South Africa's tour of India - October/December 2015

[abhi_jacko]

Here is a question - why is it okay for a pitch to turn on the 4th and 5th day, but not okay for it to turn on the first day.

If we want a "FAIR" game and we are playing in a country where spin will eventually dictate terms, then I would rather have all 4 winnings being affected equally by spin instead of just the last innings of a test. Balances the competition a lot more imo

Imagine if we had good batting conditions for the first three days. India scores 400. SAF scores 450. India scores 350. SAF are set to chase 300 but now its day 5 and the pitch is in a bad shape. Isn't that a lot more unfair to SAF than the current game ? The toss and conditions deciding the game a lot more.

PS: not having a go at any side. Just a simple questions

 

[Aislabie]

You pick out one pitch where you say the scores were the same an Nagpur and then say one was great bowling, while the other was pitch ridiculousness !! Not a very objective differentiation.

On the Galle pitch in question, quality players who applied themselves got runs - this included Jayawardene (91), Mathews (79) and McCullum (68). Other batsmen, perhaps less gifted were also able to push on and make runs - Karunaratne hit 60* and Flynn eked out 53. This showed that you didn't have to be some sort of demigod to get runs, just that it wasn't easy.

Herath may have ended up with match figures of 11 for 105 (because he bowled very well), but his spin colleague Randiv ended up with figures of 2 for 99 (because he didn't). That presents a clear, objective explanation of how that Galle pitch was so different to the Nagpur pitch.

I will go back to the point about there being this bias in general against spinning wickets. If a pitch seams or swings too much or has too much grass on it, the general idea is to give it a positive spin, but a wicket that is made to spin, all hell breaks lose.

I'm speaking only for myself, so this point is irrelevant. It does not make sense to counter my arguments by saying that Nasser Hussain is biased.

That highlight you posted, I will watch it, tell me the exact minute I need to turn to watch a wicket fall due to pitch ridiculousness.

Show me one such wicket, and I will show you a batsman who failed to read the line, or played down the wrong line, or tried to just plod his frontfoot down and defend with hard hands. All these are poor technique not pitch ridiculousness.

AB de Villiers, the world's greatest batsman, receives a long-hop at 4:17. He then shapes to pull the ball, which stops, jumps and turns in pronounced fashion at 4:18. By this point, he has already committed to his shot, but he tries to pull his bat out of the way. Unfortunately, the exaggerated turn and bounce means that he cannot get his hands out of the way, and at 4:19 it takes a leading edge. He then gives a return catch, and is dismissed for a duck.

Significantly, this is the one batsman who has shown technique and application against the turning ball so far: his scores before this in the series were 63, 16 and 84 on wickets which turned, but also rewarded good batsmanship.

Basically translates as - doesn't know how to dance, blames the stage that it was uneven and hindered performance. I think its very apt here. Maybe the stage was uneven, but that doesn't change the fact that the person using it as an excuse doesnt know how to dance anyway.

You do go on to answer that point later on:

Another day to go, SA are the #1 side in the world, are on a 10 yr unbeaten away streak ... do you think this is the first time they have played on a square spinner during that run.

Of course they've played on turning tracks, but this is one of the worst Test wickets since Sabina Park '98. As you say, you cannot go on a ten-year unbeaten run if you "don't know how to dance".

Similarly if a batsman had applied himself in Nagpur and got a 100, would it have made the pitch better !!

This is an irrelevance, because nobody has even scored 50, let alone 100. That Lord's Test included innings totals of 295, 319, 342 and 223. Five batsmen scored half centuries in that match, as well as Rahane and Ballance who made centuries. You can say "what if someone makes 100" all you like, but on a surface that plays as badly as this Nagpur wicket, there's almost no chance of it happening.

If it does, I will bow down to the batsman who does it, but one swallow does not a summer make. All of the wickets that I have discussed, bar the Nagpur one, have seen more than one batsman (usually about five) who have been able to counter it. So far, nobody from either side has been able to do so.

Here is a question - why is it okay for a pitch to turn on the 4th and 5th day, but not okay for it to turn on the first day.

