Discussion in 'International Game Day' started by TheParraboy, Jan 2, 2018.
Yeah - I don't want to watch tests with variable bounce on day 1.
That's not at all what I'm saying. On the fourth and fifth day is when it should happen more often.
Perfect example was Adelaide, great batting deck till day 3 and then Broke up with variable bounce and some spin.
Then you're making the toss very match determinant and everyone will complain the match is over at the coin toss. I think intl cricketers and cricket boards this century are bit over pitches taking their heads off with variable bounce.
I'm happy with some seam movement, maybe a bit more grass or by all means bring the spinners in to the game late. Bat first - battle seam - bat last - battle spin.
England constantly produces good international pitches, even Ali gets wickets over there against top players.
Yes but not every wicket takes that much spin....which is why variable bounce is desirable in a wicket at times
Yeah, nah. You can keep your variable bounce, I'll appreciate spinners who can make it for themselves with over spin. I don't want to see bowlers at 150km/h smashing batsmen on variable bounce pitches. I'd rather watch origin matches and hear about Chappelli's days at the WACA.
On the spectrum of pitches, roads is at an extreme, variable bounce another. Put me in the middle of roads with lateral movement assistance, don't mind if its seam, spin or both within reason, keep the variable bounce to a minimum. Pitch only needs something and enough to keep the battle going continuously. Variable bounce is just too much in favour of bowlers.
Lol what a crock....so you don't want variable bounve because it "makes the toss too valuable" but you're happy with a pitch that does something for the quicks for a day or so then turns into a road if it's a wicket like the WACA, thus making the toss even more crucial....righto, makes perfect sense.
Variable bounce replaces spin on certain wickets if you want a contest. Fact
What's your point?
I don't understand what you're trying to argue.
Where did I say I'm happy with roads?
Well if you don't want variable bounce, and a wicket is never going to be conducive to spin, what would you like to happen on days 4 and 5? Because the insinuation is you'd prefer no deterioration over variable bounce, thus ensuring that batting is better later and the toss is vital.
It's no wonder you don't understand what I'm trying to argue if you don't even understand your own comments....
Oh well you may disagree with "if it seams it spins" all you like and suggest that some pitches will "never be conducive top spin" all you like, even tho they made some tidy turners in, was it Qld for Aus to prepare for India tour. Soil and grass are moveable these days in case you havn't heard. Pitch preparation is quite a science these days.
I understand my own comments fine thank you. I just don't understand yours.
Yes, often it will spin when it seams. But that doesn't mean that a WACA wicket is ever going to do both...or either overmuch, most of the time.
You seem to be labouring under the misconception that all surfaces can be made identical...whilst I am saying that variable bounce is much more desirable as a natural deterioration than nothing at all in the instances where surfaces are simply not conducive to turn. Plus who the holy f**k wants every wicket to be the same? Every single ground should have its' own character, variable bounce included for some of them
I would have thought it was a simple concept...
You think what exactly is a simple concept?
I really don't understand your writing.
Perhaps if English isn't your first language, you could write in your native tongue and then get it translated?
Your grasp of the English language, or apparent lack thereof, is none of my concern.
Where's Navjot Sindhu when you need him?
Just so long as he's not behind me in heavy traffic...
Holy Jay-Sus antilag. I don't think anyone who has played cricket wants or expects 150 click bowlers slamming batsmen in the head off a length. We do want balls hitting the splice of the bat. We do want spinners inducing top edges. We do not want batsmen playing forward or back to the wrong length with complete immunity. We want a contest.
You say the pitch misbehaving from day three creates a lack of equal chance? I call rubbish. By the middle of day three on most occasions most teams have nearly or have completed their first innings. They've had an equal chance. Then we want a challenge. Sideways movement is generally burnt out of the pitch by then. Spin that is slow off the surface and no variable bounce is pretty easy to play. Let bowlers have a go. The batsmen get generally the first innings well in their favour.
I don't know what's so difficult about that. I'd prefer old school Melbourne or Adelaide to the new MCG any day of the week. That pitch was boring as hell and an absolute disgrace to the game of cricket.
So variable pace and bounce then. I am guessing by your use of "we" I am not one of the people who has ever played cricket? Fine, lets for argument's sake assume that I have never played cricket. I certainly have paid for pay tv over summer to watch cricket. Even if not, I have watched on free to air, I still have watched cricket before. Or does that not entitle to me to a say? What If I just like reading the scorecards? May I comment then on what I don't want in a pitch? What if not scorecards, just the media commentary in the news? May I comment then?
I love watching over spin myself too.
I kinda liked Lara smashing half vollies off the back foot or Punter pulling the ball on the front foot myself.
To what extreme? Do you want to manufacture contests, to what level, the point of Ireland beating Australia at home? Or just Bangladesh beating them?
Well if the first day is seaming around, the second innings has an advantage, and can now seek to win by ain innings. Maybe I like all the famous fourth day batting turn arounds, that are famous, where a team took a losing position in the 3rd innings, and ended up winning a test against the odds. Botham 81, Laxman and Dravid 2001. Exentuated variable bounce, well those odds would be more than 500-1 that Lillee and Marsh pocketed.
Cricket is a unique sport where the toss matters because all things are not equal
You complain of all these roads, but how many games are ending in boring draws? MCG games. Besides the MCG. What? Waca 2015? Oh seems to be a big problem for bowlers to get a result. Be serious Ifaeta, 4/5 Aussie roads just ended in results. Draws are becomming a rarity. Games are won. You want the matches to be closer? But you don't want your home side to lose right? Cos they will overseas right?
