the other end. That's just being a wanker. Making left and right different is wrong. I don't think pitches should be made to enhance a teams advantages. If a pitch is regularly Dr jeckle through a first class season it shouldn't become mr Hyde when a team unfamiliar with the conditions arrive. There is no need either. The advantage is already there.
These are hypotheticals. There are limits. Natural variations are fine. Tailor made variations are not. That is just being bad hosts.

 

[Socerer 01]

See. That's just dodging the question. It's a hypothetical. How should a pitch be prepared. I'm of the school of thought that it should be consistent. If you change what it usually is to benefit the home team, that's dodgy. If Australia served up 5 Perth pitches in a season that would not be ok. Further, the goal should be to make the pitch itself consistent. Wear and tear will vary it through a game, but imagine if Australia dished up Perth mid 80s at one end and Brisbane 22 at the other end. That's just being a wanker. Making left and right different is wrong. I don't think pitches should be made to enhance a teams advantages. If a pitch is regularly Dr jeckle through a first class season it shouldn't become mr Hyde when a team unfamiliar with the conditions arrive. There is no need either. The advantage is already there.
These are hypotheticals. There are limits. Natural variations are fine. Tailor made variations are not. That is just being bad hosts.

was left and right actually different though? from the match unfolding it wasn’t

 

[Son Of Coco]

Think it's utter nonsense to even bring up volatile terms like doctoring as if there's a universal baseline for a pitch that exists in all countries. Also not very interesting to imply every curator who creates a pitch you don't like the look off is basically a minion in the grand scheme of cheating the opposition out of the contest.

'Pitch doctoring' doesn't refer to a universal baseline (ok...it does when teams complain that a pitch has been 'doctored', and they simply mean it was the type of pitch they always struggle on). It refers to the baseline for a particular pitch and a perceivable shift away from that baseline that doesn't have any grounds in any other factor apart from curator interference.

 

[Xix2565]

If you change what it usually is to benefit the home team

The problem with this claim against current India is that India has played and won in all kinds of conditions at home as far as variety goes there. So is it really 'doctoring' if regardless of what happens the home team wins 9.5 times out of 10? If you don't have the bowlers to compete with then any change is going to seem like some sort of unfair intervention by nefarious curators to help the home side win.

 

[Xix2565]

'Pitch doctoring' doesn't refer to a universal baseline (ok...it does when teams complain that a pitch has been 'doctored', and they simply mean it was the type of pitch they always struggle on). It refers to the baseline for a particular pitch and a perceivable shift away from that baseline that doesn't have any grounds in any other factor apart from curator interference.

If that's what you mean then India is probably the last place to have a whinge about this.