Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
What's so great about Foucault?
-
Monster trucks
-
Without the violence of course.
But bull-fighting, like boxing, is only interesting to people because someone/thing is going to get hurt.
Might I suggest as an alternative for those squeamish about such matters, that we organise a troup of morris dancers to dance up and down the pitch during each innings break. That might aid in creating footmarks for the bowlers to aim at.
-
I don't see why that's a problem. If one team is 100 runs behind and they know that the groundskeeper is going to doctor the pitch so those 100 runs are harder to get, that's just tough luck, shouldn't end up 100 runs behind.
Who decides whether to doctor the pitch?
How much do they doctor it?
What if it doesn't work? (pitch preparation is an inexact science, after all)
What if it works too well and someone gets their head knocked off? (tests have ben called off because the pitch was too dangerous)
What's to stop a groundsman putting a little extra water on the pitch in return for a wad of cash from a bookmaker who wants a particular result?
Too many issues and problems.
-
Would there be a problem with allowing the ground staff to do something more than roll the pitch after both teams had one innings? Water it, cook it a little more, sprinkle some magic chemical on top.
The problem is that it would require the teams to have achieved some degree of parity after the first innings, otherwise the actions are going to disadvantage one of the parties.
And you still have the problem that traditiionally a pitch deteriorates in the fourth innings. So if you start tinkering with it after each team has batted twice, will it even be playable for the team batting last?
I think it's just too hard and that we should insead accept we'll always end up with the odd lousy dull draw. But then, what sport doesn't have lousy dull games now and then?
Rugby union's a good lesson on how not to change the rules of a game that works.
-
And because on pitches that do-a-bit our batting line up generally doesn't.
You could have said the same thing about the Indian team not so long ago. They've traditionally had a rough time outside of India.
So maybe preparing a more lively pitch would have evened things out.
Of course India's a better team. But bringing a better team down to your own mediocre level in order to defeat them is a valid strategy (.e.g. France v All Blacks RWC '99 and'07)
-
As one thought how about replacing the parking lot that is the container wharf with some kind of really special park?
What? Isn't the car park on Bledisloe Wharf special enough?
-
Not during a match though.
Well not legally anyway...
-
(I wonder idly if, in the interests of the game, if the pitch could be doctored after both teams have completed an innings to either stretch the game out, or shorten it. Not sure how much you could do that though).
Teams have been doctoring pictures for years. It's called "home-town advantage". If your team contained tearaway fast bowlers you'd instruct the groundsman to prepare a fast green pitch. Traditionally NZ pitches have seamed about a bit, which suits our style of play (i.e reducing everyone else to our level). Last time India toured they were done over by seaming wickets.
I'm not suggesting we be quite as blatant as that, but I do wonder why we haven't produced wickets with a bit more seam movement.
-
I agree, LegBreak, that the Napier pitch was in the end too placid. A perfect test pitch should give something to the spinners on the last couple of days, but this one just didn't deteriorate.
Even so, the fact that a team has to chase down a daunting total can in itself cause it to collapse. So we still have to give a lot of credit to India. I think if NZ had been the team chasing down the runs we'd have been beaten inside four days. The Indian batters (Sehwag excepted) showed real toughness.