What makes a good test pitch?

[Spark]

Also with flippers, part of their magic is that they aren't actually nearly as short as the batsmen expects, so it's wrong to characterise those as genuine short pitched bowling either.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh flippers are for sure.. You expect a long hop and it goes under your bat. But that is a function of the bowler's skill. When the ball doesn't get off the pitch when you bowled a off break, it is a bit different, no?

[quoting doesn't work for me for some reason] Yeah I'll make an exception for those, but no one playing in Nagpur could bowl them. In fact I'm pretty sure the only player in world cricket atm who I've seen bowl a legitimately dangerous genuine flipper is TPC.

Yeah wasn't talking about any pitch in particular. Point was that there are a few legit short ball tactics for spinners as well.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I'm going to drop it for now because this is clearly one theory I'm alone on.

I still maintain putting massive revs on the ball is just as hard as bowling 140. They're both equally rare skills.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also with flippers, part of their magic is that they aren't actually nearly as short as the batsmen expects, so it's wrong to characterise those as genuine short pitched bowling either.

On pitches with uneven bounce, the flipper becomes even deadlier because it actually is shorter than a normal flipper but still rushes through just the same without getting up. Makes it even more deceptive. Kumble killed so many batsmen with it I can't even count.

 

[Spark]

They really aren't though? Simply putting massive revs on the ball is really easy if you have reasonably strong fingers/wrists and a half-decent bowling action.

Putting massive revs on the ball whilst getting it to land on the pitch, on the other hand...

 

[wellAlbidarned]

yeah i'm done

you liar

Yeah I'm gonna take back that comment about bowling 140kph vs putting high revs on the ball. Both are hard. But that's really not what's being argued here at all.

 

[Spark]

On pitches with uneven bounce, the flipper becomes even deadlier because it actually is shorter than a normal flipper but still rushes through just the same without getting up. Makes it even more deceptive. Kumble killed so many batsmen with it I can't even count.

Did Kumble bowl a genuine flipper though? IIRC those were really just fast, shot-through leggies which rushed onto the batsman before he could react, more akin to Warne's slider than his genuine flipper which he flicked out of the front of the hand.

https://youtu.be/0yJXQj7rdw8?t=194 This is more what I mean. Compare the shot played to where the ball pitches.

 

[cnerd123]

They really aren't though? Simply putting massive revs on the ball is really easy if you have reasonably strong fingers/wrists and a half-decent bowling action.

Putting massive revs on the ball whilst getting it to land on the pitch, on the other hand...

Well obviously the ability to spin the ball massively is of no use if it's going to land at cover point.

People underestimate the physical characteristics needed to bowl spin to. Murali was a freak of nature, Warne ruined a generation of legspinners since most of the kids trying to emulate his action lacked the necessary shoulder and wrist strength to pull it off. Lyon and Swann have massive hands; and they're not even big spinners of the ball comparatively speaking.

 

[cnerd123]

you liar

Yeah I'm gonna take back that comment about bowling 140kph vs putting high revs on the ball. Both are hard. But that's really not what's being argued here at all.

You said short spin bowling being effective is bad for cricket because short spin bowling is easy

Hence the debate

 

[Spark]

Well obviously the ability to spin the ball massively is of no use if it's going to land at cover point.

People underestimate the physical characteristics needed to bowl spin to. Murali was a freak of nature, Warne ruined a generation of legspinners since most of the kids trying to emulate his action lacked the necessary shoulder and wrist strength to pull it off. Lyon and Swann have massive hands; and they're not even big spinners of the ball comparatively speaking.

Yeah but that's kind of the point; you're arguing here that pitches that reward simply spinning the ball hard without needing to worry about accuracy (hence the short pitched stuff) is completely equivalent to regular bouncy decks, which is just strange. I mean I am exaggerating with the whole landing on the pitch thing--what usually happens (or at least what happened to me) is that if you tried to spin the ball too hard, you'd get plenty of revs but you'd drag it way down. Hence why short-pitched spin bowling is "easy".

By the way, you are comparing two wrist-spinners to two finger-spinners there, so...

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You said short spin bowling being effective is bad for cricket because short spin bowling is easy

Hence the debate

yes, short spin bowling is infinitely easier that accurate spin bowling. Any spinner is gonna put more revs on it if they don't have to worry about length control.

 

[indiaholic]

yes, short spin bowling is infinitely easier that accurate spin bowling. Any spinner is gonna put more revs on it if they don't have to worry about length control.

I think *****'s argument is that we are prepared to give pitches that have a greater margin of error to fast bowlers than slow bowlers, the status of being a"good pitch". Which in his view is wrong.

 

[indiaholic]

So maybe not about the relative difficulty of the two skills but our notions of goodness making one skill harder than it should be.

 

[Spark]

I think *****'s argument is that we are prepared to give pitches that have a greater margin of error to fast bowlers than slow bowlers, the status of being a"good pitch". Which in his view is wrong.

That argument is fine, but the way he's presenting it is super odd.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah but that's kind of the point; you're arguing here that pitches that reward simply spinning the ball hard without needing to worry about accuracy (hence the short pitched stuff) is completely equivalent to regular bouncy decks, which is just strange.

By the way, you are comparing two wrist-spinners to two finger-spinners there, so...

Needed examples of big-spinning wrist and finger spinners to illustrate the kind of physical characteristics needed to be able to do it. Lyon and Swann and their massive hands were the first to come to mine.

An erratic fast bowler can be a threat on a bouncy wicket. He can get the odd ball to lift up and dismiss a batsman and thats considered just fine.

An erratic high rev spinner can be a dangerous bowler on a Nagpur style pitch. Mishra for example. I don't think its a bad pitch if one of his short balls rears up/shoots through and takes a wicket, because he needs to put a whole lot of revs behind the ball in order to extract that kind of behaviour.

If a wicket where a quick bowler is able to threaten with the short ball is good, why not a wicket where a spinner can threaten with the short ball?

I don't see whats wrong with that.

 

[cnerd123]

yes, short spin bowling is infinitely easier that accurate spin bowling. Any spinner is gonna put more revs on it if they don't have to worry about length control.

Yea the same could be said for fast bowlers.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yea the same could be said for fast bowlers.

Yeah and fast bowlers who can't control their lengths generally get tonked.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah and fast bowlers who can't control their lengths generally get tonked.

So do spinners. It's the nature of the pitch that increases the margin of acceptable error.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah and fast bowlers who can't control their lengths generally get tonked.

Same with spinners.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Same with spinners.

Exactly.