Field Theory: Stalemate still contains the word "stale"
63 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
That pitch at the WACA was deteriorating, as it should, making the last day heroics so memorable.
Yeah. I don't mind a draw where you don't know until near the end that it's going to be a draw. A great rearguard effort that gets the team to the end of day 5 with tailenders scrabbling around to keep the bowlers at bay. That's worth watching despite the lack of result.
But this was fairly obviously heading to a draw before the end of day 4. That's not good for spectators or the game.
(I wonder idly if, in the interests of the game, if the pitch could be doctored after both teams have completed an innings to either stretch the game out, or shorten it. Not sure how much you could do that though).
-
I agree, LegBreak, that the Napier pitch was in the end too placid. A perfect test pitch should give something to the spinners on the last couple of days, but this one just didn't deteriorate.
Even so, the fact that a team has to chase down a daunting total can in itself cause it to collapse. So we still have to give a lot of credit to India. I think if NZ had been the team chasing down the runs we'd have been beaten inside four days. The Indian batters (Sehwag excepted) showed real toughness.
-
The biggest problem I have with non-wearing pitches is that previously unattainable victory targets can now be chased down, which makes it impossible to set a target.
What's the point in playing the game if a team can by no means possibly win?
Surely there shouldn't be any such thing as an unattainable victory target. You want to give the chasing team hope that if they play brilliantly, they will win, against all odds. That's what makes great sporting events.
-
Re the Garth George article:
Don’t worry people. He sates in there that he is a “latecomer to cricket”
So he’s obviously a peasant too.
Which probably explains the complete lack of nuance in the article. Haydn is a latecomer to cricket too, but his articles about cricket are great.
The real problem with the Garth George article, for a godless republican abortionist like me, is that he is so fantastically offensively wrong about everything else, I have to be suspicious when I don't disagree with him.
-
What's the point in playing the game if a team can by no means possibly win?
Well, that's cricket. You can present the other team with the only options of losing or playing out the time for a draw.
-
(I wonder idly if, in the interests of the game, if the pitch could be doctored after both teams have completed an innings to either stretch the game out, or shorten it. Not sure how much you could do that though).
Teams have been doctoring pictures for years. It's called "home-town advantage". If your team contained tearaway fast bowlers you'd instruct the groundsman to prepare a fast green pitch. Traditionally NZ pitches have seamed about a bit, which suits our style of play (i.e reducing everyone else to our level). Last time India toured they were done over by seaming wickets.
I'm not suggesting we be quite as blatant as that, but I do wonder why we haven't produced wickets with a bit more seam movement.
-
Totally agree ScottY
It's madness.
-
Surely there shouldn't be any such thing as an unattainable victory target. You want to give the chasing team hope that if they play brilliantly, they will win, against all odds. That's what makes great sporting events.
Strictly no target should be unattainable, but some targets should be inconceivably unlikely, so that the team captains can base their strategies around them.
-
I'm not suggesting we be quite as blatant as that, but I do wonder why we haven't produced wickets with a bit more seam movement.
Because Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan are decent seam bowlers. And because on pitches that do-a-bit our batting line up generally doesn't.
-
Teams have been doctoring pictures for years. It's called "home-town advantage". If your team contained tearaway fast bowlers you'd instruct the groundsman to prepare a fast green pitch.
Not during a match though.
Any doctoring of pitches is limited to choosing between the heavy and light rollers.
-
Strictly no target should be unattainable, but some targets should be inconceivably unlikely, so that the team captains can base their strategies around them.
So, if you had been NZ and had decided not to enforce the follow-on, what target would people have set India to win that game (based on us batting at 4 runs per over during our second innings).
-
Not during a match though.
Well not legally anyway...
-
Of course what this means is that there will be roughly four minutes of amazing, tense, close college basketball on Sunday stretched out (via time-outs and fouls) over half an hour. [On ESPN, Sunday from 10am]
Only in one game. My Tarheels are going to wipe the floor with Villanova.
And Hadyn, when will you understand that the fouls and timeouts are past of the strategy, and enhance the intensity?
-
Because Ishant Sharma and Zaheer Khan are decent seam bowlers. And because on pitches that do-a-bit our batting line up generally doesn't.
Yes, I think against this Indian team that pitch was actually our best chance. It's easy to say in hindsight that it was impossible to get them out: we took our first ten wickets in one day and then had five sessions or so to complete the job. A lot of things can happen in that span of time - unlilkely, perhaps, but Hamilton was doing a bit and they trounced us.
-
It's easy to say in hindsight that it was impossible to get them out: we took our first ten wickets in one day and then had five sessions or so to complete the job.
