23 Aug 2009 by vid Last edited 23 Aug 2009
Are Anthony and I the only proponents of a little more moisture in the pitch after the last few days of cricket. Are we forcing the hand of groundsmen by insisting on bone dry pitches. This one may be on the way to helping us win the Ashes but could it be considered a fair track after 15 wickets falling in a sigle days play
23 Aug 2009 by Aintgottaclue!!
WHO CARES AS LONG AS WE REGAIN THE ASHES MATE
WHO CARES AS LONG AS WE REGAIN THE ASHES MATE
WHO CARES AS LONG AS WE REGAIN THE ASHES MATE
I may cut grass, but i'm not green !!
23 Aug 2009 by zoid
vid
That pitch was doctored by increasing moisture at the appropriate time.
You don't really believe Atherton's nonsense about a 'too dry pitch' do you?
There is no such thing as a too dry pitch, only a pitch which is dried too fast.
Its a dangerous thing to do if your relying on a toss of the coin the fridays flurry of wickets was not down to thw track it was a combination of great bowling and some bad batting. WD
Can you just is the longest sentence in the world !!!!!!!
Years ago, in the days of uncovered tracks, that one would have been considered quite good!
A track that actually does something occaisonally ( it didnt actually "claim" that many actual wickets) is better than the flat roads that most Test cricket is played on.
Dont forget there were hundreds scored on both sides.
Mind you, glad Warney has retired!
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
24 Aug 2009 by Charles Johnson
Not sure I understand how you get a pitch which is too dry by increasing moisture. Can you explain your idea zoid ?
I noticed extensive use of covers by the Oval, presumably to try and reduce the drying in what was for us a belting hot, dry, breezy week.
It certainly looked too dry at the end, with the surface too brittle and dusty. Swann turning it square. My older tracks do this and I have to water the ends to stop them disintegrating. Presumably you are not allowed to water a pitch once a Test has started ?
In fact Charles, my understanding was that last weds when it was about 35 degrees in the sun, the covers were left off which must have dried it out considerably.
But as Warney said on the tele, the wicket was produced not to help England as such but it was produced to make sure there was a result and probably a win for the side that won the toss.
Cant water the track once its started.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
24 Aug 2009 by Zippy
I think it is fairly obvious to anyone who knows how methodical and professional Bill Gordon is that he was under instruction from Surrey via the ECB that the pitch must produce a result and a green seamer at the Oval was not possible so a dusty turner was the only option
The covers were left off the pitch Wednesday during a very hot day for that reason even though most people looking at the wicket on Tuesday thought it was very dry and well grassed.
The sad thing is that people are now questioning Bill's skill and judgement (winner of the best county pitches for god knows how long) because someone above him interfered with his normal preparation, but don't expect for one minute one of those spineless pen pushers from the ECB or the Surrey chief exec to admit anything, they will just sit tight lipped and let the Surrey groundsman be ripped to shreds totally unfairly by the media.
I cant understand why (if) he is being ripped to shreds, the pitch produced runs, wickets and the right result, what more can anyone ask?
Surely good bowling and poor batting (or vice versa)has to bear some responsibility for the number of wickets or runs that may or may not occur in 1 day.
24 Aug 2009 by Zippy
Neil,
I have no problem with the result and yes England scored 700 runs on the pitch.
I just think the fact that the ball went through the top from day one, reflects badly on the reputation/skill level and dedication of professional cricket groundsmen in general even though the reason may or may not have anything to do with them (i.e a directive from someone higher in authority)
24 Aug 2009 by vid
I dont think anyone here is questioning Bill Gordons skill, I was careful not to make it a skill in preparation question, you yourself Bjd mention that this was probably an instruction from the ECB, in which case the question could be directed at them. However that was not my intent, my question poses the point that a lot of opinion seems to be taking the direction of producing only super dry pitches and that only dryness is what produce pace and bounce. I would counter with the fact that a little moisture - certainly lower down - makes little difference and will hold the surface together for longer. This also gives a little bit back to the bowler but not enough to unseat the good determined batsmen around. I think the work of Phil Vickers et al has proven to be the significant leap in preparation that was needed - this now needs carefully sychronising with correct moisture content, I think then we will see fair and exciting pitches
It barely misbehaved whe the quick bowlers were operating and in it respect, the track was not responsible for a single wicket.
Yes, Warney and Murali would have been a bot of a handfull on the first morning let alone day 4 but the ptich was so different from a normal oval track that obviously the groundsman was under intructions to produce a result track.
Mr.Gordon knows his stuff but as someonne said, none of the pen pushers will own up to that.
From Test matches to the village green, cricket pitches will always be scrutinized by people who know booger all about them and groundsmen blamed because the pitch didnt allow for millions of runs to be scored, quickies to get the ball flying through and spinners to turn it sideways!
But as I said before, batting on a track that does something from the the ordinary roads they play on, is not an art that many batters come across that often.
