Sporting contests can be at their most compelling and thrilling when the unexpected is happening - it is one of the reasons the early rounds of the FA Cup attract such interest.
Hi Neil. You mentioned "exposing batsmen's poor techniques" . That's the bottom line isn't it? Too much hit and giggle cricket especially in formative years? Just asking. Cheers.
Hi Garrick, i wonder if the 'technique' argument is becoming redundant? That's why we have red-ball specialists. Batsmen really do need to be able to adjust their approach and technique between formats these days, I believe. If they can't then that, in itself, is a fault in their 'technique'!
If we are to celebrate 2 day tests, then we might as well turn it into a T100, 2 x 50 over game within 2 days, played with a pink ball...
I get the allure of evening tests, I cannot recall a single one going longer than 3 days, you are right, the ball is the issue, as we now have so many forms of cricket, mostly to fit within the confines of a tight broadcast schedule, 3 hours no more, no less...
Test cricket is 450 overs, 90 overs per day, 5 days, and a result of win/loss/draw/tie.. This last debacle was exactly that, a farce, I love cricket, would almost pay to work on a test match.. There is nothing better than the last hour of the 5th day of a series 2-2...And all results are possible...
Seeing the batsmen walk off confused, yeah I get the joy of players, seeing the score at nothing for 10.. it is stupid, and makes a mockery of the great game..
You mention golf, golf should be played on links courses, garbage land that is not fit for any other purpose, remember that Presidents Cup which Ernie and Tiger played in the Western Cape, on that brutal course and it was all tied up.. They both fought and fought and a draw was the best possible result..
Then you take this to the US, and it is a yawn, a snooze..I once remember watching during a Million Dollar at Sun City, an interview with Gary Player in which he bemoaned the state of professional golf, he was deeply troubled by players shooting north of -30 in 4 rounds of golf, he said that he gave his very soul to every course and it was designed to maybe shoot 3 or 4 under par each round, now you are shooting eagles on a par 5... The ball, the clubs, the players are too much for the course to handle.. 30 under par is stupid golf..It is..
120/10 in a test match is stupid cricket, it is not a valid result, the result should be discarded, that test loose it's status as it was not a fair test, the ball is not legit, extra this or that, it is not a legal ball for test cricket.. If so, then all tests should be pink balled...
I want at least 4 days, a result before lunch is ok, ideal last hour...To curse the capt for not declaring when they have a 400 lead is part of the game, to see this team defend that, and still have to get a result...
You have been to more games than I could ever hope to, and you have to admit, to have 3 days off is bizarre and not right... Already there are talks/ideas to shorten tests, and what then, 3 days? 2 days? Limited over tests? Each side gets 90 overs then we baseball it? 3 out/swop? Best of 9 innings???
Where is cricket heading, already that has been decided with this stupid idea of the "hundred game" WTF!! Do we want a 100 over test????
There was no nothing wrong with the surface if you look at the wickets that the spinners took it was the straight one that got them and some batsman were playing for non-existing turn that was never there. It was a good wicket had batsman applied themselves I'm sure we all wouldn't be talking of the pitch
Exactly right. The idea that any groundsman can deliberately prepare a pitch on which some balls spin elaborately and others don't spin at all is preposterous. They are working with organic material over which they have only limited control. It's up to batsmen to employ a technique in which they limit their possibly modes of dismissal - like 'giving up' either the inside edge or the outside edge to the spinners, but not both. Then again, when you have an off-spinner who turns it both ways and a left-arm spinner with a ridiculously good 'arm ball' and absurdly well-disguised change of pace, their skill needs to be recognised and acknowledged. That's why I was so irritated by all the talk of the pitch having undone England.
I have always enjoyed your radio and TV commentary, and recently signed up for your blog as soon as I was made aware of it by a friend. However, there is so much wrong with this article and the match under discussion that I must severely limit my comments to the following.
“… thrilling when the unexpected is happening” you say. Nothing at all unexpected happened in this test match once the first delivery from a spinner was delivered. From then on everything was very predictable.
Joe Root was absolutely correct in what he said. You were only partly correct. Yes, I love to see him take wickets (I agree that he underrates himself as a bowler), but not on a wicket where a part-timer can turn one ball square and follow it with one which goes straight on and keeps low. That is not a skill which he possesses.
There is indeed no perfect test match script. One of the delights of the game is that it is played under naturally varying conditions, from country to country, from ground to ground, and from day to day. But there should always be some kind of balanced contest between bat and ball. To suggest that in this one game some of the most accomplished batsmen in the world suddenly and collectively played badly is just nonsense.
