South Australia - pitch doctoring
Moderators: Randoman, Ernie Cooksey, Forum Admins
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
I doubt it, especially if it isn't always true.
And you're the one wanting to hear "excuses" for this so-called episode and so far the only person that seems to have an issue with it, otherwise why raise it to begin with? Just to have another moan/whinge is my guess.
And you're the one wanting to hear "excuses" for this so-called episode and so far the only person that seems to have an issue with it, otherwise why raise it to begin with? Just to have another moan/whinge is my guess.
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
I have no issue with it at all.Bomber wrote:I doubt it, especially if it isn't always true.
And you're the one wanting to hear "excuses" for this so-called episode and so far the only person that seems to have an issue with it, otherwise why raise it to begin with? Just to have another moan/whinge is my guess.
Just highlighting that everyone does it. This is just further proof after the incidents this Australian summer
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
No, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a win/lose result.Bomber wrote:SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Ok, so it was "produced" to make it a 50/50 affair then. And being 50/50 given no particular advantage was therefore gained by the home team.God is an Englishman wrote:No, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a win/lose result.Bomber wrote:SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?
Why didn't Tassie bowl first?
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Correct.Bomber wrote:Ok, so it was "produced" to make it a 50/50 affair then. And being 50/50 given no particular advantage was therefore gained by the home team.God is an Englishman wrote:No, they produced a pitch to ensure there was a win/lose result.Bomber wrote:SA didn't manufacture the pitch to suit their particular armoury though. Otherwise why didn't Tassie bowl first if it was such a "green top" as some suggested?
Why didn't Tassie bowl first?
I don't know why they didn't bowl.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Even SA players are saying it's greener than usual. 30 wickets in 2 days?Bomber wrote:Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.
So, it's doctoring if England does it but it's OK if SA or Aus do it?
- Union Jack
- Boot Polisher
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:47 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Now you're whingeing !
To be sure, to be sure!
I want to you partake in some shenanigans
I want to you partake in some shenanigans
- 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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
I'm just trying to establish the criteriaUnion Jack wrote:Now you're whingeing !
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Greener than usual? Most would have only played at Glenelg a few times at best. Win the toss and bowl - SA could have lost just as easily, so it didn't favour them one iota at the pitch inspection prior to coin toss quite clearly.God is an Englishman wrote:Even SA players are saying it's greener than usual. 30 wickets in 2 days?Bomber wrote:Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.
So, it's doctoring if England does it but it's OK if SA or Aus do it?
If Tassie had spinners in form, not paceman, and Tassie came here with a squad expecting to play on a typical Glenelg wicket (lets assume its usually spin friendly) and then were faced with a green top, then they could argue there was doctoring to favour the home side.
This didn't happen, but noticeably other countries don't mind doing things this way when desperate.
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.
The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series
The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
If Travis Head can make 192, then any argument the pitch was doctored doesn't hold up. Maybe the techniques of the other batsmen in the game should be looked at. Seems like a similar story to the ashes where the Aussie batters looked lost every time the call moved in the air.God is an Englishman wrote:Even SA players are saying it's greener than usual. 30 wickets in 2 days?Bomber wrote:Exactly as it doesn't make sense. Thus no consideration of the wicket being "doctored" at all. Just elect to bat first as you normally would.
So, it's doctoring if England does it but it's OK if SA or Aus do it?
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
What's a normal Glenelg pitch? I can't seem to find any scores of 400 or more there in recent years.God is an Englishman wrote:Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.
The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series
Ignore this signature
-
- Squad Player
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:29 pm
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
God is an Englishman wrote:I'm just trying to be a bigger tosser!Union Jack wrote:Now you're whingeing !
ok
We got Ova' Here?? #ACCUPAHATERS!
- 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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
I have no idea, just being led by a Redbacks player who has said the pitch wasn't normal.Bomber wrote:What's a normal Glenelg pitch? I can't seem to find any scores of 400 or more there in recent years.God is an Englishman wrote:Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.
