You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?

[Nishant]

i hate the fact that the next time india beat the aussies.....a lot of ppl will say its match fixing!

 

[open365]

Will We???

 

[Pratters]

i hate the fact that the next time india beat the aussies.....a lot of ppl will say its match fixing!

Let us keep the discussion to the short term. If we discuss long term futures, might as well start discussing who will be better, Murali's son or Warne's son.

 

[Richard]

Love yar optimism, P.

 

[Pratters]

Two points irked me there..

1) People don't usually say it is match fixing when India defeats Australia. I can't remember it happening.
2) The pathetic fashion in which we have performed, Indian fans should not be thinking of scenarios of post defeating Australia right now, more so when it is with cynicism.

 

[Nishant]

A complete lack of trust in the Indian team!


























Dont blame you!!!!!!!![/

 

[armchairumpire]

3 day Test matches grind my cricket gears no end, especially if it's not a terrible pitch..

No - 3.5 day Test matches are worse - especially when I have tickets for Day 4!

 

[Burgey]

What about when the tempo of a game changes, like when a wicket or two falls, or someone starts taking on the bowling and hits a few quick boundaries. Invariably, the commentaors like to say "It's game on".

Well, idiot, the game was never off!!! For God's sake, find something intelligent to say by way of analysis to tell us what, in your opinion, has caused the game to change. Don't fill my valuable and all too rare cricket-watching time with platitudinous drivel that the game is now on.

I mean, if the game hadn't been on beforehand, none of us would have been watching, we would have been watching World Series Classics while the players were off the field, wouldn't we? Or mowing the bloody lawn. Or having a pony while reading the Sunday paper.

And what about "This pitch looks like a belter". Then, when both sides seem to struggle on it, none of the commentators say that they were wrong in their assessments. Rather, they express their puzzlement at the manner of batsmen's dismissals on what they continue to say is a great deck, when it's pretty obvious to anyone who's watching that the ball isn't coming on, is keeping a bit low, etc. etc. I mean, it must still be a great deck, even if 5 or 6 of the best players in the world are struggling on it, right?

Modern bats **** me to tears as well. These blokes walk out with bloody Howitzers for bats and everyone marvels at how big they hit the ball. Give me a break!

The XXX mints scandal from the 05 Ashes series grinds my gears as well. I'm still yet to hear even a plausible denial by Jones, Flintoff et al, and based on England's lack of ability since then to even swing the new ball more than a nanometer, the story seems to have some foundation. I recall Jones' comment "Well, they'd do it too" - hardly a convincing rejoinder to the allegation.

Bowlers going off for a rest after they finish or before they start a spell. It's called a Test match - it's meant to test your endurance and stamina.

Home nations doctoring pitches. Appalling, frankly and they should be penalised for it.

Andre Nel carrying on like a complete prat while taking 1/275 against Australia and people saying "He's a great character and good for the game". A bemused Australian side watches on, safe in the knowledge that if one of them says one quick word to an opponent in between overs, or responds to Nel's idiotic ranting (like mine here) they will be labelled as the worst behaved side in cricket history.

The ICC - enough said.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hahaha, one of the best posts in CC history right there. I agree with every word.

 

[GIMH]

What annoys me is when commentators refer to a flat deck as a "great" pitch

 

[Richard]

The XXX mints scandal from the 05 Ashes series grinds my gears as well. I'm still yet to hear even a plausible denial by Jones, Flintoff et al, and based on England's lack of ability since then to even swing the new ball more than a nanometer, the story seems to have some foundation. I recall Jones' comment "Well, they'd do it too" - hardly a convincing rejoinder to the allegation.

Care to elaborate on how you'd ban mints from the cricket field? What makes you think the fielders haven't been sucking mints since then? They'd be mad if they didn't try it - and they have. The simple reason we've not seen so much swing (and we have seen some - I know, believe me, I've watched most of the Test-cricket since then) is that the ability of the bowlers is not there. And that - not mints - was the reason for the success in 2005. The skill of the bowlers. How the ball was manipulated into the right condition doesn't matter to me.

Home nations doctoring pitches. Appalling, frankly and they should be penalised for it.

How'd'you define "doctoring" pitches? AFAIC, it means illegal action to alter the pitch during the course of a match. Plenty of Australians seem to use it as a term to try and make the legitimate action of - gasp - preparing a pitch to suit your home side (it's called "home advantage"?) - into an illicit action. It ****s me that people try to make-out that anyone's doing anything wrong by using home advantage to play to their strengths.

 

[Dasa]

Yeah, agree with Richard regarding the point about "doctoring pitches". For one thing, the term implies cheating and that I don't agree with at all because both teams have to play on the same pitch. Also, I don't think sides pitches excessively favouring one side are produced much, if at all.