This pitch has turned square from Day One, and has deteriorated as the game has gone on, which is the same pattern as a pitch that turns on the fourth and fifth day after playing well on the first couple. In that case, the team with the best batsmen and seamers would be ahead of the game going into the third or fourth day, before the spinners take control of the game and try to push home the advantage. In that situation, the Test match would be won by the team which was best across all aspects of cricket.

The difference is the starting point, and in this case, the pitch would be completely destroyed by Day Five, were the Test to last for that long. You do make valid points about the importance of the toss in the case of a pitch deteriorating, but most of the time the team which has the best batsmen, seamers, fielders and spinners will win the game. In this case, which team has the best seamers is a complete irrelevance, because they will have no bearing on the result.

 

[shravi]

it's always the same thing. runs in the subcontinent don't count because they are made on flat wickets, when there are absolute run fests in Australia every year. like when sehwag made those triple tons and they had no explanation for why nobody else could do that if it's so easy.

now, this pitch is "unfit for cricket", but it's totally fine if it's a green wicket. even if we are to accept this argument that this pitch is "unfit for cricket", then those overly-green pitches that produced similarly short contests are also "unfit for cricket". but when that point is made, then they say that the batsmen didn't apply themselves, etc.

basically everything in the subcontinent is undervalued. it's such a tired, over-used argument, and doesn't merit such a long discussion.

imo, we are just in a generation where batsmen require absolute roads to score big runs, and a pitch of even minimal difficulty becomes a minefield. there were so many occasions where Dravid (or any of the other greats from the previous gen) played on pitches like this and looked unfussed. but this current generation is losing multiple wickets to moeen ali, and Nathan lyon. as for SA- elgar, van zyl, duminy, vilas... they are just not very good players. amla is badly out of form, AB has made runs when he has applied himself, and I am not sure what is wrong with faf this series, but perhaps he just lacks the technique/application to play on such pitches.

 

[PokerAce]

On the Galle pitch in question, quality players who applied themselves got runs - this included Jayawardene (91), Mathews (79) and McCullum (68). Other batsmen, perhaps less gifted were also able to push on and make runs - Karunaratne hit 60* and Flynn eked out 53. This showed that you didn't have to be some sort of demigod to get runs, just that it wasn't easy.

Herath may have ended up with match figures of 11 for 105 (because he bowled very well), but his spin colleague Randiv ended up with figures of 2 for 99 (because he didn't). That presents a clear, objective explanation of how that Galle pitch was so different to the Nagpur pitch.

You are repeating yourself. You keep saying a pitch is okay because (X, Y or Z) batsmen got runs on them. So again, if someone got a 100 tomorrow for SA would the pitch suddenly become okay, by that logic.

You fail to realise that a bad pitch is a bad pitch. If a batsman somehow scores on it anyway, then it doesn't improve the pitch.

I'm speaking only for myself, so this point is irrelevant. It does not make sense to counter my arguments by saying that Nasser Hussain is biased.

No you are eqaully biased because you don't even remember that pitch and till I pointed it out to you, you had no recollection of that wicket. So that in itself shows that to you that extra green wicket was nothing extra-ordinary or worth remembering, or in other words, okay. If you thought it was extreme you would remember it. The Nagpur pitch however sticks out to you like a palm tree would in the middle of Sahara desert. This difference in reaction to two extreme pitches shows your bias, as much as it does Nasser Hussain's.

As long as pitch wavers to the extreme with regard to helping seamers no problem, but helping spinners is a no no.

AB de Villiers, the world's greatest batsman, receives a long-hop at 4:17. He then shapes to pull the ball, which stops, jumps and turns in pronounced fashion at 4:18. By this point, he has already committed to his shot, but he tries to pull his bat out of the way. Unfortunately, the exaggerated turn and bounce means that he cannot get his hands out of the way, and at 4:19 it takes a leading edge. He then gives a return catch, and is dismissed for a duck.

Yeah ABD failed to read the wicket and committed early to the shot on a wicket where the ball came onto the bat slow, and hence popped an easy catch to the bowler. A classic c&b for a spinner on a slow turner wicket. Dhawan too got out in a similar fashion to Elgar. Committing to the shot, off a delivery which was slow in coming. Technique issues here on both.

Of course they've played on turning tracks, but this is one of the worst Test wickets since Sabina Park '98. As you say, you cannot go on a ten-year unbeaten run if you "don't know how to dance".

