Non Turf Wickets

Plates

Discuss

TrueDub

Plates wrote: »

Discuss

Go ahead.

Plates

Ok - let's begin....



Rumour has it that the 2012 regulations for the Bob Kerr Irish Senior Cup require all matches to be played on turf wickets. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on that? Here are a few of mine:

• If it's true - there was no consultation with clubs prior to the decision being made
• The Ulster Cup - played between 1st teams in the NCU and NWCU is sponsored by Club Turf - a supplier of non-turf wickets. The regulations for the competition stipulate that the final must be played on a Club Turf wicket. Therefore Cricket Ireland appear to be implying that the product of one of the long standing sponsors of a regional cup competition is not good enough for the Irish Senior Cup
• There is nothing in current regulations covering the quality of turf wickets. It seems that as long as it's turf - it's ok - regardless of quality / performance

Gordon Gecko

Hate non-turf wickets with a passion to be honest, would take a horrendous turf wicket over a good non-turf any day of the week.

Plates

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Hate non-turf wickets with a passion to be honest, would take a horrendous turf wicket over a good non-turf any day of the week.

Any particular reason for this passion Gordon?

crackit

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Hate non-turf wickets with a passion to be honest, would take a horrendous turf wicket over a good non-turf any day of the week.

Agreed. Cricket was meant to be played in natural conditions. We have the benefit of covered wickets most of the time now but if we don't then tough luck. Cricket was played on uncovered wickets for years. Pitch conditions are, and always will be, a factor in deciding games.

Artificial strips are only suitable for netting IMO to save on wear and tear on the square.

TheDrog

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

Hate non-turf wickets with a passion to be honest, would take a horrendous turf wicket over a good non-turf any day of the week.

for the most part I agree with you but there are a couple of exceptions which I'll go into.

Personally I understand why artificial wickets are a necessity for many clubs but I do feel that there is no place for them in senior cricket which should be exclusively for grass tracks except where weather or unforeseen events prevent it.

I don't feel that they aid the development of younger bowlers as they offer very little in the natural variation that you can find on a grass track. Most of them favour the batsman and the ones that don't for the most part are the ones that its generally felt have something wrong with them Bird avenue and Rush until the start of last season being a major example of this. examples of those that favour the batsman are the new Rush mat and Sandyford.

They come in very useful during bad weather and wet conditions because they allow games to be played that simply couldn't be but otherwise but they should not be exclusively used by any side where posible. I played on grass 3 times in eleven games last year for my side. I missed two more games through injury which were both also played on artificials.the games on grass being at Mount Temple (frightening turn), Castle avenue (perfect, at least for our level) and Aravon (frankly dangerous). To be fair many clubs try and give their lower teams an opportunity to play on grass tracks but it isn't always possible. This year because one of the wickets on the square in Rush collapsed the pressure on the others meant that the lower teams were only able to have access to the artificial

Some grounds obviously don't have the ability to put down an artificial but where the grass tracks are dangerous something should be done, Aravon is a good example of a place where a mat should be used before someone gets badly injured. For anyone who hasn't played there, there is a ridge running across the square which when the ball hits it causes a very quick rise turning a full length delivery into a bouncer and with young players getting so used to the regular bounce you get on an artificial they struggle to react to it when it does kick up. the old pitch in Alsaa was the same and on several occassions we did have players hurt there.

Bobo148

Plates wrote: »

Ok - let's begin....



Rumour has it that the 2012 regulations for the Bob Kerr Irish Senior Cup require all matches to be played on turf wickets. I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on that? Here are a few of mine:

• If it's true - there was no consultation with clubs prior to the decision being made
• The Ulster Cup - played between 1st teams in the NCU and NWCU is sponsored by Club Turf - a supplier of non-turf wickets. The regulations for the competition stipulate that the final must be played on a Club Turf wicket. Therefore Cricket Ireland appear to be implying that the product of one of the long standing sponsors of a regional cup competition is not good enough for the Irish Senior Cup
• There is nothing in current regulations covering the quality of turf wickets. It seems that as long as it's turf - it's ok - regardless of quality / performance

Plates,

If you did a survey of those that play cricket in this country the vast majority would tell you that they would prefer to play on a turf wicket, regardless of quality. Cricket has been, is and always will be designed to play on turf.

In all your comments about quality of turf pitches you handily avoid mentioning the issue of poor quality artificial pitches. Some of them around the country are good, and well maintained. Many are poor with uneven and low bounce, nails and poor stump holes etc.