“…stop believing it is different to the rest of the sports world”. The main reason that I love test match cricket is exactly because it is so different to the rest of the sports world. And most of the difference comes about because it takes place over an extended time. Conditions and match situations have the time to change the nature of the contest significantly. There is so much more to it than how quickly runs are scored or wickets taken.
What is beyond question is that India batted and bowled better than England in this match. And so they should when a pitch is specifically prepared to play to their strengths relative to their opponents. Maybe “wham bam thankyou Mam” games played on doctored wickets is the way to go in today’s zeitgeist in order to gain millions of new adherents to the game. But it is a sure way to lose this one adherent.
Neil, or anyone else, how do you feel about the homeside preparing whatever surface tickles their fancy, but the visiting captain gets to decide bat or bowl first?
It's been tried in county cricket, as you probably know, but I still like the principle of the toss. Especially when the captains have no idea what to do!
Looking forward to the next test! The toss- Neil do you think the rules regarding the toss should be changed? Rather discarding the toss and simply rotating giving 1st choice to the capt. in turn whether to bat or bowl? Winning the toss could be the difference between winning or losing. But I suppose it's always been like that.....
In the age of DRS, and "unfair" pitches, the solution is simple, the visiting team has the option of 1-having the toss and accepting the decision there of, or 2- They have the option to either bat or bowl 1st, if they choose to bat first, they are granted a bonus DRS to compensate for the pitch...
This will encourage home union groundskeepers to prepare fair pitches.. Would this have helped Eng in the farce of that stupid example of how not to play cricket last week? No, not even 30 DRS per player per over would have helped..
That farce last week was not test cricket, it was an example of bad sportmanship by both teams, and the umpires, esp the match ref, only there for the 1st class hotel and buffet 3 times a day, and free mobile phone!!
Well said Neil. I agree with Garrick below - I think there is too much T20 cricket - when was there last a 50 over game? T20 really belongs to the side of the night and is a gamble - but TEST cricket has everything and the pitch, well generally the same for both sides - obviously there is further deterioration after day 1 - hence the all important winning of the toss. Be it over in 2 days or a 5 day thriller - bring on more test cricket.
Hi Neil. You mentioned "exposing batsmen's poor techniques" . That's the bottom line isn't it? Too much hit and giggle cricket especially in formative years? Just asking. Cheers.
Hi Garrick, i wonder if the 'technique' argument is becoming redundant? That's why we have red-ball specialists. Batsmen really do need to be able to adjust their approach and technique between formats these days, I believe. If they can't then that, in itself, is a fault in their 'technique'!
How many wickets went to straight balls - regardless of the pace of the ball. The smash and bash has really messed up batsmen's techniques.
I'm sure you know the numbers, Anton. 21 out of the 28 wickets which fell to spinners were basically 'straight on' deliveries.
Indeed - goes to the terror of the pitch vs the technique of the batsmen
If we are to celebrate 2 day tests, then we might as well turn it into a T100, 2 x 50 over game within 2 days, played with a pink ball...
I get the allure of evening tests, I cannot recall a single one going longer than 3 days, you are right, the ball is the issue, as we now have so many forms of cricket, mostly to fit within the confines of a tight broadcast schedule, 3 hours no more, no less...
Test cricket is 450 overs, 90 overs per day, 5 days, and a result of win/loss/draw/tie.. This last debacle was exactly that, a farce, I love cricket, would almost pay to work on a test match.. There is nothing better than the last hour of the 5th day of a series 2-2...And all results are possible...
Seeing the batsmen walk off confused, yeah I get the joy of players, seeing the score at nothing for 10.. it is stupid, and makes a mockery of the great game..
You mention golf, golf should be played on links courses, garbage land that is not fit for any other purpose, remember that Presidents Cup which Ernie and Tiger played in the Western Cape, on that brutal course and it was all tied up.. They both fought and fought and a draw was the best possible result..
Then you take this to the US, and it is a yawn, a snooze..I once remember watching during a Million Dollar at Sun City, an interview with Gary Player in which he bemoaned the state of professional golf, he was deeply troubled by players shooting north of -30 in 4 rounds of golf, he said that he gave his very soul to every course and it was designed to maybe shoot 3 or 4 under par each round, now you are shooting eagles on a par 5... The ball, the clubs, the players are too much for the course to handle.. 30 under par is stupid golf..It is..
120/10 in a test match is stupid cricket, it is not a valid result, the result should be discarded, that test loose it's status as it was not a fair test, the ball is not legit, extra this or that, it is not a legal ball for test cricket.. If so, then all tests should be pink balled...