Ah but two of the dancers Smith and Kallis, especially Kallis, have retired. The question is do those who remain know how to dance and the answer is no. Even before this tour, they lost of B'desh on turning wickets. On this tour, they lost ODIs on wickets that had help for the spinners, the flat wicket ODIs they won. Then Mohli, not an extreme turner, was an easy win for India. Bangalore really exposed them. SA were put in by Kohli because of all the rain that had been around and Kohli even selected three seamers for that test, and the wicket was damp, and expected to help the seamers. Even on that wicket, SA lost 9 wickets to spinners and were bowled out by tea. India in whatever overs they got were 80/0 on the same wicket. If this is evidence of SA playing the spinners well, or knowing how to dance, then what can I say.

SA have been struggling against spin all along, only the Nagpur is an uneven stage, and so all the blame is being dumped on the wicket, and the fact that SA have not been dancing very well, through out the series anyway (and even before that), is being ignored,

This is an irrelevance, because nobody has even scored 50, let alone 100. That Lord's Test included innings totals of 295, 319, 342 and 223. Five batsmen scored half centuries in that match, as well as Rahane and Ballance who made centuries. You can say "what if someone makes 100" all you like, but on a surface that plays as badly as this Nagpur wicket, there's almost no chance of it happening.

Lol, yeah and do you think England sportingly prepared a green wicket, because there was a lot of chance of Indian batsmen scoring 100s on it. Just because one batsman was able to guts it out doesn't make the basic idea behind the Lord's wicket any different from the Nagpur wicket. Both were tailor made to help the home side to the extreme. Just that Rahane helped India win at Lord's while SA are struggling in Nagpur.

Again you fail to see the flaw in the argument that the pitch suddenly becomes okay, just because someone scores runs on it, when the very idea behind making a green top is to deny batsmen, especially sub-continent batsmen that opportunity. A green top is as bad as a square turner.

This pitch has turned square from Day One, and has deteriorated as the game has gone on, which is the same pattern as a pitch that turns on the fourth and fifth day after playing well on the first couple. In that case, the team with the best batsmen and seamers would be ahead of the game going into the third or fourth day, before the spinners take control of the game and try to push home the advantage. In that situation, the Test match would be won by the team which was best across all aspects of cricket.

Again what rulebook of cricket is this from, that the pitch should not turn square on day 1. And again where is all the rest of it from, that first day seamers should have help to bowl well, then the spinners should have help to bowl well. I mean what!! Why can't spinners bowl well first.

The difference is the starting point, and in this case, the pitch would be completely destroyed by Day Five, were the Test to last for that long. You do make valid points about the importance of the toss in the case of a pitch deteriorating, but most of the time the team which has the best batsmen, seamers, fielders and spinners will win the game. In this case, which team has the best seamers is a complete irrelevance, because they will have no bearing on the result.

Do you even know that Morkel took six wickets in this test. You want to put a bowler six wickets in the irrelevant basket, then what else is there to say. Well done.

 

[War]

I see this debate over the pitches in this series has been strong here as expected.

This article sums up my the problem perfectly IMO - The difference between Nagpur and Nottingham | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Seen many series in India throughout sub-continent on dustbowls in my 20 years watching cricket - this turners are clearly under-prepared even if one argues some of the SA batsmen have deficiencies vs SPIN - even the IND batsman haven't found it easy vs SA spinners.

 

[War]

it's always the same thing. runs in the subcontinent don't count because they are made on flat wickets, when there are absolute run fests in Australia every year. like when sehwag made those triple tons and they had no explanation for why nobody else could do that if it's so easy.

now, this pitch is "unfit for cricket", but it's totally fine if it's a green wicket. even if we are to accept this argument that this pitch is "unfit for cricket", then those overly-green pitches that produced similarly short contests are also "unfit for cricket". but when that point is made, then they say that the batsmen didn't apply themselves, etc.

basically everything in the subcontinent is undervalued. it's such a tired, over-used argument, and doesn't merit such a long discussion.

imo, we are just in a generation where batsmen require absolute roads to score big runs, and a pitch of even minimal difficulty becomes a minefield. there were so many occasions where Dravid (or any of the other greats from the previous gen) played on pitches like this and looked unfussed. but this current generation is losing multiple wickets to moeen ali, and Nathan lyon. as for SA- elgar, van zyl, duminy, vilas... they are just not very good players. amla is badly out of form, AB has made runs when he has applied himself, and I am not sure what is wrong with faf this series, but perhaps he just lacks the technique/application to play on such pitches.