The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
So they could have been equally disadvantaged, ie not used to such conditions.God is an Englishman wrote:I have no idea, just being led by a Redbacks player who has said the pitch wasn't normal.Bomber wrote:What's a normal Glenelg pitch? I can't seem to find any scores of 400 or more there in recent years.God is an Englishman wrote:Australia claimed the oval was "doctored" in 2009 when exactly this was done.
The pitch wasn't normal which is what you claimed was doctoring in the last ashes series
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
- 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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
What was the difference there then?Bomber wrote:Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Pitch was changed at eleventh hour to suit the home side. Australia struggled with swinging ball, so a pitch was produced to cater for the swing bowlers on a pitch that wasn't renown for such. No issues with it, but it was plain for all to see and admitted by the home team. SimpleGod is an Englishman wrote:What was the difference there then?Bomber wrote:Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
No it wasn't, a pitch was produced to ensure a result not to ensure one team had an advantage.Bomber wrote:Pitch was changed at eleventh hour to suit the home side. Australia struggled with swinging ball, so a pitch was produced to cater for the swing bowlers on a pitch that wasn't renown for such. No issues with it, but it was plain for all to see and admitted by the home team. SimpleGod is an Englishman wrote:What was the difference there then?Bomber wrote:Not doctored then, unlike 2009 when different scenario.
EXACTLY the same as glenelg for this game.
- 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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
put it however you want, it was a result pitch - nothing more.Bomber wrote:^
To put it mildly, BOLLOCKS!
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
God is an Englishman wrote:put it however you want, it was a result pitch - nothing more.Bomber wrote:^
To put it mildly, BOLLOCKS!
The Glenelg one yes, the 2009 one, no.
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Shane Warne offered the bluntest, simplest assessment, that groundsman Bill Gordon, had "overbaked it a little bit to make sure there is a result.
Michael Holding, Shane Warne, Scyld Berry and Peter Roebuck all waded into the pitch debate on Friday, variously describing the surface as over-baked, disappointing and even unethical
- 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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
Yes, unethical describing a pitch which was described as "overbaked to ensure a RESULT".Bomber wrote:Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg
If that pitch was unethical, then so was Glenelg.
- Bomber
- Vice Chairman
- Posts: 60447
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:40 am
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 129 times
Re: South Australia - pitch doctoring
I think your lot are so happy with draws over history of test cricket, that the term "result" is used too rigidly. Fancy being "disgusted" at something in which a game might actually have a winner and a loser. But you can try and hide the fact the 2009 result being sought was one who'd favour a particular side, which, try as you like, wasn't the case at Glenelg.God is an Englishman wrote:Yes, unethical describing a pitch which was described as "overbaked to ensure a RESULT".Bomber wrote:Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg
If that pitch was unethical, then so was Glenelg.
Ask yourself this - IF redbacks get to host the final at Glenelg, meaning a draw is enough to win the shield, do you think they'll ensure the wicket will be altered so its as flat and even as possible so as to favour a "non-result" and therefore the home side? If they were to do that, THEN I'd see some merit in your stance.
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: South Australia - pitch doctoring
I have no issue with a result pitch at all. It was the aussies that were "disgusted", not the English.Bomber wrote:I think your lot are so happy with draws over history of test cricket, that the term "result" is used too rigidly. Fancy being "disgusted" at something in which a game might actually have a winner and a loser. But you can try and hide the fact the 2009 result being sought was one who'd favour a particular side, which, try as you like, wasn't the case at Glenelg.God is an Englishman wrote:Yes, unethical describing a pitch which was described as "overbaked to ensure a RESULT".Bomber wrote:Exactly, thanks for waking up - "unethical" meaning "not in the spirit" of the situation. Unlike Glenelg
If that pitch was unethical, then so was Glenelg.
Ask yourself this - IF redbacks get to host the final at Glenelg, meaning a draw is enough to win the shield, do you think they'll ensure the wicket will be altered so its as flat and even as possible so as to favour a "non-result" and therefore the home side? If they were to do that, THEN I'd see some merit in your stance.
The Oval in 09 was a result pitch, it wasn't designed to aid one particular team it was produced to ensure a result. As the quote earlier backs up.
It was EXACTLY the same as Glenelg.
Yet one is wrong and the other isn't. Personally, both OK by me and just home ground advantage