 

[Matt79]

I'd say: pitches of an unsatisfactory standard being prepared. And a satisfactory standard means that there is scope for a reasonable competition between bat and ball for at least some of the match, so no lifeless tracks that offer the bowler nothing from the off, and no tracks that an otherwise mediocre spinner becomes unplayable on from tea on day 1.

 

[Richard]

I certainly agree that you don't want many of the 500-plays-500 pitches, or the 2-day nothing-over-220 ones.

But every now and then a pitch like that is vital - you want everything and anything. Extreme ends only rarely - but not not at all.

 

[silentstriker]

From another thread, but Limited Overs Cricket:

I hate the limited overs format. I hate the idea of it, I hate the execution of it, I hate the the way it's played, I hate that players think it actually matters, I hate the fact that it has taken over the international scene at the detriment of real cricket, and I hate the fact that when a overblown, over hyped piece of ****e tournament like the World Cup rolls around, the real game takes a back seat.

 

[Burgey]

Care to elaborate on how you'd ban mints from the cricket field? What makes you think the fielders haven't been sucking mints since then? They'd be mad if they didn't try it - and they have. The simple reason we've not seen so much swing (and we have seen some - I know, believe me, I've watched most of the Test-cricket since then) is that the ability of the bowlers is not there. And that - not mints - was the reason for the success in 2005. The skill of the bowlers. How the ball was manipulated into the right condition doesn't matter to me.

How'd'you define "doctoring" pitches? AFAIC, it means illegal action to alter the pitch during the course of a match. Plenty of Australians seem to use it as a term to try and make the legitimate action of - gasp - preparing a pitch to suit your home side (it's called "home advantage"?) - into an illicit action. It ****s me that people try to make-out that anyone's doing anything wrong by using home advantage to play to their strengths.

I read last year that the governing bodies had actually banned that particular brand of mints from dressing rooms.

In relation to pitches, I was not using the term doctoring in the context of altering its state mid-match. Rather, tdeliberate under-preparing or over-preparing of pitches so that they are either minefields or complete bunsen burners. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it grinds my gears, which I thought was the point of the thread. Two examples which spring to my mind are Chennai when Australia last toured India - the pitch was a disgrace, and even by the standards of that square which usually turns big, was regarded by those who saw it as such; and the third test at Trinidad in 1995 which was way under-prepared when the Windies were 1-0 down inthe series and had to win.

 

[Richard]

I read last year that the governing bodies had actually banned that particular brand of mints from dressing rooms.

I'd love to hear how they plan on enforcing that ban? Do they propose mouth-police?

In relation to pitches, I was not using the term doctoring in the context of altering its state mid-match. Rather, tdeliberate under-preparing or over-preparing of pitches so that they are either minefields or complete bunsen burners. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does it grinds my gears, which I thought was the point of the thread. Two examples which spring to my mind are Chennai when Australia last toured India - the pitch was a disgrace, and even by the standards of that square which usually turns big, was regarded by those who saw it as such; and the third test at Trinidad in 1995 which was way under-prepared when the Windies were 1-0 down inthe series and had to win.

It's the point of this thread, yes, but that's not to say people can't discuss things like pitch preparation and why it grinds the gears. Me, I don't have a problem with any technique used to prepare a pitch, or (and this strikes me as being the most important thing) when it's done to favour the home side. If people want a turning pitch, it's up to them IMO. Do whatever you want to attain it. Who is to say when a pitch has been under- or over-prepared? Does that mean it's not been made as good for batting as it could have been? I'd just say that suggests it's not turned-out how the curator was aiming. If someone was aiming to produce a turner and succeeds, I'd not say they'd over-prepared it, I'd say they've got it spot on. They could have made it a better batting surface, but why would you want to do that if it's better for your home team to have a turner?

 

[Dasa]

Burgey, forgot to mention the 1st Test vs Sri Lanka in Darwin 2004?

 

[Richard]

Haha, TBF I don't think that was a case of deliberate preparation of seamer-friendly wickets, which seemed to be Cameron's central bone. IIRR there was massive trouble with rain around that time, meaning preparing a pitch was severely hampered. I think the groundsman was originally hoping for a more batsman-friendly surface.

 

[Dasa]

Haha, TBF I don't think that was a case of deliberate preparation of seamer-friendly wickets, which seemed to be Cameron's central bone. IIRR there was massive trouble with rain around that time, meaning preparing a pitch was severely hampered. I think the groundsman was originally hoping for a more batsman-friendly surface.

Just like with Mumbai (not Chennai) 2004. Anyway, I have about as much evidence that the Darwin 2004 was deliberately "under-prepared" as anyone else does about Mumbai or Trinidad, which is just about zero. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of his rant - it grinds my gears when people try to make out like Australia is the poor victim.