Cricket

[Sintiger]

Could you imagine if England decided to play back to back tests on a wicket in Headingley!! The 2nd test would be over in a day and a half.

The fact that it was deemed ok to play a test match (remember these should be the pinnacle of cricket) on the same wicket they used a week earlier, is ridiculous. To then play the 3rd test on a wicket, where the hosts didn't even bowl 1 ball of pace, and as you say played spinners that weren't picked for the 1st test and hardly setting the world on fire in domestic cricket and they could rip those 2 tests apart, says a lot, both about Englands batting, but also about what standards should be set for all tests.

yep.

Pakistan cricket has always been somewhat of a farce but there is an article in The Age today about it . There have been more than 20 selectors in the last 18 months including the new ones. One of the new selectors is ex umpire Aleem Dar, and the coach and the Captain are no longer selectors, the head of the Pakistan cricket Board is also a Cabinet member in the Government.

England played poorly because they didn't adapt, bazball was never going to cut it on those pitches.

Test cricket is on it's knees around the world and these types of actions just make it worse and I am honestly at a loss as to why people defend them. The best test cricket has always been played when the wicket gives something to the quicks early, dries out and then favours the batters and then breaks up for the spinners later in the game. Wickets will always vary but some version of that formula with the aim of having a pitch last 5 days is what we should always aim for.

Anyway it is an opinion and it seems many disagree and that's all fine but personally I don't like it.

 

[spook]

Could you imagine if England decided to play back to back tests on a wicket in Headingley!! The 2nd test would be over in a day and a half.

The fact that it was deemed ok to play a test match (remember these should be the pinnacle of cricket) on the same wicket they used a week earlier, is ridiculous. To then play the 3rd test on a wicket, where the hosts didn't even bowl 1 ball of pace, and as you say played spinners that weren't picked for the 1st test and hardly setting the world on fire in domestic cricket and they could rip those 2 tests apart, says a lot, both about Englands batting, but also about what standards should be set for all tests.

Forget that it was the same pitch. It was a better pitch the second time around than the first Test highway.

2nd Test, Day 1: Pakistan 5/259, i.e. pretty much the archetypal score for 'even contest between bat and ball'.
Day 2: Pakistan 5/107 (all out 366, i.e. pretty much the archetypal score for 'even contest between bat and ball'); England 6/239, i.e. pretty much the archetypal score for 'even contest between bat and ball' for a team batting second)
Day 3: England 4/52 (all out 291); Pakistan all out 221; England 2/36. Lots of wickets but plenty of runs.
Day 4: England 8/108 (all out 144). Meek 4th innings collapse. Very common, on any pitch.

Now how is that any more cheating than Stuart Broad taking 8/15 before lunch on day 1 of a raging green seamer in a must-win Ashes Test?

Plenty of matches in England are decided with all-seam, no spin, btw.

 

[tigertim]

India A all out 107, Strata A 2-15 so far. Konstas and Bancroft for ducks.

 

[MD Jazz]

You need to pick the right teams too. Australia should have won in 2001 and maybe even1998 if they'd picked the right team, i.e. Lehmann, probably Martyn and maybe Bevan instead of Blewett, Langer and probably Punter.

During Lehmann's international span (1994-2004), Australia won 4, lost 6 and drew 1 Test in India (0-1 in 1996, 1-2 in 1998 and 2001, 2-1-1 in 2004). With Lehmann in the team it was 3 wins, 1 draw. Zero losses. The only Test of the 1998 series he played, we won. He didn't play in 2001. He played the first three of 2004 then dropped himself for the 4th and final Test to accommodate Punter's return and allow Clarke to stay in the side after we were 2-0 up. We lost.

He was crucial to us sweeping the 2004 series in Sri Lanka, scoring two tons and averaging 62 in the three-Test series. Best Australian player of spin of his generation and one of our best of all time.

My cousin was great mates with Hookes and a fair few SA cricketers. He said Lehman was a pretty rough and ready guy who loved a beer when he was playing. Perhaps he lacked a bit of sophistication/arse licking ability? They all raved about his talent and his SA teammates loved him but he never seemed that popular with selectors.

 

[MD Jazz]

India A all out 107, Strata A 2-15 so far. Konstas and Bancroft for ducks.

Bancroft's got given out caught down the leg side off his thigh pad. A bit stiff.