The comment re a sponsor is disingenuous at best. Every competition has sponsors with different preferences and to use one competition as a yard stick for another is selective at best.

Keep 'er lit.

D3PO

you would struggle to find anybody who says they prefer to play on a mat than a turf wicket but thats really off topic.

Interesting decision for the Bob Kerr ISC.

Wonder if Terenue will be given an exemption to the rule like they have to play senior cricket in the LCU ?

Which in my view is a joke. You either have a rule or you dont.

Plates

D3PO wrote: »

Wonder if Terenue will be given an exemption to the rule like they have to play senior cricket in the LCU ?

Which in my view is a joke. You either have a rule or you dont.

What exemption do Terenure have and what is the rule you're referring to?

In case you weren't around when Terenure (then CYM) were granted Senior Status by the LCU (which was 30 years ago) - it was a condition of that status that we install a non-turf wicket as we weren't able to produce a high enough standard of turf wicket due to the fact that the ground is shared with rugby and soccer.

I agree that it's a bit of a joke that there's no rule. In my opinion we're actually starting at step 2 in this discussion when we talk about turf vs non-turf. Step 1 is to define acceptable standards / parameters for how you want wickets to play and then you move on to assess if these can be met by both turf and non-turf. You then make a decision (based on what your overall strategy is in relation to long term development) on what levels you want to allow choice between turf and non-turf.

We don't need to start from scratch here - the ECB (which most associate countries look to for advice / studies / assessments that they can leverage) have 2 main documents that should form the basis of this discussion:

Recommended Guidelines for the construction, preparation and maintenance of cricket pitches and outfields at all levels of the game:

http://static.ecb.co.uk/files/ts4-ecb-groundsmanship-2011-1337.pdf

Code of Practice and Technical Requirements for the Design and Installation of Non-Turf Cricket Facilities:

http://static.ecb.co.uk/files/code-of-practice-apr-08-2252.pdf

The document above outlines the standards that Terenure adhere to when selecting a non-turf wicket to ensure that we have a high quality playing surface that incorporates the best elements of a turf wicket, benefits skilled batsmen and bowlers and facilitates the continued development of our youth players.

Just to be clear - there are few - if any people associated to Terenure that disagree that cricket should be played on quality turf wickets where possible. But in the absence of quality turf wickets - we should be playing cricket on the surface that most closely replicates a quality turf wicket and enable the best quality of cricket and the best opoortunity for bowlers and batsmen to develop. I long for the day when the wickets produced at The Hills are the standard as opposed to the exception. Until we reach that day I can't accept that it's in the best interests of cricket in Leinster or Ireland to have wickets at Senior level where it's accepted that a score of 180 batting first is competitive.

TheDrog

There was some talk around recently of Terenure using Trinity's ground this year, the BKISC could be the reason why. Especially since from the LCU AGM it seems possible that starting in 2013 all top flight cricket should be played on turf

Plates

TheDrog wrote: »

There was some talk around recently of Terenure using Trinity's ground this year, the BKISC could be the reason why. Especially since from the LCU AGM it seems possible that starting in 2013 all top flight cricket should be played on turf

I've highlighted the important part above.

The basic truth as it stands is that Terenure could cut a 22 yard strip at the edge of the rugby pitch, roll it, mark it stick stumps in it and call it a turf wicket. Because there is nothing in the regulations about acceptable quality of grass wickets and no grounds committee to even define what they would be there would be nothing to stop us. In fact - even if (which is likely) the umpires declared it unplayable - the precedent was already set last season - so we would face no penalty - and the match would simply be refixed.

Do we really want to go down that route? Or do we want to be sensible and do what's best for the sake of development of cricket?

TheDrog

Yes as a matter of fact I do think we should be looking to go down that road or do you think that county cricket/ODIs/Tests/T20s should be played on artificials? To improve the game we need to be looking for the best players in the country to be playing on proper wickets not artificial surfaces.

Plates

TheDrog wrote: »

Yes as a matter of fact I do think we should be looking to go down that road or do you think that county cricket/ODIs/Tests/T20s should be played on artificials? To improve the game we need to be looking for the best players in the country to be playing on proper wickets not artificial surfaces.

Can we get a reality check here please? For a variety of reasons clubs at the top level in Leinster cricket have failed to consistently produce wickets of a high standard. This could be a result of location (i.e. poor underlying soil conditions / shared facilities), climate, lack of finance / knowledge / support / guidance etc. etc. - the list goes on. We can't compare ourselves to ODI / Test venues.

