India v England series

Morning all, crucial day 3 coming up when the game starts moving quickly :cool:.
The Rat said:
I had a quick browse on twitter, and the major answer seems to be, how can it be a bad pitch, one team won by ten wickets.

Not sure how that has any relevance when both teams cant score over 150

You could play in the Sahara desert or on Mars and a team would still win.
Click to expand...
to be fair India were chasing 700 ;), you could see how defeated England were when they fielded. They had been crushed by then.
 
Last edited:


smoker said:
India have ruined this series as a competition with their cheating pitch doctoring. Yes there were technical errors in our batting but can you seriously get mad at England for failing to score on that wicket, or the last one at Chennai?
Click to expand...
They should have the book absolutely thrown at them by the ICC and points docked for what they’ve done IMO but they won’t, they’ll just get away with it instead, because the BCCI are untouchable.
 
Watch some cricket, but not a huge fan or in possession of any expert knowledge of the game. I see a story on the BBC, that if it was football would be simply laughed at, it's the pitches fault, it's the refs fault, it isn't fair... Can someone do a few sentence summary for the ignorant, why is this not a 'it's the same for both sides' situation with the pitch, if England were caught out over selection in the the first test, how did they get caught out again? Or is the real problem not about England - that crap pitches produce more wickets and a test match ends up being two days long which suits no one? I know this reads like a WUM, but it isn't!
 
McMackem said:
Watch some cricket, but not a huge fan or in possession of any expert knowledge of the game. I see a story on the BBC, that if it was football would be simply laughed at, it's the pitches fault, it's the refs fault, it isn't fair... Can someone do a few sentence summary for the ignorant, why is this not a 'it's the same for both sides' situation with the pitch, if England were caught out over selection in the the first test, how did they get caught out again? Or is the real problem not about England - that crap pitches produce more wickets and a test match ends up being two days long which suits no one? I know this reads like a WUM, but it isn't!
Click to expand...

This is the key point. A test match is meant to be an even battle between bat and ball. It shouldn't last less than 2 days.

India played the conditions better and deserved to win the game. But there should never be 30 wickets in 5 sessions.
 
dixonsafc said:
This is the key point. A test match is meant to be an even battle between bat and ball. It shouldn't last less than 2 days.

India played the conditions better and deserved to win the game. But there should never be 30 wickets in 5 sessions.
Click to expand...
And you can prepare the pitches to suit your team, but that was unsporting.
 
McMackem said:
Watch some cricket, but not a huge fan or in possession of any expert knowledge of the game. I see a story on the BBC, that if it was football would be simply laughed at, it's the pitches fault, it's the refs fault, it isn't fair... Can someone do a few sentence summary for the ignorant, why is this not a 'it's the same for both sides' situation with the pitch, if England were caught out over selection in the the first test, how did they get caught out again? Or is the real problem not about England - that crap pitches produce more wickets and a test match ends up being two days long which suits no one? I know this reads like a WUM, but it isn't!
Click to expand...

Closest to football that I can think of is if home team are good at wide expansive football and the visiting team kept it tight and played down the middle then the ground crew could make the pitch as big as is allowed so to favor the home teams style of play. You could argue that it's the same pitch for both teams, and the visiting team should adapt to the conditions. This was basically an extreme version of that.
 
anth said:
Closest to football that I can think of is if home team are good at wide expansive football and the visiting team kept it tight and played down the middle then the ground crew could make the pitch as big as is allowed so to favor the home teams style of play. You could argue that it's the same pitch for both teams, and the visiting team should adapt to the conditions. This was basically an extreme version of that.
Click to expand...
Or you made one goal half the size of the other and kicked the same way in both halves
 
Like a good lower-scoring match, but this farce was nothing like a good lower-scoring match.
Three days of live terrestrial coverage of cricket lost as well - that’s not good either.
 
dixonsafc said:
This is the key point. A test match is meant to be an even battle between bat and ball. It shouldn't last less than 2 days.

India played the conditions better and deserved to win the game. But there should never be 30 wickets in 5 sessions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - totally get that - I suppose the football equivalent is simply attacking v defending and if some element somehow altered creating nothing but 0-0's an 1-0's or if virtually every game had 8 goals or more then it would be tantamount to being a different game...
anth said:
Closest to football that I can think of is if home team are good at wide expansive football and the visiting team kept it tight and played down the middle then the ground crew could make the pitch as big as is allowed so to favor the home teams style of play. You could argue that it's the same pitch for both teams, and the visiting team should adapt to the conditions. This was basically an extreme version of that.
Click to expand...

Cheers marra.
 

Back
Top