I want at least 4 days, a result before lunch is ok, ideal last hour...To curse the capt for not declaring when they have a 400 lead is part of the game, to see this team defend that, and still have to get a result...
You have been to more games than I could ever hope to, and you have to admit, to have 3 days off is bizarre and not right... Already there are talks/ideas to shorten tests, and what then, 3 days? 2 days? Limited over tests? Each side gets 90 overs then we baseball it? 3 out/swop? Best of 9 innings???
Where is cricket heading, already that has been decided with this stupid idea of the "hundred game" WTF!! Do we want a 100 over test????
There was no nothing wrong with the surface if you look at the wickets that the spinners took it was the straight one that got them and some batsman were playing for non-existing turn that was never there. It was a good wicket had batsman applied themselves I'm sure we all wouldn't be talking of the pitch
Exactly right. The idea that any groundsman can deliberately prepare a pitch on which some balls spin elaborately and others don't spin at all is preposterous. They are working with organic material over which they have only limited control. It's up to batsmen to employ a technique in which they limit their possibly modes of dismissal - like 'giving up' either the inside edge or the outside edge to the spinners, but not both. Then again, when you have an off-spinner who turns it both ways and a left-arm spinner with a ridiculously good 'arm ball' and absurdly well-disguised change of pace, their skill needs to be recognised and acknowledged. That's why I was so irritated by all the talk of the pitch having undone England.
I have always enjoyed your radio and TV commentary, and recently signed up for your blog as soon as I was made aware of it by a friend. However, there is so much wrong with this article and the match under discussion that I must severely limit my comments to the following.
“… thrilling when the unexpected is happening” you say. Nothing at all unexpected happened in this test match once the first delivery from a spinner was delivered. From then on everything was very predictable.
Joe Root was absolutely correct in what he said. You were only partly correct. Yes, I love to see him take wickets (I agree that he underrates himself as a bowler), but not on a wicket where a part-timer can turn one ball square and follow it with one which goes straight on and keeps low. That is not a skill which he possesses.
There is indeed no perfect test match script. One of the delights of the game is that it is played under naturally varying conditions, from country to country, from ground to ground, and from day to day. But there should always be some kind of balanced contest between bat and ball. To suggest that in this one game some of the most accomplished batsmen in the world suddenly and collectively played badly is just nonsense.
“…stop believing it is different to the rest of the sports world”. The main reason that I love test match cricket is exactly because it is so different to the rest of the sports world. And most of the difference comes about because it takes place over an extended time. Conditions and match situations have the time to change the nature of the contest significantly. There is so much more to it than how quickly runs are scored or wickets taken.
What is beyond question is that India batted and bowled better than England in this match. And so they should when a pitch is specifically prepared to play to their strengths relative to their opponents. Maybe “wham bam thankyou Mam” games played on doctored wickets is the way to go in today’s zeitgeist in order to gain millions of new adherents to the game. But it is a sure way to lose this one adherent.
Regards
Roger Mayes
Time for redress so batsmen no longer COMPLETELY dominate..... this test was of more interest to me too
Me too! :)
Neil, or anyone else, how do you feel about the homeside preparing whatever surface tickles their fancy, but the visiting captain gets to decide bat or bowl first?
It's been tried in county cricket, as you probably know, but I still like the principle of the toss. Especially when the captains have no idea what to do!
Looking forward to the next test! The toss- Neil do you think the rules regarding the toss should be changed? Rather discarding the toss and simply rotating giving 1st choice to the capt. in turn whether to bat or bowl? Winning the toss could be the difference between winning or losing. But I suppose it's always been like that.....
In the age of DRS, and "unfair" pitches, the solution is simple, the visiting team has the option of 1-having the toss and accepting the decision there of, or 2- They have the option to either bat or bowl 1st, if they choose to bat first, they are granted a bonus DRS to compensate for the pitch...
This will encourage home union groundskeepers to prepare fair pitches.. Would this have helped Eng in the farce of that stupid example of how not to play cricket last week? No, not even 30 DRS per player per over would have helped..
That farce last week was not test cricket, it was an example of bad sportmanship by both teams, and the umpires, esp the match ref, only there for the 1st class hotel and buffet 3 times a day, and free mobile phone!!
Well said Neil. I agree with Garrick below - I think there is too much T20 cricket - when was there last a 50 over game? T20 really belongs to the side of the night and is a gamble - but TEST cricket has everything and the pitch, well generally the same for both sides - obviously there is further deterioration after day 1 - hence the all important winning of the toss. Be it over in 2 days or a 5 day thriller - bring on more test cricket.