At the risk of repeating myself - I think that cricket should be played on turf wickets - as long as those turf wickets enable a high standard of cricket to be played and develop skilled, rounded cricketers. Too many dibbly dobbly bowlers and front foot gashers have profited from the poor overall standard of turf wickets over the years and this cannot be good for the development of the game in this country.

I'll finish with a couple of things you might find interesting.

Back in 2006 Darrin Murray (former New Zealand test batsman) was playing in the Dutch leagues. He was critical of the coconut matting surfaces that were prevalent at the time because they were inconsistent and hampered the development of batsmen and bowlers alike. It was acknowledged that many Dutch clubs couldn't produce turf wickets. Rather than ignore the obvious and advise that they should try to develop turf wickets anyway he said "artificial surfaces of the Notts weave type are the obvious answer, producing wickets that behave more like grass". The full article is available at http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000032/003270.shtml


The Pepsi ICC World Cricket League regulations include a facility for matches to be played on non-turf pitches where necessary
- Law 7.3 – “Where possible, and grounds are of standard, as first preference all matches shall be played on natural turf pitches. Where necessary though matches can be scheduled on non-turf pitches for the duration of the tournament, or on the reserve days, subject to compliance of Law 7.5”

TheDrog

okay here's a reality check, many of the artificial wickets are substandard here. Spend some time playing in the lower leagues and on school pitches and you'll realise this.

Plates

TheDrog wrote: »

okay here's a reality check, many of the artificial wickets are substandard here. Spend some time playing in the lower leagues and on school pitches and you'll realise this.

Reinforces my point perfectly that the first thing that needs to be tackled is wicket standards - then we can move on to what they're made of.

I've played in lower leagues and found equally poor turf and non-turf wickets. My not too distant future will also be in the lower leagues.

Gordon Gecko

Plates wrote: »

Any particular reason for this passion Gordon?

Bird Avenue, Wesley, Kenilworth Sq., Whitechurch, Malahide, Laois to name but a few......

TheDrog

even worse than any of those Alexandra college, the ice rink.

crackit

I've had a few differences of opinion on here and that's all fair game in my book. No one is going to cry over it.

Can I ask you a genuine question though Plates? Why did you come on here starting a thread on a topic no one else was particularly interested in adding to until you were prompted to offer some discussion on it.

Then you go on the offensive about anyone who doesn't seem to agree with your opinion of artificial wickets? It's all very strangely passive aggressive.

You've a hard one for artifical surfaces for some reason. As much as you're trying to disguise it by saying that the quality of surface is the problem rather than what they are made of you're whole bringing to the forum this 'issue' suggests you feel otherwise.

I'll put it simply enough. Probably 80% natural wickets I've played on are of a decent standard are better. On the other hand I'd say 80% of artifical wickets I've played on are rubbish. It's really that simple.

For every one horror natural pitch like a Mount Temple you have great places like Railway, Pembroke, YMCA, Phoenix etc... where the wickets are superb. But for every one good mat you have like the new one in Rush you have awful mats like Wesley, Laois, Kenilworth, Columbas and *shudders* Bird Ave.

Plates

crackit wrote: »

Can I ask you a genuine question though Plates? Why did you come on here starting a thread on a topic no one else was particularly interested in adding to until you were prompted to offer some discussion on it.

Then you go on the offensive about anyone who doesn't seem to agree with your opinion of artificial wickets? It's all very strangely passive aggressive.

I wanted to see if there were any opinions out there before I gave mine. I didn't get any so I started with my views. There have been a fair few opinions voiced over the past few days - so I can't agree that no one else is particularly interested.

Can you clarify where I went on the offensive?

There are sh*t grass wickets and there are sh*t artificial wickets as you rightly point out. If we can all agree with that and move along - we can then look at why it is the case that the LCU have neither a regulation related to clubs resposibilities for wicket quality nor a grounds committee in place to devise or implement one.

Are we happy to meander along as we are - or is it in the best interest of cricket development to set some wicket and ground standards?

D3PO

Plates wrote: »

I
There are sh*t grass wickets and there are sh*t artificial wickets as you rightly point out. If we can all agree with that and move along - we can then look at why it is the case that the LCU have neither a regulation related to clubs resposibilities for wicket quality nor a grounds committee in place to devise or implement one.

