Mahela: Kotla wasn't a fair wicket for one-day cricket

Mahela Jayawardene sounded very reasonable, it until he told Cricinfo that his team and the Indian team thought that the Kotla pitch was not a fair wicket to play one-day cricket.

I wonder what his opinion was about the Rajkot pitch where 820 runs were scored across 100 overs. Was that a "fair" wicket for one-day cricket? I'm totally on Jarrod Kimber's side when he writes "If these batsmen want to come out with two inches of unprotected space on their bodies, then they can take whatever comes at them".

The ICC's monitoring process is bound to kick in now since the assumption seems to be that all low-scoring pitches are sub-standard.

The Feroz Shah Kotla could be banned from hosting internationals for at least a year, although it is likely that the punishment could be more lenient considering this was the first adverse report by the ICC for a game played at the venue. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that previous ICC feedback implied that the ground conditions were poor.

Of course there was a risk of physical injury for batsmen yesterday. Of course that isn't fair to batsmen. But life isn't fair either, and I'm assuming all cricketers and cricket fans do agree that cricket mirrors life, to a large extent.

Don't bowlers risk physical injury and permanent mental scarring when they run in (some morons run in nearly 25 metres each ball) pointlessly, especially on hot sultry days? They put in their maximum effort, hoping that the batsman would defend the ball near his chest, only to see that it ended up at his knees and the ball ended up over mid-wicket.

So, who is responsible for the Kotla ODI being abandoned?
	BCCI
	DDCA (Delhi & District Cricket Association)
	ICC
	IPL
	Batsmen-friendly rules and committees

Labels: bcci, ddca, delhi, farce, icc, india, pitch, sri lanka

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:10 pm | Sledge/Read 6 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC's cosmetic approach to the problem of poor pitches

Sambit Bal rightly argues that there were actually two pitch fiascos in the last fortnight - Antigua and Karachi.

It has been a constant argument on this blog that pitches that totally favour batsmen are as bad for cricket as pitches that totally favour bowlers. If a pitch that produces a result in 2 days is bad, a pitch that could potentially have the 3rd innings commence a week after the game started is also bad.

If the pitches in New Zealand on India's tour there in 2002/03, Wankhede (India v Australia 2004), Wanderers (South Africa v New Zealand 2006) and the various locations in the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy are not considered to be good pitches (because they aided bowlers excessively), the pitches at Lahore & Faisalabad (Pakistan v India 2006), Wanderers (South Africa v Australia 2006), Adelaide (Australia v India 2008), Chepauk (India v South Africa 2008) and Bangalore & in general during Australia's tour of India in 2008 are guilty of aiding batsmen excessively. I'm sure I've missed out on several other instances (across both types of wickets)

In 2006, the ICC announced guidelines and standards for pitches and outfields. Today, the ICC has augmented those guidelines with additional requirements from host country boards, that of notifying the ICC every February about what venues will be used in the next year (imagine the BCCI actually being forced to plan a year in advance!) and solemnly declare that those grounds complied with the standards. The categories or basis on which a pitch is rated are declared in the pitch monitoring guidelines. It is interesting to note that a pitch is rated poor if

• The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match
  
• The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match
  
• The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match

I'm fairly sure those guidelines were framed by a committee of 25 top-order batsmen! There's absolutely no mention of rating a pitch as poor on the basis of not having any bounce or seam movement or assistance to spin.

Ok, so let's go back to February 2008. The WICB has just informed the ICC that the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium was going to host the 2nd test against England in a year's time and it promised compliance. Yet, it just did nothing to improve the outfield and a year later, the game was called off because of a poor outfield. What could the ICC do based on the match referee's report & the WICB's explanation? It could warn, impose a financial penalty or take away international status for that ground for a limited duration. So how different is that from the current procedure where there is no undertaking or declaration by the host country board?

The ICC had a great opportunity to enforce better standards, especially for test cricket given it's the form of the game drawing the least spectator and audience interest. It missed the bus.

So what's the solution? Here's a radical suggestion, which has perhaps also been suggested earlier by other more learned folks. The game should be awarded to the visiting team if the umpires and match referees call off the match on account of a poor pitch/outfield. There needs to be a significant deterrence which forces boards, curators and home teams into not overly exploiting conditions (either way).