But anyway, it didnt actually claim that many wickets.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
re, Oval pitch.
I think think the pitch old bill provided for the test match was very skillfully prepared.
a result pitch was requested, a green top was out of the question.
The pitch was prepared so the top would not hold together.
It was not sealed.
The pitch was not an up and a downer, so not a minefield and not dangerous.
the toss was vital, England got the advantage of setting a score when the pitch was at it's best.
I think under different circumstances the pitch inspector would have been called in.
England owe Bill a beer or two and i think Bill will need them,.
this was a one off and Bill will go back to preparing tracks that he is best at.
10 out of 10 to him and for the Aussies for being sporting.
chris.
I cannot see how anyone can call a pitch unfair when both sides get to use it and the order in which they do so is down to chance. Interesting to note that the Aussie team themselves are admitting to losing the test, not claiming to have been cheated.
Incidentally, note how the media hysteria against England's poor batting in scoring 300 on the first day disintegrated by the weekend's papers! If they can find a 'witch' to hunt, they will, if not, they'll make one up!
Proud to serve grassroots cricket
I agree Phil. The majority of the "popular" papers cricket journalists know absolutely jack about cricket anyway, thats why they write for those papers.
Even the ex pros who write for the other papers dont know that much aout it as their "expert" pitch reports pre matches often prove.
Chris, "sealed" by what?
If the Aussies had won the toss they may still not have won as they mised a trick not having a spinner but the toss was crucial.
Strange though that Ponting didnt really use Clarke or Katich more.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
It's a sad fact that those people who don't know much about cricket pitches and their preparation often are listened to rather than the people who know the most, i.e. the groundsman, and his staff. After all it's only opinion.
It also proved that the Aussie players, coaches, mentors and anybody else they have cant read pitches either. They picked the wrong side by not including there specialist spinner.
So its not only journalists and club players who know nothing about pitches.
Mind you Bath, does anyone really know exactly how a pitch will play until balls are bowled on it?
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
26 Aug 2009 by AB
.... or surely England would have picked two spinners....
You are mostly right Barry, i like to reserve judgement untill i have seen a couple of overs bowled. On my own square i will have a fair idea, but have been proved wrong.
We let our second spinner go home, after all i think he has only taken a handfull of wickets all season. No point in playing him really. Surprised he was in the squad.
26 Aug 2009 by trubs
Crickey. He's been toiling away all season without being allowed home. I hope you've been feeding him something Gordon? 
Well im not experienced but have always thought people who reckon they can read pitches are deluded.
Most of the Tests/county pitches look good to me, admittedly only looking on the tele but often play quite differently.
What do I do? I just cut the grass.
Monty !! trubs.
26 Aug 2009 by vid
We seem to have got slightly off point - are we asking too much of our groundmen by this complete drying out of the surface, could decent batting tracks still be produced but with more moisture left in? I think they can and I'm not alone in the point of v iew, what we need is some factual evidence that completely dry pitches are superior to ones with an element of moisture left in.
I have absolutely no knowledege of what Bill was asked to prepare so I cant comment. However I find it extremely unlikely he was asked to produce a dust bowl in the hope we would win the toss - 50/50 is chancing it a bit much and had this been the case we definitely would have fielded Pannesar. I think that Bills reputation is far to good for one pitch to make much difference after all the pitch itself was consistent throughout but the surface came apart almost immediately, noone looking at the pitch initially came to that conclusion so I very much doubt Bill had either. Just one of those things. However if the weather has been consistently hot and windy and no water is being applied, I think the way this pitch performed is more rather than less likely. We in this country cannot emulate the roads prepared in hot countries - our conditions are just not consistently hot enough, so we must resort to different grasses and different soils to make the game competitive.
Fairness for both sides cannot really be claimed when 15 wickets in good weather all fall in one day at this level
vid, with reference to your first paragraph, the stri are conducting independent core sample analysis into every county and test pitch this season. Part of their test is moisture content. Will we see the results? I don't know.
An interesting question for you and others. Coming up we have 10 days out of 11. 4dayer, 1day, rest day, 4day & 1day. When do we get water into the second weeks pitches if the weather conditions remain the same in this part of the Country?
Ascott, water during the night then protect the soaked pitch with somekind of covering. That's the only way I think you'd achieve it.
As for the oval pitch. We'll likely never know what Bill was asked to produce, I think it likely that he was asked to produce a track that will deliver a result. 50/50 would be good enough odds for England to go for it. If they lost the toss then nothing lost as they weren't in a position to take back the ashes, if they won the toss then bingo they're hero's.
2 spinners, no I personally wouldn't have. The quickies were needed to get through the Aussies first innings - ok, Swann took 4 wickets but 2 of them simply weren't out. The 2nd innings was where the spinner was needed - and he did the job pretty well indeed.
Of course there's no bounce, bend your back and put some bloody effort in.
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
