Newland pitch

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:14 pm

is not good becacuse teams are getting bolwed out for 40 odd runs
not good for test cricket

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:21 pm

ICC must investigate and take action

by Marky Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:21 pm

If the pitch is that bad why did Australia get 280-odd in their first innings?

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:26 pm

Marky wrote:If the pitch is that bad why did Australia get 280-odd in their first innings?

so why did they get 47 in the sceond inning?

47 ONLY Shocked

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:28 pm

did u not see their shots they were dreadful...

anu, im sorry but there isnt a case here, the pitch is maybe a tad too lively, but better then the dead pitches on the sub contienet

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:29 pm

SA are 83-1 in their second innings, it isn't that bad...

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:30 pm

anu, does that mean that the ICC should investiage the DEAD pitches in the sub contenet

The pitch isnt dangerous

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:33 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:did u not see their shots they were dreadful...

anu, im sorry but there isnt a case here, the pitch is maybe a tad too lively, but better then the dead pitches on the sub contienet

Hmm...OK

even with the best of SUICIDAL efforts it is IMPOSSIBLE for what is considered a TOP team to get out for 47

we have to question something.....if not the pitch...then the Aussies Shocked

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:34 pm

The pitch isnt dangerous

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:34 pm

This is pitch is far better for Test cricket than flat roads where 600-5 plays 550-7. It isn't dangerous, their isn't the risk of a batsman being seriously injured, and if you get your head down, have a good technique you can score runs on it.

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:35 pm

England were all out for 51 against the WI on a far flatter pitch against a worse bowling attack, so it clearly is possible to be dismissed for that lower score.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:39 pm

when two sides get a.o one after the other for sub 100 and sub 50 totals then:

1) first of all it is not good for test cricket
2) second of all either the pitch is substandard.
3) third of all if it's not the pitch...... then there is something else NOT RIGHT....

top sides don't bolwed out for 40 odds

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:41 pm

1) Its intresting and occasionally happens
2)The pitch is fine 1st innings 287, and now 87-1
3)grow up

your reading too much into this, it happens in sport, you have crazy days.

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:44 pm

You keep saying it isn't goof for Test cricket, but there are no reasons why. I agree not every pitch should be like this, but it isn't dangerous and their is no risk to people's health so why is it bad for Test cricket? It is sure as hell more exciting than watching two sides a draw a game after 600 plays 550.

The pitch isn't sub standard. It is tougher to bat on than some other pitches, but the movement has been greatly exaggerated by some dross shots. See Hussey and Haddin as prime examples today. It isn't a 47ao pitch.

I hope you aren't insinuating what I think you are by saying something else isn't right, as there is absolutely no evidence to back up those sort of accusations.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:46 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:1) Its intresting and occasionally happens

==>correct.
occasional BIZZARE incidents need investigation

2)The pitch is fine 1st innings 287, and now 87-1

==> that is what makes the 47 a.o bizzare....looks like then the wkts were thrown ways
3)grow up

==>ok
your reading too much into this, it happens in sport, you have crazy days.

===>pls read my response to #1

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:48 pm

JDizzle wrote:You keep saying it isn't goof for Test cricket, but there are no reasons why. I agree not every pitch should be like this, but it isn't dangerous and their is no risk to people's health so why is it bad for Test cricket? It is sure as hell more exciting than watching two sides a draw a game after 600 plays 550.

The pitch isn't sub standard. It is tougher to bat on than some other pitches, but the movement has been greatly exaggerated by some dross shots. See Hussey and Haddin as prime examples today. It isn't a 47ao pitch.

I hope you aren't insinuating what I think you are by saying something else isn't right, as there is absolutely no evidence to back up those sort of accusations.

well i didn't say it.