Obviously when the venue is neutral, this won't be too useful. But there have actually only been 9 tests played on neutral grounds in 1900+ tests spread over 132 years of test cricket. I guess since neutral venues are far more likely in ODIs (31% of all games) and T20 (40% of all games), the solution is to declare a 'no-result' in those forms of the game.

PS: Just noticed, while clicking on a link in one of the previous posts here, that www.bobwoolmer.com is now the proud possession of a domain-squatter.

Labels: icc, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:19 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

High farce in Antigua

The incompetence of the WICB and the ICC has been exposed as a result of the relocation of the 2nd test from the Viv Richards stadium to the Antigua Recreation Ground. The test, which will be the 3rd test in a series expanded from 4 to 5 tests, will restart on Sunday. For what it is worth, West Indies lead the series 1-0.

How on earth could the WICB have allowed a test match to commence on a ground where the bowlers' runups and the outfield were so sandy that all it took was a short spell of rain to make things so bad that the test had to be abandoned? Did the ECB put sufficient pressure on the WICB to get their act together? How on earth could the ICC, as the governing body of the game, have allowed the test to start with such playing conditions? The ICC had at least 4 representatives at the ground - the match referee, the 2 on-field umpires and the third umpire. How could all of them goof up bigtime?

What is it about a Caribbean ground and a bunch of ICC officials that causes them to totally lose it again and again?

Who is responsible for the 2nd test at the Viv Richards stadium (Antigua) being relocated?
	England & Wales Cricket Board
	Indian Premier League
	International Cricket Council
	West Indies Cricket Board

Labels: england, farce, icc, pitch, west indies

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:05 am | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What a series, pity about the pitches though!

A fantastic series came to an end with India winning at Nagpur to win the series 2-0 and bring back the Border-Gavaskar Trophy after 4 years.

Like I wrote fairly early on, partnerships at the top and the bottom proved to be crucial. Five out of the 50+ run partnerships for the first wicket were by India's openers. Right from around the time Harbhajan & Zaheer put on 80 at Bangalore, the momentum switched to India. Australia's woes got compounded with the Harbhajan-Dhoni partnership in India's final batting dig of the series.

Barring a couple of sessions here and there, the momentum stayed with the home team. India won most of the crucial sessions. Amazingly enough for a side as good as Australia, far too often they eased up the pressure when they had India by the unmentionables.

Is that an indicator of the quality of personnel on either side, the captaincy, luck, pluck, or a shift in on-field power equations? I'd still say that Australia started the series as favourites. But a lot of their personnel misfired at the same time. With the exception of Mike Hussey & Simon Katich, there was no consistency in the batting. Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke & Ricky Ponting fired only once or twice all series. In the case of the bowling, it was worse. Brett Lee & Stuart Clark just didn't turn up (strike rates of 111 & 219) and Johnson's numbers were hardly a true reflection of how ineffective he really was.

The fairytale story of Jason Krejza hid a very obvious problem: Australia thought they'd be better off playing Cameron White as a second all-rounder, and they got what they wanted (some decent stands with the lower order, but precious little with the ball). It was bloody obvious to most folks that White really shouldn't have played after Mohali (3/120 in 27 overs in the game on a pitch that helped spin). Yet, Ponting & the selectors persisted with him. Krejza was thrown in to the deep end when there was nothing to lose, and he showed White how to purchase his wickets. There'll surely be more innings when Krejza bowls far better for worse returns, but his out-of-the-blue performance should give Australia some hope for the future.

Several questions can be asked about Ricky Ponting's captaincy, for worrying about the opposition when he had enough issues on his plate such as team selection, consistently calling heads despite it not working out for two tests in a row, the field placements which meant Gambhir & Sehwag scored at will in the second test, prioritizing speeding up the over rate above breaking partnerships for the third time in the last 10 months, etc.

For all the pre-series talk of 'new age cricket', in terms of %age of runs scored in of their runs in 1s, 2s & 3s, the numbers were 49% for Australia & 53% for India. Even better, India's run rate when it came to scoring 1s, 2s & 3s was 1.85 an over while Australia's was 1.46 an over. Both teams were even when it came to the run rate for boundaries and sixes - India's was 24.47 an over while Australia's was 24.37.