While I agree batsmen of this era when it comes to play high quality pace and spin in conditions that suit such bowlers have much deficiencies (a legacy of the FTB early 2000s era and influence of T20 of players techniques IMO) - I would dispute your contention that things related to performances in the SC as a general rule with everything "don't count". Its just a few basic things don't count i.e SC batters or spinners who score mountains or runs on those roads/plenty of wickets of spinner friendly tracks - but when they go overseas outside of SC - they struggle.

 

[War]

Here is a question - why is it okay for a pitch to turn on the 4th and 5th day, but not okay for it to turn on the first day.

If we want a "FAIR" game and we are playing in a country where spin will eventually dictate terms, then I would rather have all 4 winnings being affected equally by spin instead of just the last innings of a test. Balances the competition a lot more imo

Imagine if we had good batting conditions for the first three days. India scores 400. SAF scores 450. India scores 350. SAF are set to chase 300 but now its day 5 and the pitch is in a bad shape. Isn't that a lot more unfair to SAF than the current game ? The toss and conditions deciding the game a lot more.

PS: not having a go at any side. Just a simple questions

If a pitch is turning day 4 or 5 standards on day 1 - its not good for cricket since that's a clear sign it has been under-prepared and even a joke spinner will get massive rewards.

That scenario you suggested is last I checked how a test pitch suppose to behave throughout the games history: stats out good for batting in first 3 innings but by final innings after wear and tear takes over - the bowlers are in their element, thus meaning over the course of the 5 days, both batsman and bowlers have periods when they pitch suits them.

 

[namin96]

I need to add this - I would rather watch this test that ends in 3 days over the run gluttony that happened in the recent Perth Test - which was supposed to have two of the best bowling attacks in the world today.

Something about the bewildered looks on some of the best batsmen in the world after being done in by the turning ball is just very satisfying.

I personally think matches like this nagpur and mohali match are really fun to watch because there is so much suspense going on each ball. It's fun watching a match like this where the pitch is really testing the batsman. I see no problem in matches ending in three days.[DOUBLEPOST=1448587478][/DOUBLEPOST]

What Morne Morkel has done on this wicket is what you describe as world class. In English terms, what Jimmy Anderson did in the UAE is world class.

was he actually getting conventional swing or was it just reverse swing?

 

[namin96]

I see this debate over the pitches in this series has been strong here as expected.

This article sums up my the problem perfectly IMO - The difference between Nagpur and Nottingham | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Seen many series in India throughout sub-continent on dustbowls in my 20 years watching cricket - this turners are clearly under-prepared even if one argues some of the SA batsmen have deficiencies vs SPIN - even the IND batsman haven't found it easy vs SA spinners.

well the indian batsman should be able to put up at least 400 runs. They just don't apply themselves like our famed batting lineup used to. Dravid and Tendulkar would have put on a show of how to bat on this pitch.

 

[namin96]

Take the ball that he bowled to AB de Villiers as an example. It was a short ball, one that on most surfaces would be regarded as a long-hop and dealt with accordingly. Instead, it stopped in the track, turned sharply, and ballooned off the track. It took a wicket because de Villiers is freakishly good enough to get a bat onto it.


No, he wasn't. He was bowling on an admittedly helpful track at batsmen who didn't have the technique to deal with it. But he had at least as much luck as help from the wicket - if the pitch was extraordinary in its help for him, at least some those balls would have missed the edge. If the pace and bounce had been inconsistent, some might have fallen short of the slips, or carried over them.


The one where Broad took eight wickets provided a relatively close contest between bat and ball for the vast majority of the game. This one has not - no batsman has passed 40, and 32 wickets have already fallen in the game.


Tahir was hardly put away - he went for just over three runs per over, conceding only four boundaries. If he was bowling lollipops as you say, then his figures were rescued by the assistance the pitch gave him. Comparatively, the Australian bowlers (who did bowl poorly in that Test) all conceded over four runs per over. Therefore, it follows that bad balls were easier to put away on the green top in Nottingham than the rank turner in Nagpur.