But such BIZZARE occurings from a match winning positon on a pitch declared non-substandard....must be investigated further

it is very very difficult to get a.o for 47 by a top side when the pitch is not questionable either

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:48 pm

no they dont need, your making wild accusations, that arent wanted or needed, you need proof and you dont have any.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:48 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:no they dont need, your making wild accusations, that arent wanted or needed, you need proof and you dont have any.

what accusation did I make

by **Fists of Fury** Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:49 pm

There is 1 thing that is making this pitch half-difficult to bat on, and that is seam movement. That isn't dangerous, and makes for a better spectacle.

Clarke in the first innings, and Smith and Amla in the second, are showing that runs can be made with the right application.

Total and utter drivel, if you don't mind me saying, anu.

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:51 pm

finally some common sense, well said fists thumbsup

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:53 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:finally some common sense, well said fists

well you evaded my question cricketfan Wink

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:54 pm

because its a pathetic thread to be honest.

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:54 pm

England, 51ao, Jamaica. There. Perfect example of a good side being skittled out on a flat pitch.

SL at Cardiff this summer. Another example.

Aus in Melbourne last winter. 98 ao.

These things happen.

by robbo277 Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:03 pm

It is one of the world's best bowling attacks in home conditions. They had just seen their batsman skittled which would have fired them up greatly. Obviously there's a bit of help for the seam bowlers, but as has been said, the pitch isn't terrible and players can bat on it. It's just that Australia had a great innings with the ball, which motivated the South African bowlers (who are better and on home conditions) to try and do the same (aided by some terrible shot selection, by all accounts).

It could be turned around. In this match for instance: http://www.espncricinfo.com/indvsl2009/engine/match/430881.html

You've got a team bowled out for 400 (nothing out of the ordinary). Then you have a team hit 760/7 and another team reply with 412/4 on a day 4/5 pitch. There's nothing sinister, it's just the pitch offers a bit of help for the batsmen and you've got two sides with better batting line-ups than bowling attacks. You've got the home side do a reasonable job in the first innings of the game, the away side responding with a much better effort in the second and the home side re-acting in the third. It's just that in 1 instance it was the home side bowling first and the other it was the home side batting first.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:05 pm

JDizzle wrote:England, 51ao, Jamaica. There. Perfect example of a good side being skittled out on a flat pitch.

SL at Cardiff this summer. Another example.

Aus in Melbourne last winter. 98 ao.

These things happen.

please give me example of a pitch where there were two double digit inning scores, lately.....and the pitch was also NOT substandard

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:06 pm

anu, im sorry, but there's nothing in this whatsoever, its a pointless thread, and it looks like you are just trying to get an argument started.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:07 pm

cricketfan90 wrote:anu, im sorry, but there's nothing in this whatsoever, its a pointless thread, and it looks like you are just trying to get an argument started.

you already said that !
how many posts do you need to make the same point.

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:07 pm

because thats how bad this thread is.

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:09 pm

I think we have different definitions of sub standard. Was it dangerous? No. Was it challenging to bat on? Yes. Were you able to score runs on it if you batted sensibly? Yes.

And now you are moving the goalposts. You asked for examples of when a top side has been bowled out for less than three figures on a pitch that wasn't sub standard. I gave you three. All those three happened on wickets where batting was far easier than on this one in Newlands, so is it too much of a stretch to believe that it could happen twice in the same game? No, not when you look at some of the shots played.

by robbo277 Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:09 pm

anu_d wrote:
JDizzle wrote:England, 51ao, Jamaica. There. Perfect example of a good side being skittled out on a flat pitch.

SL at Cardiff this summer. Another example.

Aus in Melbourne last winter. 98 ao.

These things happen.

please give me example of a pitch where there were two double digit inning scores, lately.....and the pitch was also NOT substandard

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2011/engine/current/match/514029.html

fulfils all the criteria

by JDizzle Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:12 pm

Haha, very good Robbo.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:13 pm

robbo277 wrote:
anu_d wrote:
JDizzle wrote:England, 51ao, Jamaica. There. Perfect example of a good side being skittled out on a flat pitch.

