Newland pitch

First topic message reminder :

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

1- i haven't but as someone who has watched cricket for over 30 years i think i know excessive seam movement when i see it

2- there wasn't excessive bounce yesterday either , the odd ball took off but that was it

3- that would have been the match referee

if you look at yesterday as a whole , in the morning session there were around 110 runs scored for the loss of just 3 wickets, 2 of those 3 wickets being the last 2 of the australian first innings

SA in their fourth innings made 79-1 iirc at the end of the day as well , so are you trying to say that the pitch started off flat in the morning , became unplayable in the afternoon and then flattened out again ?

wouldn't be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said but thats just because of the number of ridiculous comments of yours we have to choose from however.

8 of the 10 wickets the australians lost in their 47 all out were just bad shots tbh, nothing to do with the pitch.

Worst article of the year - 2011.

SA have blown your preposterous comments to smithereens.

Fists of Fury wrote:Worst article of the year - 2011.

SA have blown your preposterous comments to smithereens.

dont give her the award yet FoF , i am sure she will come up with something worse in the next 7 weeks

What a great Test match that was, even if it was a couple of days shorter than it should have been, but I can't understand anyone doubting the pitch as the bounce was even throughout, no balls that kept unexpectedly low or reared up from standard length, no excessive movement off the seam, just brilliant bowling and at times, woeful batting.

I would like to raise the issue of having too little preparation for the Test and playing too much of the shorter versions of the game as reasons why so many wickets fell.
It's hard for anyone to play at this level, but to do so with so few matches as practice is just stupid and judging by the strokes offered by some of the batsmen, they seem to have forgotten that this is a Test match that lasts 5 days and not a 20/20 slogfest.

it was good to finally see a test match where ball dominated bat. You need that in test cricket, no one wants to see 500 plays 600,

IMO, games that are low scoring are more intresting than games that are high scoring

cricketfan90 wrote:IMO, games that are low scoring are more intresting than games that are high scoring

Of course they are, boring draws are the most awful thing in test cricket. There's no point in watching one side make 500/6 and 200/2 vs 650/8. Low scoring games are exciting, and more importantly they test the skills of the players much more than bore draws on falt pitches.

Yes but games where sides dont have to bowl properly and batsmen dont have a fair chance regardless of skill because of pitch conditions are just as bad as the the flat pitch ones. Whilst it can be a lottery who wins with wild swings in fortune its no sporting contest (T20?)
This game wasnt one of those however. It seems there was a pretty even balance between bat and ball, 3 players capable of making centuries suggests that it was far from unplayable. the low scores came form poor batting and psychological weakness, as well as both sides having some quality seamers capable of exploiting what help there was.
The pitch wasnt variable or extreme, it was good and produced an interesting if short test.