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?God is an Englishman wrote:Previously you had said that it wasn't doctoring if it didn't change the way the wicket played.Bomber wrote:Nice dodge of questions. Pretty much sums things up in itself!
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.
Australia v New Zealand
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Ignore this signature
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
CA have ordered it have they? Not from what I've been reading.N5 1BH wrote:CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team
Ignore this signature
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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?
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?
Ignore this signature
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Yes, it requires a test cricket pitch. It will also need 2 teams, a ball, a few umpires.........N5 1BH wrote:Hobart want a day night test next year which currently would require a particular type of pitch, or not.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Why does it have to favour the home side to be doctoring, doctoring is doctoring.Bomber wrote: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?God is an Englishman wrote:Previously you had said that it wasn't doctoring if it didn't change the way the wicket played.Bomber wrote:Nice dodge of questions. Pretty much sums things up in itself!
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.
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.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Where did you read about the ECB ordering a doctored pitch.Bomber wrote:CA have ordered it have they? Not from what I've been reading.N5 1BH wrote:CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Perhaps you'd like to answer a few simple questions before you demand answers to others.God is an Englishman wrote:Where did you read about the ECB ordering a doctored pitch.Bomber wrote:CA have ordered it have they? Not from what I've been reading.N5 1BH wrote:CA are ordering a pitch they want to suit their purpose. What purpose is their business, they are the home team
Ignore this signature
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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!God is an Englishman wrote:
Why does it have to favour the home side to be doctoring, doctoring is doctoring.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
But even Khawaja agrees with me that you doctor pitches.Bomber wrote: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!God is an Englishman wrote:
Why does it have to favour the home side to be doctoring, doctoring is doctoring.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
What are you waiting on?Bomber wrote:
Perhaps you'd like to answer a few simple questions before you demand answers to others.
-
- Star Player
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
“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.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
You seem to feel I haven't answered any, so provide them again and I will duly answer.Bomber wrote:^
Scroll function not working?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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?
Ignore this signature
-
- Club Captain
- Posts: 6246
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:47 pm
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Where? It says "doctoring green decks to preserve the pink ball is not what Test cricket is about."God is an Englishman wrote:Facts are simple here - Khawaja also thinks the pitch was doctored.
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.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
And in the context that this is exactly what happened in AdelaideSlinky_Pete wrote:Where? It says "doctoring green decks to preserve the pink ball is not what Test cricket is about."God is an Englishman wrote:Facts are simple here - Khawaja also thinks the pitch was doctored.
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.
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
1. As you know there's not been one, don't see the relevance though.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?
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?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60423
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.
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.
Ignore this signature
- God is an Englishman
- Board Member
- Posts: 51452
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:31 pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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.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.
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.
- Sawajiri Erika
- Promising Junior
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:55 am
- Stitch This
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 11902
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:51 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
....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.
Pity the first game had to be decided by D/L after the Poms has notched up 399.
Time for some righteous indignation
- Stitch This
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 11902
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:51 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
@ Bailey and Warner bitching about Warner's non-referral.Bomber wrote:Kiwis tearing it up at Eden Park. Made 8/307 and we're 6/57 after 11 overs
Time for some righteous indignation
-
- Star Player
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
Then he goes and gets given out on a Kiwi referral for LBW next game.Stitch This wrote:@ Bailey and Warner bitching about Warner's non-referral.Bomber wrote:Kiwis tearing it up at Eden Park. Made 8/307 and we're 6/57 after 11 overs
- Stitch This
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 11902
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:51 pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
New Zealand's bowlers serving it up to Australia.
Time for some righteous indignation
-
- Star Player
- Posts: 3444
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
Re: Australia v New Zealand
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 ?