Realistically, the only gains for Australia from this series have been, in descending order of an index (expectation + impact): Krejza, Hussey, Watson, Katich & Siddle. As a team, they have regressed. If it weren't for Clarke himself having a bad time, the knives would normally have been out for Ponting. Unless of course, the Aussie selectors want to take a bet on making Hussey captain. Australia's upcoming series against New Zealand & South Africa provide great opportunities for easing out Hayden from the opener's slot, given that Jaques & Marsh are waiting in the ranks. We could also see Andrew Symonds returning, thus giving Australia a better middle-order and an extra spin bowling option.

Yet, it isn't a case of all being hunky-dory for India. The fact that they won without two of the bulwarks (Kumble & Dravid) performing is an indicator of the depth available and the good form that the rest of the players were in. Kumble has now retired, but questions will be asked about how hungry Rahul Dravid is to get his batting (and amazingly enough, his slip catching) sorted out before the tests against England.

India's biggest gains from the series have been Dhoni's refreshing captaincy & his beginner's luck, the batting form of Gambhir, Sehwag, Tendulkar & Laxman, Ganguly & Kumble retiring with able replacements in the wings (Ganguly's middle order replacement is as yet undecided, with Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Yuvraj Singh & Suresh Raina being the contenders) and the pace bowling department whose bench strength (Sreesanth, Munaf, RP Singh) is fairly impressive.

Australia losing this series doesn't mean they're not the best side. They obviously are, and do have the ability to stay there for a while. India have just reinforced the fact that they've caused Australia the most troubles over the past 8-10 years. It is going to be a fascinating battle between India, South Africa, England & Sri Lanka for the bragging rights to be called Australia's replacement if Australia do slip up majorly over the next year or two.

The main problems though are with the BCCI. Sparse crowds & slow pitches do not help the cause of test cricket at all. India has hosted the highest number, and highest percentage, of drawn games in the last five years. Overall, I think the series mostly sucked, in the context of the quality of cricket played. The placid pitches meant the play was mostly defensive in nature, and most of the time that strategy didn't work.

How much more interesting would this series have been had the pitches aided bowlers just a tad more than they eventually did? How much more enjoyable would the series have been for fans had they got access to (far flung) stadiums at reasonable rates without having to pay through their nose for five day tickets? Given that the bulk of the revenue for host associations in India comes from the sale of advertisement hoardings etc. at the stadium, they should just set rock-bottom prices to entice more spectators. It was ridiculous that when Tendulkar got past Lara and Sourav Ganguly made his last bow (only the Englishmen Billy Griffith & John Hampshire have scored a century in their debut innings and a duck in their last), there was just about enough of a crowd for it to be called a half-full (or is that half-empty?) house.

Here are a few statistical indicators of how huge this series win is: Australia have lost only 4 series in the last decade. Australia's two worst test defeats in the last decade came in this series and this was the first time in nearly a quarter of a century that Australia failed to win a single test in a series of 4 or more matches.

Update: I have this nagging feeling Australia have got away with it yet again with a fine of 20% for Ponting & 10% for the rest of the folks. This is the third time in 2008 that Australia is being fined for a slow over rate.

It happened in the Perth test against India and then during the triangular one-day series game at Sydney.

Penalties for over rates are level 1 offences. As per the 'Guidelines for Offences' section of the code of conduct, a repeat of a level 1 offence within 12 months would upgrade the new offense to a level 2 offence, which carries a penalty of 50-100% of the match fee and/or a 1 test/2 ODI ban. Has the ICC's database conveniently broken down again, like it did when Judge Hansen was not made aware of Harbhajan's history? The two penalties I mentioned above aren't even listed on the list of breaches & penalties in 2008 on the ICC's website. Go figure!

It seems to me that Ponting was scared of a test/ODI ban and that's why he used part-timers to speed up the over rate. Turns out that Broad was either ignorant, ill-informed, or just plain incompetent and so he's not considered it to be a repeat offence. Henceforth, Ponting won't bother about a possible ban on account of a slow over rate, because he knows that the match referee will invariably look the other way.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, icc, india, match referee, over rates, pitch, statistic

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 am | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Too much of a fuss about the pitch and the captain

Leading in to the second test at Mohali, I think there's just far too much unnecessary focus on how the pitch will behave, and who India's captain for the game will be.

Australia have confirmed that Stuart Clark will not play because of an injured elbow and Peter Siddle will debut. In contrast, India seem like in a fair amount of chaos. It isn't immediately apparent if Anil Kumble, who struggled in Australia's second innings (and was off the field for a fair amount of time), will play.