SL at Cardiff this summer. Another example.

Aus in Melbourne last winter. 98 ao.

These things happen.

please give me example of a pitch where there were two double digit inning scores, lately.....and the pitch was also NOT substandard

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2011/engine/current/match/514029.html

fulfils all the criteria

such a rare occurence falls in the category of bizzare....that's why it needs to be invesigated

by skyeman Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:14 pm

As i said many times,on the SA v Aus thread, the pitch is seaming but nothing dangerous or unplayable. Many have said that with application you can score run's, this has been proven by Clarke and the Aussie 1st innings, and now SA 2nd innings. The wickets inbetween are what makes cricket special, rare events such as these happen from time to time, just as they have throughout cricket's history.

Anu, if you have any great knowledge of cricket, you would understand this and your ICC investigation comments are just like several of your other posts. STUPID.

Some of your posts are good some not.

This is definitely a NOT.

by **Galted** Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:14 pm

To be fair to anu_d if we had the same scores in the sub-continent with the spinners taking the wickets there would be a lot of accusations flying about.

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:20 pm

JDizzle wrote:I think we have different definitions of sub standard. Was it dangerous? No.

==>OK

Was it challenging to bat on? Yes. Were you able to score runs on it if you batted sensibly? Yes.

==> OK

And now you are moving the goalposts. You asked for examples of when a top side has been bowled out for less than three figures on a pitch that wasn't sub standard.

==>>If it's not sub substandrad...and I agree with you...then it falls in the category of bizzare ( actually never occured before) for two teams to produce less than 3 digit scores and hence calls for investigation.

by skyeman Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:26 pm

Anu, you carry on posting, because your posts always get many replys which is good for discussion, but sometimes for the wrong reasons.

I am sure you like being taken down, on your posts and subsequent replys and we enjoy doing so.

So please, please carry on posting, you are good for the site Very Happy

by anu_d Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:27 pm

skyeman wrote:As i said many times,on the SA v Aus thread, the pitch is seaming but nothing dangerous or unplayable. Many have said that with application you can score run's, this has been proven by Clarke and the Aussie 1st innings, and now SA 2nd innings. The wickets inbetween are what makes cricket special, rare events such as these happen from time to time, just as they have throughout cricket's history.

Anu, if you have any great knowledge of cricket, you would understand this and your ICC investigation comments are just like several of your other posts. STUPID.

Some of your posts are good some not.

This is definitely a NOT.

i am ready to agree that the pitch ain't sub standrad.
then 2 top sides collapsing for double digit inning scores.....is BIZZARE.
if not the pitch than the bizzare needs further fact finding and explaining.

can you even imagine how the odds would have swung before the start of aus 2nd inning and after ?

by Hoggy_Bear Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:22 pm

anu_d wrote:i am ready to agree that the pitch ain't sub standrad.
then 2 top sides collapsing for double digit inning scores.....is BIZZARE.
if not the pitch than the bizzare needs further fact finding and explaining.

Why?

Bizzare things sometimes happen in sport.

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:29 pm

dont worry hoggy. I think this thread is designed to start arguments Wink

by skyeman Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:00 pm

anu_d wrote:
skyeman wrote:As i said many times,on the SA v Aus thread, the pitch is seaming but nothing dangerous or unplayable. Many have said that with application you can score run's, this has been proven by Clarke and the Aussie 1st innings, and now SA 2nd innings. The wickets inbetween are what makes cricket special, rare events such as these happen from time to time, just as they have throughout cricket's history.

Anu, if you have any great knowledge of cricket, you would understand this and your ICC investigation comments are just like several of your other posts. STUPID.

Some of your posts are good some not.

This is definitely a NOT.

i am ready to agree that the pitch ain't sub standrad.
then 2 top sides collapsing for double digit inning scores.....is BIZZARE.
if not the pitch than the bizzare needs further fact finding and explaining.

can you even imagine how the odds would have swung before the start of aus 2nd inning and after ?