Are we happy to meander along as we are - or is it in the best interest of cricket development to set some wicket and ground standards?

Did you go to the recent LCU AGM and express your concerns and propose the LCU introduce regulations regarding the condition of wickets ?

If not then your as culpable as anybody to meander along as is.

Plates

D3PO wrote: »

Did you go to the recent LCU AGM and express your concerns and propose the LCU introduce regulations regarding the condition of wickets ?

Yes I did.

D3PO

Plates wrote: »

Yes I did.

and what was the response to you raising this issue ?

Plates

D3PO wrote: »

and what was the response to you raising this issue ?

It was agreed that a broader discussion was required so a working group is being put together. Full details on the AGM are at http://www.cricketleinster.ie/news/annual-autumn-general-meeting

D3PO

ok so why did you bother asking if we were happy to meander on ? Clearly you knew the answer based on the fact the LCU acknowledge and agreed to put a workign group together to tackle this ?


I know it has been raised earlier but your posting behaviours are very strange. It seems your waiting for people to pull your opinions out rather than just stating your position.

It would be a much more construtive debate if you were to actually just post things rather than having to be asked your opinion every time.

Plates

Short of physically going around to every club - this is the best chance I have of getting a sense of what players think about wicket standards.

The working group is not necessarily going to represent the views of all players - as you'll know if you've spent any time on committees.

If you read back through my posts you'll see that I've stated my opinion on many occassions independant of previous posts - and many of those opinions haven't been commented on by others. By responding to the views of others - it clearly makes for a more interesting debate - no?

D3PO

well you need to be realistic.

Its all well and good having an aspirational goal of having a high standard of wicket across all grounds but the fact is that many of the smaller clubs running small budgets are probably not in the position to maintain wickets as well as they would like.

even artifical wickets. I mean the cost of laying a new mat is not cheap.

we all want to play on top class turf wickets every week but the cost , and timely maintenence associated with that isnt something that is accessible to all clubs.

let me ask you this ? In the quest to improve wicket standards would you propose certain wickets arent allowed be used unless improved ?

if yes then what would happen if clubs said look we cant afford to do that work. Would you be prepared to improve general playing facilities at the expense of club and player number growth ?

If Im being honest outside of the top divisions which I fully agree should have a high stanard is the wicket really that big a deal once its not of a dangerous nature ?

Your generally talking (and I include myself in this statement) of players who really arent of an ability to fully appreciate and or benefit from a good quality wicket anyway

Gordon Gecko

How can young players develop if they're playing on mats like Sandyford every week? Many young players begin their careers in the lower leagues on a club's lower teams. Bowlers cannot hone their skills and develop their different deliveries on the atrocious non-turf wickets which litter Leinster cricket.

If I recall correctly last season there was some ground equipment rental scheme for LCU clubs. In my opinion this should be enhanced with a view to helping clubs develop turf wickets and ensure that non-turf wickets are only used in the most dire of circumstances.

Plates

Absolutely agree that there are some shocking artificial wickets out there which do nothing for development. This goes back to my main point of there being no regulations or even guidelines for new or existing clubs. There are a number of different companies and a number of different types of artificial wicket available - depending on intended use. Since the outlay for this type of wicket is significant - it would be beneficial if the LCU at least provided guidance to clubs on how to get the best quality for their budget. A great start is the ECB document at the link below:

http://static.ecb.co.uk/files/ecb-non-turf-pitches-ts6-final-328.pdf

TheDrog

I should clarify as regards the Sandyford and Rush artificial wickets that it is the extra bounce that I have issues. They're both very even in their extra bounce and not dangerous.

D3PO

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

How can young players develop if they're playing on mats like Sandyford every week? .

what is your issue with the Sandyford mat. its one of the better ones about in terms of being even and having decent bounce.

D3PO

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

In my opinion this should be enhanced with a view to helping clubs develop turf wickets and ensure that non-turf wickets are only used in the most dire of circumstances.

have you ever perpared or maintained a cricket square ?

im going to guess no. I havent either but I know people who have and the time involved in doing so is significant.

its hard enough for smaller clubs to get people to give up a full weekend day to play cricket to think that you can get them to have volunteers to maintain squares and spend significant time doing this aswell is just not plausible

Osgoodisgood

Plates wrote: »

Discuss

Platus Maximus,

I want to help you here. But I can't.