The question then arises if he is good enough to play, given that the Mohali pitch has historically tended to favour fast bowlers. So, will India be better off picking Munaf Patel, with the obvious implication (assuming that none of the batsmen will can be dropped) that Kumble will be 'rested'?

My gut feeling is that Kumble isn't the sort of chap who's going to sit out a test match against Australia, with the series at 0-0 and 3 more tests to go. Unless he has a cast on, he will announce himself fit, and we should respect his judgement.

After all, if he could bowl, and get Lara out, bandaged, broken jaw and all, then he will definitely play at Mohali.

I know he hasn't had a poor year so far, but the best part about Kumble is when people write him off, he's back with a bang. Even if he doesn't turn up at Mohali, I fully expect him to take back the captaincy at Delhi and do well.

There's a lot of talk by Indian commentators as well as Australians about Kumble's performance. The worst part was the NDTV reporter continuously prodding Ricky Ponting about what he thought of Kumble's performance at Bangalore and if the non-performance by a captain would impact the team. It almost sounded as though this was a case of embedded journalism. Perhaps Ponting had marked out for the reporter that questions that he wanted her to ask!

Ponting then added fuel to the fire by offering to pick India's XI, including Harbhajan and dropping Kumble.

Maybe this is a good time to point out that after his one-legged century at 'The Oval' in the 2001 Ashes, Steve Waugh averaged 29.3 with one century over the next 16 tests. In fact during those 16 tests, before he scored a century at Sharjah against Pakistan, he averaged 21.6 in 11 tests over a year! He then scored that century in the Sydney Ashes test, where he also got past 10,000 runs. After that, until the end of his career, he averaged 76.6, if you include Bangladesh & Zimbabwe, and 54.6 if you don't!

In any case, Steve Waugh hasn't been the only Australian captain to have been given a bit of a leeway by the selectors. Over a period of 1.5 years and 10 tests between January 1996 and June 1997, Mark Taylor averaged 18.2, with the bat. Obviously the selectors kept persisting with him, knowing that he was good enough to come out of his bad patch.

As for the pitch, even if it is the 'traditional' Mohali wicket (explain why a nice bouncy pitch has resulted in 4 draws from 7 tests!), it shouldn't worry India's batsmen, especially since Australia's quick bowling is further weakened by Clark's injury. India's batsmen have actually done better at the bouncier venues, in comparison with pitches where the ball 'stops' on the batsmen. This is mainly because it is difficult to play your shots, and boundaries are harder to come by.

So, just toss the coin, and let's hope for a great game!

Labels: aus v ind 2008, kumble, mohali, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:47 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A great advertisement for test cricket, if you can excuse a few things

The Bangalore test was superb to follow, regardless of your cricket affiliations. It was a fairly low-scoring game. The balance swung so often (more often in favour of Australia). As late as the last hour, Australia were still in with a chance before bad light ensured there was going to be only one result.

It would have been awesome (for cricket, not necessarily for the Indian team & its supporters) had both teams agreed to use floodlights when the light conditions were poor. I don't understand why teams need to agree about these things. Why can't the ICC impose these rules by making them part of the standard playing conditions? As long as the playing venue has floodlights (regardless of the availability/quality of lights at other venues hosting games in the series), the umpires must be empowered to have them switched on. If test cricket is to survive, anachronistic aspects of the game such as tea breaks or bad light must go!

While ideally both teams would have dearly wanted a win, I guess they'll both take a draw. Australia were touted by many as being the underdogs, but like I pointed out, that can never be the case. It is actually funny how this 'inexperience' excuse works. When Lee, Johnson, Clark & co. have never played a test in India, they're inexperienced. But when you stack it up against all the years (5 for Lee, 8 for Clark, 5 for Watson & 5 for Johnson) they've spent playing in TSFCCCITU before being picked for Australia, that inexperience disappears.

Australia's only problem was going to be spin, and despite White picking up his first test wicket, the questions will persist. He bowled 18 overs on the last day only because Clark was not fully fit, and the light situation meant the umpires would have offered the light multiple times if quicks were operating. While he did biff the ball around in the second innings when Australia were going for quick runs, he didn't offer too much hope. As a package, I guess he's better than Krejza. Unless he disgraces himself at Mohali, he will play all four tests, if only to have some sort of balance in the bowling department because Clarke may not be able to bowl 20 overs every innings.

