South Australia - pitch doctoring

[Bomber]

I doubt it, especially if it isn't always true.

And you're the one wanting to hear "excuses" for this so-called episode and so far the only person that seems to have an issue with it, otherwise why raise it to begin with? Just to have another moan/whinge is my guess.

[God is an Englishman]

I doubt it, especially if it isn't always true.

And you're the one wanting to hear "excuses" for this so-called episode and so far the only person that seems to have an issue with it, otherwise why raise it to begin with? Just to have another moan/whinge is my guess.

I have no issue with it at all.

Just highlighting that everyone does it. This is just further proof after the incidents this Australian summer

[Bomber]

SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?

[God is an Englishman]

SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?

No, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a win/lose result.

[Bomber]

SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?

No, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a win/lose result.

Ok, so it was "produced" to make it a 50/50 affair then. And being 50/50 given no particular advantage was therefore gained by the home team.
Why didn't Tassie bowl first?

[God is an Englishman]

SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?

No, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a win/lose result.

Ok, so it was "produced" to make it a 50/50 affair then. And being 50/50 given no particular advantage was therefore gained by the home team.
Why didn't Tassie bowl first?

Correct.

I don't know why they didn't bowl.

[Bomber]

Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.

[God is an Englishman]

Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.

Even SA players are saying it's greener than usual. 30 wickets in 2 days?

So, it's doctoring if England does it but it's OK if SA or Aus do it?

[Union Jack]

Now you're whingeing !

[God is an Englishman]

Now you're whingeing !

I'm just trying to establish the criteria

[Bomber]

Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.

Even SA players are saying it's greener than usual. 30 wickets in 2 days?

So, it's doctoring if England does it but it's OK if SA or Aus do it?

Greener than usual? Most would have only played at Glenelg a few times at best. Win the toss and bowl - SA could have lost just as easily, so it didn't favour them one iota at the pitch inspection prior to coin toss quite clearly.
If Tassie had spinners in form, not paceman, and Tassie came here with a squad expecting to play on a typical Glenelg wicket (lets assume its usually spin friendly) and then were faced with a green top, then they could argue there was doctoring to favour the home side.
This didn't happen, but noticeably other countries don't mind doing things this way when desperate.

[God is an Englishman]

Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.

The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series

[Cantona69]

Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.

Even SA players are saying it's greener than usual. 30 wickets in 2 days?

So, it's doctoring if England does it but it's OK if SA or Aus do it?

If Travis Head can make 192, then any argument the pitch was doctored doesn't hold up. Maybe the techniques of the other batsmen in the game should be looked at. Seems like a similar story to the ashes where the Aussie batters looked lost every time the call moved in the air.

[Bomber]

Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.

The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series

What's a normal Glenelg pitch? I can't seem to find any scores of 400 or more there in recent years.

[Wayne Kerr]

Now you're whingeing !

I'm just trying to be a bigger tosser!

ok

[God is an Englishman]

Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.

The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series

What's a normal Glenelg pitch? I can't seem to find any scores of 400 or more there in recent years.

I have no idea, just being led by a Redbacks player who has said the pitch wasn't normal.

[Bomber]

Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.

The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series

What's a normal Glenelg pitch? I can't seem to find any scores of 400 or more there in recent years.

I have no idea, just being led by a Redbacks player who has said the pitch wasn't normal.

So they could have been equally disadvantaged, ie not used to such conditions.

[God is an Englishman]

Yes

[Bomber]

Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.

[God is an Englishman]

Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.

What was the difference there then?

[Bomber]

Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.

What was the difference there then?

Pitch was changed at eleventh hour to suit the home side. Australia struggled with swinging ball, so a pitch was produced to cater for the swing bowlers on a pitch that wasn't renown for such. No issues with it, but it was plain for all to see and admitted by the home team. Simple

[God is an Englishman]

Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.

What was the difference there then?

Pitch was changed at eleventh hour to suit the home side. Australia struggled with swinging ball, so a pitch was produced to cater for the swing bowlers on a pitch that wasn't renown for such. No issues with it, but it was plain for all to see and admitted by the home team. Simple

No it wasn't, a pitch was produced to ensure a result not to ensure one team had an advantage.

EXACTLY the same as glenelg for this game.

[Bomber]

^

To put it mildly, BOLLOCKS!

[God is an Englishman]

^

To put it mildly, BOLLOCKS!

put it however you want, it was a result pitch - nothing more.

[Bomber]

^

To put it mildly, BOLLOCKS!

put it however you want, it was a result pitch - nothing more.

The Glenelg one yes, the 2009 one, no.

[God is an Englishman]

Shane Warne offered the bluntest, simplest assessment, that groundsman Bill Gordon, had "overbaked it a little bit to make sure there is a result.

Michael Holding, Shane Warne, Scyld Berry and Peter Roebuck all waded into the pitch debate on Friday, variously describing the surface as over-baked, disappointing and even unethical

[Bomber]

Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg

[God is an Englishman]

Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg

Yes, unethical describing a pitch which was described as "overbaked to ensure a RESULT".

If that pitch was unethical, then so was Glenelg.

[Bomber]

Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg

Yes, unethical describing a pitch which was described as "overbaked to ensure a RESULT".

If that pitch was unethical, then so was Glenelg.

I think your lot are so happy with draws over history of test cricket, that the term "result" is used too rigidly. Fancy being "disgusted" at something in which a game might actually have a winner and a loser. But you can try and hide the fact the 2009 result being sought was one who'd favour a particular side, which, try as you like, wasn't the case at Glenelg.

Ask yourself this - IF redbacks get to host the final at Glenelg, meaning a draw is enough to win the shield, do you think they'll ensure the wicket will be altered so its as flat and even as possible so as to favour a "non-result" and therefore the home side? If they were to do that, THEN I'd see some merit in your stance.

[God is an Englishman]

Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg

Yes, unethical describing a pitch which was described as "overbaked to ensure a RESULT".

If that pitch was unethical, then so was Glenelg.

I think your lot are so happy with draws over history of test cricket, that the term "result" is used too rigidly. Fancy being "disgusted" at something in which a game might actually have a winner and a loser. But you can try and hide the fact the 2009 result being sought was one who'd favour a particular side, which, try as you like, wasn't the case at Glenelg.

Ask yourself this - IF redbacks get to host the final at Glenelg, meaning a draw is enough to win the shield, do you think they'll ensure the wicket will be altered so its as flat and even as possible so as to favour a "non-result" and therefore the home side? If they were to do that, THEN I'd see some merit in your stance.

I have no issue with a result pitch at all. It was the aussies that were "disgusted", not the English.

The Oval in 09 was a result pitch, it wasn't designed to aid one particular team it was produced to ensure a result. As the quote earlier backs up.

It was EXACTLY the same as Glenelg.

Yet one is wrong and the other isn't. Personally, both OK by me and just home ground advantage