I loathe artificial wickets with a passion. Even the "good ones" that the consultants decree to be ok. I can't remember anyone ever visiting The Clee and going away impressed with the pitch. Nobody.

Talking about poor quality grass wickets has nothing to do with artificial wickets and it makes me uncomfortable to see the smokescreen put up.

Sorry old boy. I'll forgive you for stealing all the best sandwiches but not for this!

Plates

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Talking about poor quality grass wickets has nothing to do with artificial wickets and it makes me uncomfortable to see the smokescreen put up.

A smokescreen - really? Having a preference to play cricket on a good quality artificial as opposed to a poor quality grass wicket is hardly a smokescreen. I also have a preference to play on a good quality grass wicket over a good quality artificial - but unfortunately - at the moment - there are very few good quality grass wickets in the LCU.

As I said at the LCU AGM - I'd rather not take the "race to the bottom" approach and take a hand mower out to cut a 22 yard strip on the rugby pitch - just to satisfy an obsession over "real" wickets. Let's take a more pragmatic approach for the sake of developing cricket.

nompere

I'm with Plates on this - a good mat is much better than a poor grass pitch.

It's quite interesting browsing the net to learn about the historical use of mats. The last Test match played on a mat took place in 1959 in Karachi. The scorecard is here - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62867.html I appreciate that for some here that is ancient history, but I went to my first Test match in 1962 and saw many of that Pakistan team. I saw one or two of the Australians later on as well. The West Indies last used a mat in Trinidad for a Test against England in 1954.

Go a little further and you will find writings suggesting that techniques learnt on matting pitches helped Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble.

Maybe we should have more mats in this country.

Osgoodisgood

Plates wrote: »

A smokescreen - really? Having a preference to play cricket on a good quality artificial as opposed to a poor quality grass wicket is hardly a smokescreen.

That's not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that commenting on the quality of grass wickets has nothing (or at least, should have nothing) to do with the question of whether there should be artificial wickets.

It's your thread though so carry on!

I also have a preference to play on a good quality grass wicket over a good quality artificial - but unfortunately - at the moment - there are very few good quality grass wickets in the LCU.

Then things have changed mightily in the last few years because in the 18 years I played senior cricket I can only recall a couple of occasions when the pitch was of such poor quality that I wished I had the option of a mat.

As I said at the LCU AGM - I'd rather not take the "race to the bottom" approach and take a hand mower out to cut a 22 yard strip on the rugby pitch - just to satisfy an obsession over "real" wickets. Let's take a more pragmatic approach for the sake of developing cricket.

An obsession? How obsessed are they given the number of mats being used and the fact that an artificial pitch will again be gracing the highest grade of club cricket next season?

Plates

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

That's not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that commenting on the quality of grass wickets has nothing (or at least, should have nothing) to do with the question of whether there should be artificial wickets.

There are both linked - since there are zero guidelines / standards in place for either. That's why there is such a divergence between the best and worst grass and artificial wickets. If quality grass wickets - certainly in the top leagues - can't be provided - surely a high quality artificial is acceptable?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Then things have changed mightily in the last few years because in the 18 years I played senior cricket I can only recall a couple of occasions when the pitch was of such poor quality that I wished I had the option of a mat.

I'm not talking about grass wickets that are unplayable - agree there are very few of those. What I am saying is that (in the top leagues) we are risking development of key skills for both batsmen and bowlers when most grass wickets are slow and low. For the good of the game - surely we have higher aspirations in our top leagues than to play on wickets where 180 is seen as a decent score?

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

An obsession? How obsessed are they given the number of mats being used and the fact that an artificial pitch will again be gracing the highest grade of club cricket next season?

What cricket related objections (aside from the throwaway "cricket should be played on turf" comment) - do you have against high quality artificial wickets? The artificial wicket in Terenure has had no complaints from umpires in the 29 years it's been used. It's also been involved in some of the highest aggregate scores and the lowest aggregate scores and everything in between. We have developed - and continued to develop youth players who have represented both Leinster and Ireland in all age groups. Happy to consider any meaningful statistics, evidence you might have as opposed to a simple personal objection.

TrueDub

Plates wrote: »

The artificial wicket in Terenure has had no complaints from umpires in the 29 years it's been used.

I'm not interested in getting involved in the general argument, but I have to challenge this, I'm afraid. I personally have made at least one observation, using the old ground report forms we had, about the artificial pitch in Terenure. I assume they weren't passed on by that committee (a couple of years ago), but it doesn't mean they weren't raised.