Come on Anu, 3 players just sent to prison, you can not be serious. A very low shot.

by anu_d Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:12 am

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/535454.html

3 out of 4 innings in this test, this year at Galle, exceeded 200 and two innings were in excess of 250....and no innings were in single digit.

but ICC gave an official warning to SLC for this pitch being POOR.

If Newland gets away without a warning or investigation, then we will have to conclude that ICC has double standards

by ShankyCricket Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:15 am

Awful thread

by anu_d Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:21 am

ICC statement for declaring the Galle pitch dangerous.

LOL.....they could use the same statement for newland merely replacing spin with seam/ bounce Wink

"We have come to a decision that the pitch prepared for the match should be rated as 'poor'," David Richardson, the ICC's general manager for cricket, said in a statement. "It was clear from the video footage of the match that the amount of turn, was excessive .
Whilst we do not wish to see a pitch that is too heavily weighted in favour of the batsmen, in this instance, the balance was just too much in favour of the bowler."

by **Biltong** Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:27 am

Anu_d.

what are you suggesting be investigated.

The pitch?

In the case where a pitch gives irregular bounce it can be put at the feet of the groundsman.

This is not the case here, it has consistant bounce.

In the case where the pitch is providing irregular seeming off the pitch, it can indicate uneven surface with peaks and troughs.

This is not the case here.

If the pitch is crumbling or provides dangerous balls from a good length it can be put at the responsibility of the grondsman.

This is not the case.

The players? (spotbetting)

If this is the case then cricket is in dire trouble. But from what I have seen it didn't look like anyone was giving their wicket away. Yes there were some irresponsible shots made, but nothing that would suggest untoward behaviour.

Yesterday the commentators summed up the day and said this pitch has provided assistance to the bolwers, but in other cases where it provided so much movement that the batsmen couldn't get to the ball to nick it, this was a case where there were just enough to encourage the bowlers.

you are looking at the results of the day, not the process.

Glad you are not my doctor, as you would treat my symptoms and not the cause of my illness. Doh

by anu_d Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:33 am

biltongbek wrote:Anu_d.

what are you suggesting be investigated.

The pitch?

In the case where a pitch gives irregular bounce it can be put at the feet of the groundsman.

This is not the case here, it has consistant bounce.

In the case where the pitch is providing irregular seeming of the pitch, it can indicate uneven surface with pitches and troughs.

This is not the case here.

If the pitch is crumbling or provides dangerous balls from a good length it can be put at the responsibility of the grondsman.

This is not the case.

The players? (spotbetting)

If this is the case then cricket is in dire trouble. But from what I have seen it didn't look like anyone was giving their wicket away. Yes there were some irresponsible shots made, but nothing that would suggest untoward behaviour.

Yesterday the commentators summed up the day and said this pitch has provided assistance to the bolwers, but in other cases where it provided so much movement that the batsmen couldn't get to the ball to nick it, this was a case where there were just enough to encourage the bowlers.

you are looking at the results of the day, not the process.

Glad you are not my doctor, as you would treat my symptoms and not the cause of my illness.

1) read the ICC statement posted above for declaring galle pitch dangerous........most of same reasons apply to new land. So ICC must act against the pitch.

2) if the pitch was neither dangerous nor unfit .......then those double digit scores raise suspicion...and ICC has to investigate.

if ICC does neither...then half the cricketing nations and probably 75% of the followers....will consider ICC having double standard. Shocked

Simple

EOD

by Mad for Chelsea Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:04 am

Nowhere in the statement do they call the pitch "dangerous", so please stop using the word. They say it was too much in favour of the bowlers, with "excessive turn". Now at the time I (and many others) disagreed with ICC, and hopefully they've seen sense, but wouldn't be massively surprised if this pitch received a "poor" rating as the ICC don't like three day tests (bad for business).