If you'd just left it at biased without bringing in soundbites like "your darling Broad" and "biased like your views", I wouldn't have given you such a hard time over this, but here goes. I do not support India, but I also do not support South Africa or England. I'm an Ireland fan, but above all I'm a cricket fan, and this Test match offends me on the last count. If your problem is that I'm biased in favour of good cricket, then fine I'm guilty. Otherwise, make arguments that don't resort to personal point-scoring.

- - -


See previous point - please refrain from petty point-scoring.

I also love the irony in being told to grow up by someone who used a meme to support their argument.

I don't think I'm the only one on the board with a job. I'm probably part of a majority on here having a job, which is why you calling me an idiot for thinking that some people might not have seen the highlights yet was so odd.

Spinning wickets cannot be avoided, but unfit dustbowls can. It is not impossible to create pitches that batsmen can reasonably bat on. In the Ranji Trophy, for example, flat pitches are produced regularly. I'm not calling for 500-plays-600 pitches, just for something that leaves room for the bat to actually compete with the ball.

- - -


Me too, because it would take a true batting masterclass.

Either way I think the Nottingham test had way too much movement initially. Also, this is not an "unfit dustbowl" so please stop calling it that. In fact, I like matches like these especially in India, it's pretty exciting when you have a low scoring match with the pitch really testing the batsman. Going back to the pitch, this is not an unplayable surface as with better footwork India should have at least scored 300-350 runs and SA shouldn't have folded for 79 runs. Also, India tour of England about two years ago, the pitch at Manchester completely favored the bowlers so why wasn't that mentioned two summers ago? Instead people jumped at the Indian batsman and were quick to say oh they're really bad at playing seam and swing. Pitches in India should be like this as Dhoni had said right after the odi series that this is our speciality when teams come to India just like England, Aus..etc have their own specialty when we go there.

 

[War]

well the indian batsman should be able to put up at least 400 runs. They just don't apply themselves like our famed batting lineup used to. Dravid and Tendulkar would have put on a show of how to bat on this pitch.

I won't say IND batsmen should be able to put up 400 at all, SA bowling attack is not weak by any means even without Steyn playing. The conditions of the pitch is making their ok/part time spinners in Harmer/Elgar look more dangerous than usual.

I agree somewhat that if Tendy/Dravid/Laxman/Sehwag/Ganguly/Azhar was batting on this they would score more runs, but maybe not that significantly more because I think this is substandard turner, a pitch really can't be turning like its day 4/5 on day 1 & 2. I have seen many normal legitimate turners in IND and this 3 tests wickets aren't one. The only normal IND pitch that traditionally turns heavily from day is Mumbai with its red soil texture etc.

Nagpur for example I'd never forget, this was the venue when AUS finally conquered India in 2004 during their glory days and I've seen some other tests there since - it never turns like this.

 

[grkrama]

I have seen many normal legitimate turners in IND and this 3 tests wickets aren't one.

this is the part i dont agree at all, this is the only pitch in the whole series taht cane be labeled as a rank turner, Blore was by no means turning, saf batsman fell to straight ones with poor application, mohali was as docile as it gets for a spinning pitch in india.Saf batmsan managed to play worse than indian counterparts on it!

Really wish we had cleaned them up in blore and all this pitch nonsense talk wouldnt be there!


Nagpur has many pitches, this one is a turner, then there is the slug that we got during ENG IND, it varies which one we get, ind aus they had to leave plenty of grass for the pitch to get hard something not a natural for that pitch ![DOUBLEPOST=1448590841][/DOUBLEPOST]ALso SAF are still not out of it, do expect them to pull something special tomorrow, atleast get close to the target!

 

[grkrama]

Manjerekar on the batsman

He may talk nonsense most of the time, but does make a case here!

 

[grkrama]

why the hell is kohli keeping on bowling ishant?

 

[aditya123]

I have seen many normal legitimate turners in IND and this 3 tests wickets aren't one.

You clearly have`nt watched whatever little action we had at Bangalore then. I criticized the Nagpur pitch myself but Bangalore was a beautiful track. It had something for everyone and was`nt turning more than a track like Adelaide! Just because SA got bowled put within 50 overs there does`nt make it a bad track automatically.