Australia's batting is in much better shape, despite Hayden and Clarke failing twice. Haddin's horror show behind the stumps will be put down to the vagaries of the pitch.

India's problem before the test was the aging middle order. Despite not having any big score (Dravid's 51 was the highest of the lot), all of them got some crucial runs. The first innings middle-order collapse was shocking though - going from 70/0 to 106/4 & 155/5. Sehwag and Gambhir frustrated everyone as usual, putting on a 50-stand and not quite going on either individually or as a partnership. The main problem in the batting is Dhoni. He pottered around for 51 balls and made 9. It'd have been interesting to see his batting approach if he'd come out to bat today. His batting average has been stuck between 33 and 35 for nearly a year now. The last time his batting significantly impacted the result of a game was the Lord's draw in 2007. After that, he did try and save the Sydney test but ended up using a periscope rather than a bat and forged a valuable partnership with Pathan at Perth. Barring these two, he's largely been anonymous. In fact, the more surprising aspect of his batting is the strike rate. If you considered his fastest innings (of say 25 or more) the only inning from 2008 was against South Africa at Kanpur, and his innings strike rate was marginally less than 60.

We've seen him change his batting style in one-dayers over the past 2-3 years. Even as the strike rate has gone from 100 to 80, his average has increased from 40 to 60. Is he unable to adapt to test cricket? Can he actually handle his job of wicket-keeper batsman? Given he is the vice-captain, are we to assume he will become the test captain after Kumble? At this point in time, I hope not. Someone like Sehwag, who returned after a post-World Cup 2007 cleanup, and is now a regular, would be a better option if Dhoni doesn't do anything of note soon.

He's definitely a very safe keeper. Barring dropping Hussey, he kept well throughout the game. Overall, you don't remember too many of his bad wicket-keeping days. But is 9(51) what the side wants from him? There's no chance of him being dropped. I'd really love him to change his batting style. In one-dayers, he typically waits for 20 balls and then starts hitting the boundaries. Why can't he do something similar in tests? Well, if not the boundaries, he can start taking singles for starters!

Harbhajan was bad on the first day and ranged between good & very good on other days. Zaheer and Ishant were very good. It isn't too often that two Indian quicks share 9 wickets. There've only been 3 other instances this decade and 7 others overall, including the unlikely pairing of Madan Lal & Mohinder Amarnath against New Zealand in 1976! Interestingly enough, it is the first time this is happening at home. In 2001, Zaheer and Venkatesh Prasad got 9 at Kandy against Sri Lanka. In 2005, when Zaheer & Pathan got 9 when India beat Zimbabwe while internally self-destructing thanks to the Greg-Sourav war. Last year at Lord's, Zaheer & RP Singh got 9.

The elephant in the house is Kumble. He has been below average for nearly a year now (bowling avg. 52 & strike rate 100 from 9 tests this year, last 5 wicket haul was 10 tests ago). India can't afford to carry a passenger. He really needs to get himself sorted out before Mohali, assuming he plays.

Just as I wrote last week, the lower order batting has impacted the result of this game. It remains to be seen if any of the top order batsmen have an impact. I believe that Hussey's inning was more significant for Australia than Ponting's, because he got them to 430 instead of 350. The game may have developed totally differently if Australia had been dismissed for 350. I also think Ponting should have declared overnight. The target (264) was already stiff. The overall runrate in the test had been around 3 an over, so it would have given Ponting more time to force a result, given India's propensity to screw up 4th innings chases of over 200. If India Sehwag had got off to a good start, the option to use the sweeper cover & other defensive fielding positions was always going to be there.

I suspect that Australia will be more disappointed than India.

Labels: aus v ind 2008, australia, bad light, bangalore, india, pitch, playing conditions

Thus spake Jagadish @ 11:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A scared draw

Australia have just played a Test match which has ended in a draw without any interference from the weather. It is so hard even to imagine this, but it has happened, more so when the team which wanted the draw badly and played to it was Australia and not the opponent!

This was clearly evident on day three when Australia batted 90 overs, scored 260 runs and lost 3 wickets. I certainly don't remember the last time when the Aussies batted an entire day and scored at less than 3 runs per over. Irrespective of the state of the match, no Aussie batsman would even dream of scoring at such a pace. The display of 'batting' on day three almost ensured that a draw was the most probable result unless the Indians decided to gift the match.

