FootballNews

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Nice dodge of questions. Pretty much sums things up in itself!

Previously you had said that it wasn't doctoring if it didn't change the way the wicket played.

It's so obvious even Nigel Llong can see that both the saca and waca haven't performed "normally", even your own player agrees with me.

I'll narrow it down to one question seeing you're struggling with it. Explain how this (or these) "abnormality of pitch/es" further favoured the home team in particular?

CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team

N5 1BH wrote:CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team

CA have ordered it have they? Not from what I've been reading.

CA, CT same thing

So a curator who preps his own pitch is now CA or CT.

Hmmm, o..............k................

If its all about CA, surely they would want as much play as possible and order a road. The expected green top could mean its over in 2 days. Is that good business?

Hobart want a day night test next year which currently would require a particular type of pitch, or not.

N5 1BH wrote:Hobart want a day night test next year which currently would require a particular type of pitch, or not.

Yes, it requires a test cricket pitch. It will also need 2 teams, a ball, a few umpires.........

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Nice dodge of questions. Pretty much sums things up in itself!

Previously you had said that it wasn't doctoring if it didn't change the way the wicket played.

It's so obvious even Nigel Llong can see that both the saca and waca haven't performed "normally", even your own player agrees with me.

I'll narrow it down to one question seeing you're struggling with it. Explain how this (or these) "abnormality of pitch/es" further favoured the home team in particular?

Why does it have to favour the home side to be doctoring, doctoring is doctoring.

You could argue that a road was produced in Perth to mean Warner etc could bat NZ out of the game.

How did the Oval wicket in 09 favour the home side? Yet still England were accused of doctoring.

Bomber wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team

CA have ordered it have they? Not from what I've been reading.

Where did you read about the ECB ordering a doctored pitch.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:

N5 1BH wrote:CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team

CA have ordered it have they? Not from what I've been reading.

Where did you read about the ECB ordering a doctored pitch.

Perhaps you'd like to answer a few simple questions before you demand answers to others.

God is an Englishman wrote:
Why does it have to favour the home side to be doctoring, doctoring is doctoring.

Ah ha, this is the point you are clearly missing. By and large, most test cricket teams DO doctor to favour the home side. We don't. There's the difference. Simple!

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:
Why does it have to favour the home side to be doctoring, doctoring is doctoring.

Ah ha, this is the point you are clearly missing. By and large, most test cricket teams DO doctor to favour the home side. We don't. There's the difference. Simple!

But even Khawaja agrees with me that you doctor pitches.

Bomber wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to answer a few simple questions before you demand answers to others.

What are you waiting on?

^

Scroll function not working?

While we are on the subject of how best to prepare a cricket pitch, (I like a bit of green myself) the county league in England are trialling scrapping the coin toss for next year, sort of. Mainly to encourage pitches to help the spinners apparently

“The visiting captain will be offered the opportunity of bowling first. If he declines, the toss will take place as normal. But if he accepts, there will be no toss."

Might be worth extending it to tests if all goes well.

Bomber wrote:^

Scroll function not working?

You seem to feel I haven't answered any, so provide them again and I will duly answer.

Lazy champagne

Bomber wrote:1. Let me know what the pitch was like the last day/night test was with a pink ball?
2. Did this pitch favour the home team specifically due to their form/line up?
3. Was this pitch a direct attempt at making it harder for the away team?

Bomber wrote:Any comment on the fact that the Hobart pitch is being prepared to (if anything) give the visiting team half a chance?

God is an Englishman wrote:Facts are simple here - Khawaja also thinks the pitch was doctored.

Where? It says "doctoring green decks to preserve the pink ball is not what Test cricket is about."

I agree with that. It's not what Test cricket is about. There's not admission or implication that any pitch was doctored. He's stating that pitches should not be doctored, and that's something we should all agree on.

doctored to suit the ball, not the home team.

Slinky_Pete wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:Facts are simple here - Khawaja also thinks the pitch was doctored.

