South Australia - pitch doctoring

[Bomber]

How could they have? Did they exactly have the same groundsmen? Did they have exactly the same orders? Did they have exactly the same reasons for preparing pitch in a certain way? Did they exactly have same circumstances? Of course not, so rubbish talk.

The pitch speaks for itself

No

Yes

Yes

No but very similar

Both teams produced a wicket in order to ensure a win/loss result.

So it wasn't EXACTLY the same at all. That's all I needed

[God is an Englishman]

How could they have? Did they exactly have the same groundsmen? Did they have exactly the same orders? Did they have exactly the same reasons for preparing pitch in a certain way? Did they exactly have same circumstances? Of course not, so rubbish talk.

The pitch speaks for itself

No

Yes

Yes

No but very similar

Both teams produced a wicket in order to ensure a win/loss result.

So,

So what relevant points are not exactly the same?

[Bomber]

Anything that wasn't answered yes, for a start. Then look up the term "exactly" in the OED.

[God is an Englishman]

Finally we're getting somewhere.

Who the groundsman is - irrelevant.

Circumstances - both needed to win, one to win a series, the other to make a series final. So effectively the same in that they both needed to win.

As I said, all relevant information is exactly the same.

[Bomber]

look up the term "exactly" in the OED.

[ozzie owl]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/cri ... 765d073d9e

Redbacks keeper describes it as greener than usual.

A result pitch produced miraculously produced when a result is needed to give the home side any chance of making finals.

Sounds very similar to when a result pitch was produced in 2009 at the Oval and the Aussies whinged about it.

Its SA's home game is it not?
Why would you prepare a wicket to go against you??

We could always let be infected by mysterious disease , bit like Headingly in 1972.

[God is an Englishman]

look up the term "exactly" in the OED.

What relevant information isn't exactly the same?

[Bomber]

look up the term "exactly" in the OED.

[God is an Englishman]

Still avoiding the question I see

[Bomber]

Still avoiding the question I see

Answered, and if you're too lazy again to scroll up a few posts, then you really need therapy.

[God is an Englishman]

Still avoiding the question I see

Answered, and if you're too lazy again to scroll up a few posts, then you really need therapy.

You must have missed the word "relevant".

[Bomber]

Still avoiding the question I see

Answered, and if you're too lazy again to scroll up a few posts, then you really need therapy.

You must have missed the word "relevant".

I didn't as when you talk of things being exactly the same, there are no grey areas - it all must be relevant, hence the OED hint.

[God is an Englishman]

So what relevant points aren't exactly the same?

[Bomber]

Still struggling I see. If something is exactly the same, then everything within the something must be identical. You and I proved it wasn't, and therefore relevance to points within, if even an iota skewed, shows that it's not exactly the same. Simple.

[God is an Englishman]

Which is why I said the relevant parts.

[Bomber]

Which is why I said the relevant parts.

Then it ain't all exactly the same then.

By the way, should we take the option of a third set short break?

[God is an Englishman]

Which is why I said the relevant parts.

Then it ain't all exactly the same then.

By the way, should we take the option of a third set short break?

If you need a break because you won't answer the question then so be it.

[Bomber]

Pitches not EXACTLY the same. Scenarios, reasons etc not EXACTLY the same. These points are relevant, so deflect as much as you like, its plain for all to see (normal people anyway).

[God is an Englishman]

Pitches not EXACTLY the same. Scenarios, reasons etc not EXACTLY the same. These points are relevant, so deflect as much as you like, its plain for all to see (normal people anyway).

Who the groundsman is - not relevant

One was a shield game, the other a test match - not relevant

The date was different - not relevant

There was a bloke in the crowd called Jim at the Oval - not relevant.

Relevant facts are both teams needed a win so they produced a result pitch. Relevant facts - exactly the same.

[Bomber]

Pitches not EXACTLY the same. Scenarios, reasons etc not EXACTLY the same. These points are relevant, so deflect as much as you like, its plain for all to see (normal people anyway).

Who the groundsman is - not relevant

One was a shield game, the other a test match - not relevant

The date was different - not relevant

There was a bloke in the crowd called Jim at the Oval - not relevant.

Relevant facts are both teams needed a win so they produced a result pitch. Relevant facts - exactly the same.

So you can see it wasn't exactly the same, your take on relevance (even using silly comparables) is merely another deflection. Using your analogy, someone asks a curator, "make me a result pitch" - he wouldn't need any other info. Laughable! Surely he'd at least ask, what result are you looking for? Is it a one-dayer, 4 dayer, a test? Weather forecast? What are the opposition weak at (so I know whether to make it a green top, a spinner's dream etc).

[God is an Englishman]

As I said relevant details are the same - no deflection. Without removing irrelevant information - nothing is exactly the same.

Neither curator needed any more information as they didn't prepare the pitch to enable one team to perform better, they prepared a pitch to make sure a win/loss result occurred.

[Bomber]

As I said relevant details are the same - no deflection. Without removing irrelevant information - nothing is exactly the same.

Neither curator needed any more information as they didn't prepare the pitch to enable one team to perform better, they prepared a pitch to make sure a win/loss result occurred.

So you spoke to each curator. Both pitches could not have been exactly the same, therefore variance to the whole argument. Point being - not EXACTLY the same. England doctored a pitch knowing Aussies were poor at facing swing bowling so altered to suit (again fair enough). Same cannot be said for the SA v Tas game. Therefore not EXACTLY the same.

If you prefer to see the world in black and white, that's your prerogative, some of us don't.

[God is an Englishman]

And we're back to this again, the oval pitch was not specifically to enable swing it was to force a result. Had Australia won the toss, they probably would have won the ashes that year.

[God is an Englishman]

Last week there was 30 wickets in 2 days when a results was needed.

Amazingly, when a draw is enough there's only 14 wickets in 2 days. A cynical man might suggest that a pitch has been doctored to give a good chance of a draw.

[Splodgenessabounds]

The joke is that South Australia got to host the final despite having a poorer w/d/l record than two other states.

[God is an Englishman]

The joke is that South Australia got to host the final despite having a poorer w/d/l record than two other states.

Batting and bowling points have been part of the game for quite some time

[MegaBonus]

God is an Englishman


What relevant information isn't exactly the same?

gee...for someone supposedly so clever, I thought it would be obvious....

difference is that the Poms prepared a pitch to either take advantage of the oppositions weakness and/or to counter the oppositions strength....

[Splodgenessabounds]

The joke is that South Australia got to host the final despite having a poorer w/d/l record than two other states.

Batting and bowling points have been part of the game for quite some time

It's still a joke.

[God is an Englishman]

Could be worse - an Australian team just penalised for ball tampering.

[Scholes]

Good Heavens, NO, how could you suggest such a thing?