However, I don't think the seam movement in this match has been "excessive". Yes there's been seam movement, and in part due to the pitch, but also mostly due to the bowlers skill. It wasn't "excessive" as in fact the ball very rarely beat the bat, and that was what caused the wickets to tumble (the fact there was just enough movement to catch the edge). Also, SA batsmen were rusty, and we've seen Aus struggle when the ball's moving about before (Melbourne last Ashes for instance). So again, perfectly logical explanation.

Also, you have to remember that while spin is almost solely a factor of the pitch itself (and the bowlers, obviously), movement through the air and off the seam depend on a couple of other things: atmospheric conditions (it eased off noticeably in the last two hours or so, from Aus's ninth wicket) and of course the ball itself (Duke ball swings more than Kookaburra for instance). So again, completely diferent to the Galle match.

Finally, as has been said often enough before, strange things do happen in sport, and I for one hope we never reach the point where every crazy day like yesterday demands investigation. Anyway, as biltong said there was very little throwing of wickets away (though they were some poor shots). Have you ever tried to deliberately nick off? It's very hard, and why they do slip catching by sliding it off the face.

by Hoggy_Bear Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:15 am

anu_d wrote:

1) read the ICC statement posted above for declaring galle pitch dangerous........most of same reasons apply to new land.

NO THEY DON'T, AS HAS BEEN SAID.

So ICC must act against the pitch.

WHY, IF THEY DON'T DEEM IT TO BE POOR?

2) if the pitch was neither dangerous nor unfit .......then those double digit scores raise suspicion...and ICC has to investigate.

NO THEY DON'T
BIZARRE THINGS SOMETIMES HAPPEN IN SPORT AS HAS BEEN SAID. UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING UNTOWARD GOING ON, THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN INVESTIGATION.

if ICC does neither...then half the cricketing nations and probably 75% of the followers....will consider ICC having double standard.
Simple

YOU MEAN SOME PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT MAY ACCUSE THE ICC OF HAVING DOUBLE STADARDS, BUT MOST CRICKET FANS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DO NOT?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:02 am

To be fair though most commentators thought it over the top to haul Sri Lanka over teh coals for the GAlle pitch. There certainly doesnt look to be anything wrong with this one, just two very good eseam bowling units and two sides having a collective brainfart over batting.
Everyone knows Australias lineup is very vulnerable now, SA more suprising but they are showing now that runs can be scored on this. This game has shown how much psychology can play a part in test cricket, theres been some frankly bizzare shots played suggesting that players brain functions pretty much shut down.

It is bad for test cricket to have too many games that are too short, but preparing dead wickets is just as bad. The balance has to be found, and sides need to learn how to bat. Its bad for the boards and ground owners too if the games are too short (lost revenue) or too boring and end up as stalemates ( noone will watch).

What really needs investigating here is why most of the Aussie side cant bat and why a side once famed for mental strength is so capable of flumping now.
Pitch investigations are not about the scores reached by sides, they are about the danger posed or poor quality of the pitch. This is not a poor quality pitch or a dangerous one.

by rich1uk Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:24 am

from the ICC documentation on pitch conditions (my comments in bold) ;

Poor

If any of the following criteria apply, a pitch may be rated “poor”:

a. The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match

there was cetainly seam movement yesterday but i dont think it was excessive

b. The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match

there has been no uneven bounce

c. The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match

certainly been no excessive spin

d. The pitch displays little or no seam movement or turn at any stage in the match together with no significant bounce or carry, thereby depriving the bowlers of a fair contest between bat and ball.

dont think this applies

so based on the official specifications anu under what part of those guidelines should the pitch be reported under ?

by anu_d Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:41 am

@rich1uk
thx for posting the criteria.

I didn't know that you have been appointed to judge excessive seam movement by ICC Shocked

and why is excessive bounce not included in the criteria?

and who judged spin was excessive in Galle

by Sponsored content