 

[mrposhman]

Forget that it was the same pitch. It was a better pitch the second time around than the first Test highway.

2nd Test, Day 1: Pakistan 5/259, i.e. pretty much the archetypal score for 'even contest between bat and ball'.
Day 2: Pakistan 5/107 (all out 366, i.e. pretty much the archetypal score for 'even contest between bat and ball'); England 6/239, i.e. pretty much the archetypal score for 'even contest between bat and ball' for a team batting second)
Day 3: England 4/52 (all out 291); Pakistan all out 221; England 2/36. Lots of wickets but plenty of runs.
Day 4: England 8/108 (all out 144). Meek 4th innings collapse. Very common, on any pitch.

Now how is that any more cheating than Stuart Broad taking 8/15 before lunch on day 1 of a raging green seamer in a must-win Ashes Test?

Plenty of matches in England are decided with all-seam, no spin, btw.

Not saying the 1st wicket was great (it certainly wasn't), but it was more a statement of where else in the world would you play 2 tests back to back on the same wicket. Doing that, most likely led to the 1st test road, because the groundsmen were forced to create a wicket that would play for longer than 5 days. Just because they lucked into a decent wicket for the 2nd test, doesn't take away from the point around why the pinnacle in cricket is essentially played on the same wicket within a week.

I didn't comment on games in England, but much like all spin, I don't really like all pace either, tests should be a balance of all types of bowling. Anything like 8/15 on a green seamer, is a horrible wicket whichever way you look at it, the same as a wicket that the hosts don't bowl a ball of pace in 2 innings on a disaster of a dustbowl.

Yes some wickets can be prepared well and then weather can come in and blow all the plans out, but I don't think that was the case with this dustbowl, and the 1st and 2nd tests were planned to be played on the same wicket.

If people actually want test cricket to survive, that can't happen. A test wicket, should be planned to be a 5 day wicker, not 2 days, not 3 days and certainly not 9 days.

 

[MD Jazz]

If people actually want test cricket to survive, that can't happen. A test wicket, should be planned to be a 5 day wicker, not 2 days, not 3 days and certainly not 9 days.

Test cricket is in the best place it has been for ages. I love it as much as ever, I have enjoyed watching every OS series recently. It isn't just Aust/India/Eng. The Kiwis, Pakistan and SA are all capable of beating every other Test side.

As long as new stars continue to emerge I can see Test cricket thriving for a long time.

 

[mrposhman]

Test cricket is in the best place it has been for ages. I love it as much as ever, I have enjoyed watching every OS series recently. It isn't just Aust/India/Eng. The Kiwis, Pakistan and SA are all capable of beating every other Test side.

As long as new stars continue to emerge I can see Test cricket thriving for a long time.

I don't doubt that, but all nations need to come together and agree on generally acceptable practises around wickets. I don't see how playing 2 tests back to back on the same wicket is good. spook is clouded by his hatred for England on this one, he bags the 1st wicket as awful whilst claiming the 2nd test wicket was acceptable, when the reasons why both were as they were, were because they chose to play back to back tests on the same wicket. You can't bag out 1 decision and 1 wicket, without doing the same for the other, as the reasons for both are exactly the same.

 

[Sintiger]

I didn't comment on games in England, but much like all spin, I don't really like all pace either, tests should be a balance of all types of bowling. Anything like 8/15 on a green seamer, is a horrible wicket whichever way you look at it, the same as a wicket that the hosts don't bowl a ball of pace in 2 innings on a disaster of a dustbowl.

If that wicket on which Broad took 8-15 was done on purpose then it was a pretty stupid cheating attempt or at the very least a monumental gamble. Australia had Johnson, Starc and Hazelwood as the pace attack and if we had won the toss and bowled it would have been England facing the music.
Green seamers like that are as bad for the game as any other poor pitch, whether they are deliberate or not. Basically a game decided by a toss of the coin.

Test cricket is in the best place it has been for ages. I love it as much as ever, I have enjoyed watching every OS series recently. It isn't just Aust/India/Eng. The Kiwis, Pakistan and SA are all capable of beating every other Test side.

As long as new stars continue to emerge I can see Test cricket thriving for a long time.

