Pitched Battle
August 22nd, 2009 by Gideon Haigh in The Ashes 2009News Ltd’s Australian representatives here are in panting pursuit of Oval curator Bill Gordon, whom they call an ‘eccentric recluse’, apparently because he won’t speak to them, even if it’s not quite clear what he might gain from doing so. ‘Gordon is likely to stay in hiding as the state of his pitch becomes even more of a talking point with the Ashes on the line,’ they report. ‘He is under heavy fire for producing a controversial pitch where balls were already going through the top of the surface after day one, bringing up explosions of dust and bouncing randomly.’ The hapless groundman is painted as a combination of Howard Hughes and Bert Lock, the Old Trafford retainer who who prepared the pitch in 1956 on which Jim Laker made such mischief. The latter remained eternally thankful to Nasser – Gamal rather than Hussain – for engineering the Suez Crisis, thereby wiping the controversy about his surface from the front pages.
Unfortunately for the media, this looks a little like a story that may answer itself. On the ‘controversial pitch’ today, almost 400 runs were scored. The odd ball kept low – Peter Siddle gave Matt Prior an amiable smile after one bounced twice on the way to the keeper after lunch. But nothing stayed down on the line of the stumps, and while clearly dusting up, the surface has not cracked. It’s what players sometimes call a ‘one brings three’ pitch, insofar as batsmen are most vulnerable on coming in, but time spent in the middle is repaid. Players, in fact, have so far shied even from criticism, let alone condemnation. So why are we in the press so paranoid about pitches that do other than play straight up and down, and at even heights? Bowlers complain that cricket administrators are always batsmen. Might be time for journalists to fess up. Are we impartial arbiters of the game, or just batsmen in disguise?
Posted in The Ashes 2009 | 16 Comments »
August 24th, 2009 at 3:31 am
The cricket media is a joke really. I suspect most of the journalists don’t even watch a lot of the game. As a cricket fan I loved the Oval wicket, it brought the spinners into the game, there were close in fielders, and for once the batsman had to show a bit of patience. A superb cricket wicket for those who actually watch the game.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Where were these guys when Anil Kumble’s men were meted out with worse by Ponting and Bucknor. England did not bat on a different track !
August 24th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The pitch was the same for both teams,we won the toss and chose to bat first.Was 332 enough ? As it turned out YES . Australias first innings !! Well , Broad had a one off day . He is good but still learning the game.Overall it was 2 very average teams playing good cricket.Sport is cyclical , and Australian cricket has had its day (The last 14 years ! ).It is now the turn of India,Sri lanka etc.Hopefully one day England wil reign supreme but in the meantime – we HOLD THE ASHES !!
August 24th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Both teams had to bat twice, it was a good toss to win but the bottom line is Broad and Swann bowled very well 1st innings and Australia batted poorly. England win the Ashes. No body likes a sore looser.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
All the criticism of the Oval track boils down to “the Ashes could be won on the toss of a coin. If Ponting had won the toss, then Oz would have won the ashes. Get it straight. It was the first innings collapse that did the damage. All the other innings scores were similar. It could also be that because of Aussie dominance in many sports over the last 15 years that England/GB now feel the underdogs and give that bit extra as in Rugby Union, Olympic Cycling and Cricket. It’s time Australia grew up and donned the mantle good sportsmanship instead of frantically searching for conspiracies and excuses.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Whinging poms? Whinging Aussies! It was the same pitch for both teams. Where was Australia’s spinner, for such a “bad” pitch? Simple fact: 1 outstanding sessions bowling from 2 bowlers who took advantage of the conditions, won England the Ashes.
Of course, the real test will come in 18 months. I for one hope that both teams have improved by then!
August 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am
It’s also worth pointing out that Australia collapsed to 160 all out, England batted after that on this seemingly deteriorating pitch and managed to knock 373 for 9 from it (the highest innings of the match).
The pitch was quite challenging, but the fact remains that England managed to bat after the Aussies on it and score more than double the amount of runs. There really isn’t anything you can say which argues against that.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:48 am
that match produced a result late on the fourth day.
1200 runs were scored in the match.
that sounds like a good wicket to me…
August 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Like the press, the Australian batsmen focussed too much on the pitch and not enough on themselves in their first innings. They were wondering what the ball might do next instead of playing each ball on its merits. So they missed the fact that Broad was in a groove, finding late swing so that he could safely pitch the ball up. Result: poor stroke selection and dismissals.
With bigger contributions from Ponting and MC in the 4th innings, Australia may still have fallen a bit short, but would certainly have reached the highest single innings total of the game. Defeated by run-outs – that’s not the sign of a bad pitch, and nor is 1200 runs scored inside 4 days.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Hey guys – guess what….
the pitch was THE SAME for BOTH SIDES !!
What a bnch of WHINING AUSTRALIANS….
August 24th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Both teams had to play on the same wicket – where was the advantage a week before the match? If Australia had fielded a spinner they might have done better. Totally bogus argument!
August 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Congratulations Australia on being the dominant side in world cricket for 14 years and for perhaps the most spectacular revenge in world cricket (Ashes 5-0 in 2007). Now congratulations England on a fantastic triumph and for conquering those demons and not being overawed in any way.
Both sides can hopefully kick on from here as there are good young players on both sides. Cricket was the winner (as it was in 2005). Lets hope for similar competition in 2010/2011!
August 25th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
What a fantastic series it was. It puts the Fisher Price League in its place. Who wants to watch kids’ cricket when you’ve got this spectacle. Whether it’s played in India, South Africa or wherever T20 can’t produce this kind of excitement, even with ridiculous cheer leaders and the other American trivia. However, let’s hope the FPL keeps supporting real cricket!
August 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Test cricket is an old public school joke and this game is a perfect example. I support England but Australia deserved to win on paper- more wickets, more runs, more 4s, better skill etc- if Strauss had lost the toss England would be sending the burnt wicket back to kangaroo land. Its time to kill of the irrelevance that is Test cricket and put all our attention toward building a decent T20 and one day system. The IPL has shown that cricket is in fact more exciting and skilful than football and if it is marketed correctly can be the worlds No.1 sport.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
QUOTE: “Test cricket is an old public school joke and this game is a perfect example. I support England but Australia deserved to win on paper” UNQUOTE
Since when has any sport been won on paper? Would anyone watch if it could be? Manchester United would win the Premiership before even a ball was kicked. In Tennis the Grand Slams would always run according to seedings. How dull that would be!
Stats are for archivists and to give fans something to talk about in the off season (not that international cricketers get an off-season).
August 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“The IPL has shown that cricket is in fact more exciting and skilful than football and if it is marketed correctly can be the worlds No.1 sport.”
The IPL has done well so far, but it is still only a domestic 20/20 competition with 96% of the audience in India (see source below). Where it goes from here is uncertain:
——–
“Ratings fell 20% from 2008 to 2009. The decline may relate to “the difficulty of sustaining interest across 59 matches played over five weeks”. The report raises questions over the IPL’s long-term sustainability and the value of paying vast sums to attract big-name players such as Andrew Flintoff.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6797594.ece