India have pushed Australia so much that they even won at Perth and hence 'The Great B*st@#ds' decided to opt for a draw to save some face and ensure that they would win the series 2-1, thanks to Steve & Mark, not the Waughs, but Bucknor & Benson respectively.

If a lot of things had happened efficiently & honestly in the first 2 Tests, the series could have been 1-1 or even 2-1 in favour of India, coming into Adelaide. With such a scoreline, the Australians would have definitely batted differently and would have tried to score at a much better pace and may or may not have lost more wickets in the bargain and most probably would have won this Test match.

It would have still been the Aussie-brand of cricket we all know. Any other team batting out in such a manner isn't any news, but even Australia was pushed to bat for the draw. I am tempted to say that the Indians have pushed them so, but deep inside I know its Bucknor & Benson who gave them the liberty to do the unthinkable to win the series. It does seem to me that Virender Sehwag wasn't wrong at all when he said that Australia were scared of losing.

It seems like the curator had prepared a pitch that'd yield a result on day six. Someone needed to have told him that the rules on test cricket were the same for Australia and other teams. Just because Australia lost the Perth test in four days, it doesn't translate into an extra day in the Adelaide test. Then again, perhaps the curator was just doing what he was told to!

Labels: australia, benson, bucknor, ind v aus 2008, india, perth, perth 2008, pitch, sydney 2008, umpires

Thus spake Ganesh @ 4:12 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

More power to test cricket

It's a bit odd, really. The first forty four tests between India and Pakistan yielded 33 draws/no-results. The next 13 tests have seen only 3 draws! Out of those 3 draws, one was drawn due to some excellent rescue acts while the other two games were drawn because of flat pitches.

I think the Kotla test was played out on a very good test wicket. The pitch did have some uneven bounce earlier on, but on days 3 and 4, it was very good for batting. Bowlers who were able to exploit the pitch and the swing, did very well. It wasn't a bat-a-thon wicket. Neither was it one of those Kotla specials!

I don't know the crowd numbers for yesterday, but I believe around 38,000 watched the third day from the stadium. That is very good going for a test match in India. I really hope Eden Gardens and Chinnaswamy also produce good wickets and ensure players put up a good show.

Labels: india, pakistan, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:48 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

India's own Perth



When I saw that photograph, not even once did I imagine that it would be in India. But, the fact is that the ground seen in the picture is at Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh. Not just me, a few players have also been surprised on seeing it. Not just the picturesque nature, the bouncy pitch has also been an attraction here. Now we only hope we have more batsmen equipped to play in such tracks.

Labels: india, perth, pitch, waca

Thus spake Ganesh @ 4:05 pm | Sledge/Read 1 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

WACA's batting-friendly stats

There's a lot of talk about how the Perth wicket is no longer as quick as it used to be.

Here's the evidence:

• South Africa easily saved last year's test, faced with a target of 491, surviving 126 overs and losing only 3 wickets.
  
• In the last season (2005-06), there were ten instances (from 5 Pura Cup games) of teams making more than 300 in their innings. Three of those 10 were in the first innings. Out of those 5 games, only 1 didn't have two teams making 300. The runs per wicket was 35 and the runs were made at 3.25 per over.
  
• This season (2006-07), so far, 6 out of 10 innings (from 3 Pura Cup games) have teams making more than 300. The runs per wicket is a staggering 49 and the runs have been made at 3.7 per over!

So, if Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth are batting wickets, where's the much-vaunted diversity of pitch conditions that used to get thrown at touring teams to Australia?

Labels: ashes, ashes 2006, australia, england, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:21 am | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Life's a pitch

To the best of my knowledge, the ICC only has guidelines some nonsense spouted on what constitutes a good wicket for test cricket. There's nothing mentioned about one-day cricket.

CNN-IBN & CricketNext report that a couple of captains and match referee Madugalle have complained about the pitch at the Brabourne stadium for one of the ICC Champions Trophy games.

I am certainly not complaining. I'm loving these low-scoring games. They're far more fascinating to follow than 'Team A 350/8 in 50 overs lost to Team B 351/5 in 47 overs' type of games.