Where? It says "doctoring green decks to preserve the pink ball is not what Test cricket is about."

I agree with that. It's not what Test cricket is about. There's not admission or implication that any pitch was doctored. He's stating that pitches should not be doctored, and that's something we should all agree on.

And in the context that this is exactly what happened in Adelaide

Bomber wrote:Lazy champagne

Bomber wrote:1. Let me know what the pitch was like the last day/night test was with a pink ball?
2. Did this pitch favour the home team specifically due to their form/line up?
3. Was this pitch a direct attempt at making it harder for the away team?

Bomber wrote:Any comment on the fact that the Hobart pitch is being prepared to (if anything) give the visiting team half a chance?

1. As you know there's not been one, don't see the relevance though.

2. There may have been a plan to stop McCullum for all we know

3. I don't know, I wasn't in the meetings.

Hobart - I don't know anything about it



So, was the Adelaide oval left with more grass on it than it normally would have?

Maybe a smidgin. It's usually quite flat and the team that bowls first can have success with early tinge of green. Clearly the bowlers had a better time of it than the batsmen although that could be credited to fact that it was day/nighter, pink ball and all that as well, plus it only lasted 3 days so its more than possible that days 4 and 5 could have seen it even out and turn a lot more as would be normal with AO.
My only suspicion for that reasoning was given the fact the WACA had so many ball changes and that there was some doubt about the longevity of the pink ball, there may have been some thoughts by the curator to ensure a tad more grass than usual so it wouldn't turn out to be a potential farce.
But even with that, nothing done specifically as a tactic to favour the home side in a desperate quest for victory, which is the case in point.

Bomber wrote:Maybe a smidgin. It's usually quite flat and the team that bowls first can have success with early tinge of green. Clearly the bowlers had a better time of it than the batsmen although that could be credited to fact that it was day/nighter, pink ball and all that as well, plus it only lasted 3 days so its more than possible that days 4 and 5 could have seen it even out and turn a lot more as would be normal with AO.
My only suspicion for that reasoning was given the fact the WACA had so many ball changes and that there was some doubt about the longevity of the pink ball, there may have been some thoughts by the curator to ensure a tad more grass than usual so it wouldn't turn out to be a potential farce.
But even with that, nothing done specifically as a tactic to favour the home side in a desperate quest for victory, which is the case in point.

Your scenario above would require a complete reversal of an adelaide oval deck. It's normally flat as a pancake and a batsmens paradise for 3 days then becomes a bowlers deck.

So as per the above you can admit that the deck was not a traditional adelaide oval wicket and was doctored to save the ball, which is what Khawaja is saying as well.

So, maybe we can find some common ground. The Adelaide Oval deck was doctored but not to gain an advantage to the home side.

That would just leave the reasonings behind why the WACA was doctored as well.

Kiwis tearing it up at Eden Park. Made 8/307 and we're 6/57 after 11 overs

Shouldn't New Zealand v Australia have its own thread?

....and one for South Africa vs England.

Pity the first game had to be decided by D/L after the Poms has notched up 399.

Bomber wrote:Kiwis tearing it up at Eden Park. Made 8/307 and we're 6/57 after 11 overs

@ Bailey and Warner bitching about Warner's non-referral.

Stitch This wrote:

Bomber wrote:Kiwis tearing it up at Eden Park. Made 8/307 and we're 6/57 after 11 overs

@ Bailey and Warner bitching about Warner's non-referral.

Then he goes and gets given out on a Kiwi referral for LBW next game.

New Zealand's bowlers serving it up to Australia.

looks like the Aussie batsmen are struggling away from their comfort zone once again. I,ve heard it said that if marsh had acted like a man in the first place and walked when he knew he was out, Wade wouldn't have made himself look like a hypocritical red neck and smith wouldn't have come across as a whiny little port on tv once again. Apparently the saffers have shown the way in losing gracefully just lately, might be worth looking at. Thoughts ?