You cry for old school cricket and hail the helcyon days of 80's and 90's cricket and ignore the fact there is so many more results in pitches today. You cry of roads, and give the bowlers a chance, when you ignore the fact that countries are preparing pitches for their bowlers at the expense of opposition bowlers, Aus bowlers fast and tall, get the job done without much lateral movement, their batsmen back themselves to make scores on em.. Eng and NZ bowlers, shorter, oft slower and need a bit more lateral movement and get the job done at home. Eng batsmen did fairly well in Straya compared to home, but only Anderson stood up for the bowlers.
You're a nice guy. And I would probably like you in real life. But you complain Khawaja doesn't move his feet and ignore the fact ABDV doesn't much either, thinks its overrated and published this so and that Viv Richards simply slogged across the line after planting his front foot, yet call for Munro into the NZ team. And join the complainers in Dhawarn. I too would give Munro a chance in the NZ team, I agree with you there. Crap balls sometimes get wickets, and some sloggers make runs. These are facts. Cricket is complex. Its nuanced. Mark Waugh in commentary last week said "miss out on a couple of full tosses and its time to retire", Andre Adams said "its amazing how many wickets full tosses get - someone ought to do the numbers cos I suspect its boundary or out a lot" as high as 20 or 30 percent (I presume percent) out in his experience. We are entering the "moneyball" generation of cricket analysts, and a lot of the old truths about cricket will hold up. A lot won't. Today, someone can coach or be a analyst for a top team without even FC experience. Look at Perth Scorchers, look at NZ. Here's the fly in the ointment, batting and bowling averages are increasing, but so are results - verdict; runs are being scored faster. But wickets, at least against touring teams, are falling fast too, else they'd be no result.
Which of the causes of variable bounce do you want to see implemented? I can only assume it is you want the grass to wear and go patchy? Even if it gives the spinners less to grip in the process? Or would you soften or flaken the clay too? Make it lower, and slower? Like a UAE pitch? Or Indian pitch when SL or Bangladesh tour? Seam and spin at start, spin at the end? Yet they don't need ridiculous or promoted variable bounce over there to get results. I kinda liked watching BMac and KW smash centuries over there before and after Craig spun Pakistan in a web.
You want Australia to discard the home advantage it has with its ability to churn through fast bowlers? I frankly wish NZ would hammer it even more and produce some spinning tracks when Eng, NZ and Aus tour. Cos India, SL, Aus, and SA aint going to buy into changing their ways anytime soon.
Or we can argue for nuetral pitch preparation like we got umpires. I am keen for that. Still not keen on deliberate variable bounce being exentuated after a few days. I like to see bowler skill. Not bowler's down hill skiing.
See I understand Vern Philander's skill, and I get he has looked more ordinary in Aus than he does in Safrica or England, but I also see the athlete of a fast bowler like Johnson or Starc, and while not looking as fancy in England compared to Anderson, get why they take wickets in Straya as they push themselves to injury after injury. I'm also the guy who called Johnson not having much left on this forum before his retirement. I was laughed at. But sure enough, he retired early, even earier than I predicted with a massive degree of conservatism. So I care little for popular 'in the moment' opinion on this forum. Sure, Aussie test bowling is not as pretty as watching bowlers swing it, but its a sporting effort to keep the pace up ball after ball. Noone likes Gallen for his cut out passes. To be honest, I'd like to see Southee start pushing himself again. He used to bowl mid 140's in SL and make stuff happen on pitches over there more than our spinners did. Totally caught SL and their pitch preparers by surprise.
So wtih all these test results in this era, how about the tourists make stronger touring team to compete the local conditions? With all the cricket on Pay TV, winning at home like Eng, Aus and India do well, aint a good claim for global domination. I'd much rather see international cricket see massive chopping and changing in a horses for courses approach to team selection for home and away, than see variable bounce widely encouraged throughout nations and end up with a stack of bowlers challenging SF Barnes numbers for greatest of all time.
As for Strayans calling for variable bounce at home for a contest, why did Strayans not make the same claims during the Ashes in 2015? Or in India 2017. Or Bangladesh 2017? People want to see a close contest, watch Aus play in Bangladesh. Or NZ tour England. Or do people want to see who is the best in a massive variety of conditions? Cos that is what we have now. And touring teams are widely failing. But there's typically a result, despite all the coin tosses.
I have read the Strayan complaints on here, 'oh the Windies suck, NZ suck, then Aus lose in SL and then Safrica wins in Aus and the Aussie selectors suck'. When are they happy? Not when Pakistan or England sucks in Straya. Would they rather a contest where they lost all those series? I doubt it. Not many Strayans enjoyed the 80's losses which had a lot of contests, and even Indian pushed in Straya. So its gets to the point where its a just a fan saying "I want to win, but I want it to be a close win". I get that. But after how many losses would you as a fan just settle for a win? Nail bitingly close or clean sweep. How do we have all these results, where the host typically wins, but there's a problem of not enough variable bounce? Why not ask, why is the host typically winning?" And if it is different conditons, ask "do we (whoever the we is) want uniformity in pitch and ball conditions?". Because what I decyphered from Bazal's attempt at English, he doesn't seem to want those, yet like you, he wants variable bounce. So is this universal variable bounce? In Straya and away? Are English pitches boring you with their relatively true bounce?
Well that escalated quickly
Vernon went well, AB too great to see him back in tests
So you really think that you have only discussed one concept above, and that its simple?
Use short sentences in your reply. It helps to add clarity.
Separate names with a comma.