The crowds in most places in the world are terrible. England, Australia and India are about the only places that get really decent crowds. Even in India they are nowhere near the crowds they get for other forms of cricket

 

[spook]

My cousin was great mates with Hookes and a fair few SA cricketers. He said Lehman was a pretty rough and ready guy who loved a beer when he was playing. Perhaps he lacked a bit of sophistication/arse licking ability? They all raved about his talent and his SA teammates loved him but he never seemed that popular with selectors.

Yeah, he was fat and not a great fielder. Also perceived weakness against express bowling. Blewett was an excellent player of pace and a great fielder as well as a handy medium-pacer. But Lehmann was the better bat.

Not saying the 1st wicket was great (it certainly wasn't), but it was more a statement of where else in the world would you play 2 tests back to back on the same wicket. Doing that, most likely led to the 1st test road, because the groundsmen were forced to create a wicket that would play for longer than 5 days. Just because they lucked into a decent wicket for the 2nd test, doesn't take away from the point around why the pinnacle in cricket is essentially played on the same wicket within a week.

I didn't comment on games in England, but much like all spin, I don't really like all pace either, tests should be a balance of all types of bowling. Anything like 8/15 on a green seamer, is a horrible wicket whichever way you look at it, the same as a wicket that the hosts don't bowl a ball of pace in 2 innings on a disaster of a dustbowl.

Yes some wickets can be prepared well and then weather can come in and blow all the plans out, but I don't think that was the case with this dustbowl, and the 1st and 2nd tests were planned to be played on the same wicket.

If people actually want test cricket to survive, that can't happen. A test wicket, should be planned to be a 5 day wicker, not 2 days, not 3 days and certainly not 9 days.

You're talking hyperbole.

The second Test wicket was good.

I watched the series. I looked at the highlights again to make sure I wasn't misremembering. The third Test pitch was not a disaster of a dustbowl or anything close to it. England made 267 at nearly 4 runs per over. Pakistan made 344 at 3.55 per over. There were 340 runs scored on day 1, 295 on day 2 (Pakistan more patient and disciplined). Hardly unplayable. The reason the match only went three days was England's pathetic second innings only lasted 37 overs.

Duckett - missed a straight one, LBW
Crawley - missed a straight one, LBW
Pope - beaten in flight, lunged with hard hands, nicked to slip
Brook - tried to cut a quicker ball that was too full - caught behind
Stokes - left a straight one that was hitting middle stump halfway up, LBW. Brain fade.
Smith - Charge and god-awful up-country hoick. Missed. Bowled. Garbage cricket.
Root - see Pope, except caught by the keeper.
Atkinson - played over a yorker, bowled
Rehan - tried to paddle sweep, left all three stumps exposed, missed it. Bowled.
Leach - gave the charge, Noman saw him coming, threw it wide and fast, stumped by a mile.

England threw too may wickets away, from Crawley on day 1 with an awful shot to the last two. And the two spinners bowled beautifully. But nothing turned square or ran along the ground.

Conditions favoured the home team. When don't they?

 

[MD Jazz]

Yeh, the Poms are entertaining but it does seem they are incapable of toughing or grinding it out when the conditions almost demand that should be the approach.

I enjoy watching them, I think they have played a fairly big part in revitalising test cricket. But they appear inflexible now.

Bowlers are up against it most times, most changes in test cricket or improvements in technology (bats/protective gear etc) favour batsman. That a guy throwing it down at less than 90kmh can bamboozle a guy 22 yards away is one of the great things about the game. Having conditions that adv the bowlers a bit isn't a bad thing. It makes runs well earnt.

Unlike the circus that is 20/20 which is essentially meaningless and forgettable. (Not that it doesn't have its place as a money spinner (mainly) and short-term entertainment)

 

[23.21.159]

I don't doubt that, but all nations need to come together and agree on generally acceptable practises around wickets. I don't see how playing 2 tests back to back on the same wicket is good. spook is clouded by his hatred for England on this one, he bags the 1st wicket as awful whilst claiming the 2nd test wicket was acceptable, when the reasons why both were as they were, were because they chose to play back to back tests on the same wicket. You can't bag out 1 decision and 1 wicket, without doing the same for the other, as the reasons for both are exactly the same.

Why would they even be playing two Tests back-to-back on the same ground? Or even the same city? I thought one of the attractions of the game was to play under different conditions (including weather) and take it to as many people as possible. Been a while since any ground in Australia had more than one Test in the same season (2005/06 was the last and that was only because of the World XI game). Granted it had to happen during Covid but that is no more.