The ICC insisted that venues which would host games in this tournament should not have any advertising/sponsorships associated with them which would conflict with the ICC's official sponsors. As a result, venues like Eden Gardens, Wankhede stadium, Chinnaswamy stadium and MA Chidambaram stadium were left out and Mohali, Ahmedabad, Brabourne (Bombay) and Jaipur were drafted in and allocated games. Given the volume of games at each venue (5 for the first three venues and 6 for Jaipur), the rainy season having ended in most parts of India a month or so ago and the frequency of games (albeit being played on different pitches), it was but natural that the pitches wouldn't be great for batting. Just as bowlers are resigned to encountering batting wickets in one-dayers, perhaps the batsmen also need to reconcile themselves to the fact that the only time they can get scores of 280 and above is when they're facing a pathetic bowling lineup.

The BCCI really ought to make it clear to the ICC that it doesn't think low-scoring games are bad for one-day cricket and that it was the ICC's intransigence which has ensured that the games are being played in tier-2 cricket grounds (aside from Mohali, which is tier-1 and Brabourne, which is tier-7 and last hosted a one-dayer more than a decade ago).

Labels: 2006 champions trophy, champions trophy, match referee, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:10 pm | Sledge/Read 2 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

ICC's strict standards for test match pitches

The ICC has decided on it's interpretation of a quality test match pitch.

The good news is that pitches are allowed to support bounce, seam movement and turn. The bad news is that the ICC has decided that a good pitch is one which has good carry and seam movement for the first 92 minutes 30 seconds of play on days one and two, ensures balls seaming away to the extent of five degrees between lunch and tea for the first four days and does not allow the ball to turn any more than 3 degrees between tea and stumps on the first three days and between lunch and stumps on the last two days.

Needless to say, I think this is a ridiculous decision. Assuming it will be implemented, it'd be interesting to see the rules being applied to pitches at grounds which either offer too much help to bowlers or none at all - Antigua, Darwin, Dunedin, Headingley, Kandy, Kingsmead, WACA, Wanderers (too much help & no help to bowlers) and the Wankhede.

So bloody what if a test ends in 2 or 3 days? It certainly makes for interesting viewing, which is good enough for me. I'd rather watch that sort of game than the ones at Lahore, Faisalabad and Nagpur in the recent past.

You can vote in the poll and leave your comments, regardless of whether you disagree or agree with the ICC's decision and my take on the issue!

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:53 pm | Sledge/Read 10 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

A cracking game, but a sub-standard pitch?

Ok, so the New Zealand v South Africa series is almost certainly set to end today. South Africa lead 1-0 after a Ntini-Steyn rout in the first test and a high scoring draw in the second test.

The game is just two days old. Twenty six wickets fell on the first two days for a total of 519 runs scored. South Africa have been set 217 to win. They have nearly three days to do the job. So far, they've raced to 48/0 in the 9th over. But the test could still turn.

The wicket is pretty much a typical Wanderers wicket, lots of bounce and pace. But will it qualify to be a sub-standard pitch, given that the typical reaction to low scoring pitches is to term them dangerous?

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 3:00 pm | Sledge/Read 3 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

What is a substandard pitch?

A few days after I questioned how no one bothers when a wicket favours only the batsmen, the ICC has announced a pitch monitoring process. The media release says

The Board has also proposed the first formal pitch-monitoring process for international cricket. This process, which has been adopted with immediate effect, includes potential sanctions ranging from a formal warning to a Member board fine or even suspension of international status for venues that produce substandard pitches.

The process is be based on the initial report of the Emirates Elite Panel Referee at the ground followed by a review conducted by the ICC General Manager - Cricket, David Richardson, and the Chief Match Referee, Ranjan Madugalle (or the Chairman of the Cricket Committee, Sunil Gavaskar, if the Chief Referee produced the initial report). An appeals process is available to the relevant Member board.

I hope their definition of a 'substandard pitch' also includes ones where the word bowler refers to that tribe whose presence is merely to let the ball go so that the batsman can do whatever he wants with it, since the pitch can easily be taken out of the equation.

The other interesting announcement was about the ICC deciding to adopt an anti-doping policy compliant with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code, beginning from the Champions Trophy later this year.

An unnamed wag source tells us that such a policy would perhaps result in Shane Warne reconsidering the consideration he is giving to returning to one-dayers.

Labels: match referee, pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 12:55 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Eye witness account of the GODOAT

For what it is worth, GODOAT stands for "Greatest One Dayer Of All Time". While I don't subscribe to that description, several other commentators have already decreed it so. Tony Greig said it, so it must be right!

