Given that the weather in this neck of the woods held as firm as over in England, I found myself unable to watch Days 3,4 and 5 of the Test (lets just say that life took precedence and leave it at that).
England won, Freddie was magnificent, Johnson scored about the runs as the number of overs he bowled, Ponting was gracious in defeat, a 75 year streak was broken, England are 1-0 ahead in the Ashes and all is well with the world.
Except that it is not.
Bad umpiring, a spineless batting display and the strength of character of one man were the only reasons why we have a result in this match. Again, we find that the Lord's pitch, the one that promised bounce and carry for the bowlers, was nothing but another of those factory manufactured, dull,lifeless pieces of dirt that is all too common these days.
What point a Test match if the tail swats the ball as merrily on the first day as the last? What point a Test match where the team batting last reaches 406 despite being 5 down for 128? What point a Test match if making in excess of 500 on the final two days is considered on par?
And what point crowing about the primacy of Test Cricket and the dangers posed by T20 when the body making those statements roll out a deck that, on Day 5, is not dis-similar to an ideal T20 deck?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Test 2 Wrap
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I certainly agree about the pitches, although England did a good job of turning this into a good Test.
Well said, Homer. Just wait for a few days for English and Oz journalists to tint this series as greatest/second-greatest ever behind Ashes 2005 depending on the results. I mean, they might have equal and opposite views depending on which way the series goes. Nobody will talk about this pitch, then. Thats the thing - dodgy or lifeless pitches are only in the sub-continent. If you didnt know that, you shouldnt be in the same planet as MCC.
We know Australia have no more remained as they were before 2 or three years.So this jerk was required to prove there is lack of experience.Hope they will refresh their team from next test.
The stage and setting of a cricket match make a great difference to the assessment of the quality of a game. If India and Pakistan were to stage a test series in front of huge crowds in large stadiums and produce a couple of finishes, it would be hailed as a great one too (its up to Indian and Pakistani journalists/television comms to do to the business in that regard). Problem is: we won't get tight finishes, we won't get huge crowds and we won't get Ind-Pak journalists talking it up because they'll have used up all their adjectives on something else.
Why blame the English and the Australian for doing good PR on the Ashes? It works - and it produces huge crowds and great drama every four years.
As for your rhetorical questions about "what point a test match..", all of those questions have answers that do not depend on the the deadness of the pitch as well - tails bat better now (and when have tails not swung away as merrily when the side is heading to certain defeat?); Clarke and Haddin surely had something to do with that; and who ever considered making 500 on the last two days as par? When it is ever achieved then that question should be reconsidered - it will be a very long time before 450 is ever made to win a test, if ever.
Yes they did Jonathan, but this test could so easily have become a snooze fest,like the first one
Cheers,
Raj,
I prefer dodgy wickets to the featherbeds that masquerade as Test wickets these days.
Cheers,
Vikas,
It is a long shot. Australia have plenty to ponder with respect to their bowling.
Cheers,
Samir,
Agrred, but the fundamental premise still remains - what happened to the Lords wicket we saw during the T20 WC?
This test was decided by poor umpiring and one man's genius. 425, 215, 331 and 406 :- if Australia had batted just a tad better in the first essay or had the calls in the second go their way, this was another yawn fest.
And irrespective of the stage and setting and they hype, that fact remains.
Cheers,
Samir, oh I agree. Who stops us from writing well? Fair enough but all the same, I want to differentiate between actual great series, and hyped up ones.
Homer,cricketers like Simon Katich,Philip Hughes and Mitchell Johnson are yet to prove that they are correct substitute for former cricketers like Gilchrist,Hayden and Mcgrath.
Irrespective of pitches any series that produces such drama will always be good to watch .. So I would say go ashes
Belittling it don't understand what your point is
True Vikas.. And that difference in class shows.
Cheers,
Shyam,
There was drama during the England tour of West Indies ( earlier this year) too - an abandoned Test, one spectacular collapse,two tests that went down to the wire. And yet, I could not bring myself to watch the series in its entirety.
True drama was the 2005 Ashes - when two teams playing at the height of their powers competed and where every ball of every session of every day made for compulsory viewing.When I had no qualms waking up at 5 AM and reporting to work after 12 because the cricket had my undivided attention.
This Ashes has its moments, but calling it drama ( or theater) is to buy into the hype.
The fact of the matter is that this Ashes pits two mediocre teams, one on its way down and the other on its way up.
And while there may be passages that make for compulsive viewing, they are few and far in between.
And having the most insipid wickets does not add to the theater, it diminishes it.
Thanks for your comments and welcome to the blog.
Cheers,
Post a Comment