I agree. I don't think that the fact that we didn't get them out is proof that we couldn't get them out. I think in this case we were done in by a faultless batting performance by the Indians second time up. You should really be hoping for a few more lapses in concentration or judgement. They just didn't give them up.
-
And because on pitches that do-a-bit our batting line up generally doesn't.
You could have said the same thing about the Indian team not so long ago. They've traditionally had a rough time outside of India.
So maybe preparing a more lively pitch would have evened things out.
Of course India's a better team. But bringing a better team down to your own mediocre level in order to defeat them is a valid strategy (.e.g. France v All Blacks RWC '99 and'07)
-
Well, that's cricket. You can present the other team with the only options of losing or playing out the time for a draw.
Oh yes. I was just confused that we wanted things to be more that way, rather than less.
If it's possible for a chasing team to get the big score in the 4th innings, surely that's good for the game.
Not during a match though.
Yes, that's my (barely thought out I admit) suggestion.
Would there be a problem with allowing the ground staff to do something more than roll the pitch after both teams had one innings? Water it, cook it a little more, sprinkle some magic chemical on top.
-
Would there be a problem with allowing the ground staff to do something more than roll the pitch after both teams had one innings? Water it, cook it a little more, sprinkle some magic chemical on top.
The problem is that it would require the teams to have achieved some degree of parity after the first innings, otherwise the actions are going to disadvantage one of the parties.
And you still have the problem that traditiionally a pitch deteriorates in the fourth innings. So if you start tinkering with it after each team has batted twice, will it even be playable for the team batting last?
I think it's just too hard and that we should insead accept we'll always end up with the odd lousy dull draw. But then, what sport doesn't have lousy dull games now and then?
Rugby union's a good lesson on how not to change the rules of a game that works.
-
Teams have been doctoring pictures for years
I quite agree.
My Tarheels are going to wipe the floor with Villanova.
And Hadyn, when will you understand that the fouls and timeouts are past of the strategy, and enhance the intensity?
Yes to the Tarheels and a qualified yes to the fouls and timeouts
As you know I have often said that the only part of a basketball game that should be played is the last 2mins. If the Hornets can beat the Kings (sorry Megan) with a 3-pointer with two seconds on the clock then I don't know what the rest of the game was worth watching for.
-
Ok kids, exciting news:
EPIC Beer is giving us some free after-cricket drinks at the Malthouse on Saturday night. To get them, you have to talk to me. I know many of you are wondering if that's worth it, trust me it is. -
The problem is that it would require the teams to have achieved some degree of parity after the first innings, otherwise the actions are going to disadvantage one of the parties.
I don't see why that's a problem. If one team is 100 runs behind and they know that the groundskeeper is going to doctor the pitch so those 100 runs are harder to get, that's just tough luck, shouldn't end up 100 runs behind.
And you still have the problem that traditiionally a pitch deteriorates in the fourth innings. So if you start tinkering with it after each team has batted twice, will it even be playable for the team batting last?
Yes, but if the pitch was going to get into the 4th innings at an appropriate time, you wouldn't need to doctor the pitch.
You'd only do it if the 4th innings was going to start on day 2, or on day 7 of a test.
-
I had a nasty feeling when we enforced for the follow on, we were just begging them to come out with the extra wide bats and close up shop.
surely the best way to get into the Indians is to pander to their egos, they're used to being treated as rock stars so why not offer them a juicy target? I don't think they could have helped themselves.
anyway, that's what I was thinking as I finishing off some renovations - painting ain't painting unless there's cricket on the wireless.
as for a target, given the pitch, I don't see how you could leave them with much under 500 to chase. that's plenty, but I wouldn't put too much on them not to make it.
-
I don't see why that's a problem. If one team is 100 runs behind and they know that the groundskeeper is going to doctor the pitch so those 100 runs are harder to get, that's just tough luck, shouldn't end up 100 runs behind.
Who decides whether to doctor the pitch?
How much do they doctor it?
What if it doesn't work? (pitch preparation is an inexact science, after all)
What if it works too well and someone gets their head knocked off? (tests have ben called off because the pitch was too dangerous)
What's to stop a groundsman putting a little extra water on the pitch in return for a wad of cash from a bookmaker who wants a particular result?
Too many issues and problems.
-
You don’t need to doctor it.
You just need to let it take its natural course and let it crumble a bit. Just like test pitches have done for 120 years.
But you don’t want it so compacted and glued up that it dies on the 4th morning, because that’s what happened in Napier.
-
Also, if you are going to doctor a pitch at half-time in a test (rugby terminology deliberately thrown in so the likes of Hadyn take interest) why would you need to water it?
I’d introduce an hour’s worth of bull-fighting.
Without the violence of course.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.