India's solicitor general, Goolam Vahanvati, appointed to inquire into racial abuse incidents which happened during South Africa's tour of Australia a few months ago, was at the Wanderers when Australia and South Africa destroyed the careers of a few bowlers.

Here is his his own account of the proceedings.

In the context of that game, I wonder why no one has complained to the ICC about the nature of the wicket. In 2004, Cricket Australia registered a complaint about the Wankhede wicket where India snatched a consolation win. Ricky Ponting publicly criticized the wicket, although he was not similarly critical of a pitch at Darwin against Sri Lanka earlier in 2004 when he said

You don't want batsmen dominating the ball as much as they did last summer.

Perhaps that was because he wasn't playing in it, while he was, at Bombay!

There've only been two occasions when an international match has been called off due to a bad pitch - Indore - India v Sri Lanka and Sabina Park - West Indies v England. Both pitches were deemed too dangerous for the batsmen. How come matches don't get called off citing that the pitch was dangerous for bowlers?

No one complained about the pancakes served up by Pakistan at Lahore & Faisalabad and India at Nagpur.

Why? Because those were superb for batting. Why bother about those stupid bowlers anyway? Let them run in 30 yards and bowl. That is what they're paid for while the batsmen gorge ourselves.

Labels: australia, pitch, record, south africa

Thus spake Jagadish @ 2:07 pm | Sledge/Read 5 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Doctor sahib, is it dead or alive?

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Unknown @ 11:32 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

One million dollars fine?

Harsha Bhogle wonders in his column if imposing a fine would ensure that we didn't get the sort of wickets we got at Lahore and Faisala kabhi nahin Faisalabad. He makes a lovely point when he says

When Australia played India at Mumbai and we had a two-day Test, the match referee was not impressed. And with good reason for there was no surface there. But these pitches would not have produced a result in seven days and that is just as bad.

He is obviously referring to India's win in the final test against Australia at the Wankhede on a pitch that assisted spin excessively. Australia's failure to score 107 in the final innings led to the usual recrimination including taking the issue up with the ICC.

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 9:45 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Pakistan afraid of losing?

When Ganguly talks to curators, it always makes the news headlines and a lot of people criticize him and some even go to the extent of giving it a mention in their autobiographies. But, there was hardly any shout against Inzamam when he openly wanted bouncy tracks for this series against India. Having seen the wicket at Lahore, now everyone wants better wickets for the next 2 Tests.

What surprises me more is that none of these so-called analysts and experts predicted that this wicket was such a lifeless batting wicket until Pakistan finished their first innings. Everyone kept saying that if the batsman can play himself in for a few overs, this wicket is his and would even assist the spinners later on. If they are experts, can't they talk about it before the toss or atleast at the end of day 1, when everyone were just praising Younis & Yousuf? Yes, they batted very well and put up huge scores, but where was all this criticism about the wicket on the first day. When India started to bat brightly, all the criticism started. Does this convey that all those experts expected only Pakistan to fare well. It might probably take all of the year 2006 to dismiss both sides twice on this wicket. As Zainub has pointed out, there have been flatter batting tracks, but my concern is that we are not hearing the real "experts".

To me, such a pitch shows only Pakistan's fear of losing, especially in the first Test of a series. Though Inzamam talked about good bouncy bowling wickets to the press, I am pretty convinced that a lot of people (including Inzamam) had a say in this flat wicket, as they were a bit scared of giving a green top to Pathan and an improved Agarkar and even a rejuvenated Zaheer.

This said, I have just been spellbound by Nasser Hussain behind the microphone. This is not the Nasser whom I have hated in front of the wickets. I have just heard a lot of good things about cricket from him in the last 3 days and I really look forward to this series with him. In fact, I am fairly sure that he would be even more delightful in better company than the two at present.

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Ganesh @ 1:51 pm | Sledge/Read 4 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Woolmer criticizes Kotla pitch and praises his team

Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer, writing on his website, is critical of the pitch at the New Delhi and is all praise for the likes of Afridi, Younis Khan, Inzamam, Shoaib Malik & Naved-ul-Hasan. He also has a few nice things to say about John Wright.

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 1:49 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]

Cricket Australia has raised the issue of the pitch at Bombay with the ICC.

Labels: pitch

Thus spake Jagadish @ 5:41 pm | Sledge/Read 0 sledge(s)
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - | | Tweet ]