Plates

TrueDub wrote: »

I personally have made at least one observation, using the old ground report forms we had, about the artificial pitch in Terenure. I assume they weren't passed on by that committee (a couple of years ago), but it doesn't mean they weren't raised.

Ok - I stand corrected - we've had one "observation" in 29 years.

TrueDub

Plates wrote: »

Ok - I stand corrected - we've had one "observation" in 29 years.

Anecdotally I know of many others, but I didn't raise them myself, so I can't talk about them.

Plates

TrueDub wrote: »

Anecdotally I know of many others, but I didn't raise them myself, so I can't talk about them.

Anecdotally I'm aware of a lot of things - doesn't necessarily mean they happened. Either there were no reports, or there were reports that weren't passed on to the club.

Osgoodisgood

Plates wrote: »

What cricket related objections (aside from the throwaway "cricket should be played on turf" comment) - do you have against high quality artificial wickets?

Ah now Plates you're better than that. I didn't say any such thing did I? I said I loathed artificial wickets and I stand by that opinion. And the "high quality" artificial wickets you speak of? That's your opinion, to which you are welcome.

My objections are simply that a) playing on such surfaces isn't good practice for batsmen who aspire to higher levels of cricket, b) playing on a variety of pitches is part of the fun of playing cricket, and c) my own game was better suited to grass pitches.

The artificial wicket in Terenure has had no complaints from umpires in the 29 years it's been used.

The umpires would have only complained if they considered the pitch to be dangerous. Many umpires felt that the pitch was silly. Does that count?

It's also been involved in some of the highest aggregate scores and the lowest aggregate scores and everything in between. We have developed - and continued to develop youth players who have represented both Leinster and Ireland in all age groups. Happy to consider any meaningful statistics, evidence you might have as opposed to a simple personal objection.

And you'll be the judge of how meaningful the evidence is? This is boards.ie not the high court. Objections, opinions, anecdote, heresay and rumour are what you'll find here.

Gordon Gecko

I'd be very interested to see how many top professional cricketers grew up playing on "high quality artificial wickets"

Plates

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I'd be very interested to see how many top professional cricketers grew up playing on "high quality artificial wickets"

I'd be very interested to know how many top professional cricketers grew up playing on low quality turf wickets.

But to answer your question here are a few (and I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list):

Roland Lefebvre
Ryan ten Doeschate
Alexei Kervezee
Ian Billcliff
Tom Brierly
John Davison
Anil Kumble

nompere

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

I'd be very interested to see how many top professional cricketers grew up playing on "high quality artificial wickets"

And Sachin, as I noted earlier in this thread.

I believe that below the first class level, the majority of cricket in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka is played on artificial pitches.

Cots

D3PO wrote: »

what is your issue with the Sandyford mat. its one of the better ones about in terms of being even and having decent bounce.

sorry I dont mean to drag up a dead issue with this comment but, I played and kept wicket for an away team in sandyford last season and when standing up to the stumps had a ball land back of a length and just skid straight past myself and the batsman who was preparing to play off the back foot, that is not consistent bounce at all if i have ever seen it, I dont know what experience you have of it but in my qute recent experience it wasn't consistent at all

D3PO

Cots wrote: »

sorry I dont mean to drag up a dead issue with this comment but, I played and kept wicket for an away team in sandyford last season and when standing up to the stumps had a ball land back of a length and just skid straight past myself and the batsman who was preparing to play off the back foot, that is not consistent bounce at all if i have ever seen it, I dont know what experience you have of it but in my qute recent experience it wasn't consistent at all

ok so 1 ball kept low out of what a 40 or 45 over game. Thats hardly an argument to call a wicket inconsistent.

watch most international games and you will see an occasional ball do something odd that isnt grounds for calling that particaular wicket inconsistent.

just checked the average batting rate of the teams winning at Marlay park last season in Div 6 games which would have been the firsts

5.76 an over
6.7 an over
6.04 an over
5.25 an over
5.63 an over
4.6 an over
4.91 an over

Id argue that if the pitch were that inconsistent you wouldnt be getting run rates at that level.

is is off topic though.

back to Plates original gripe. Right now thats what I would call it as Ive yet to be convinced by his argument that the quality of pitches are that bad at the highest level.

Having reread the thread again I find his issue being more about low scoring than the genuine quality of the wickets.

A wicket being slow and low doesnt automatically make it a bad wicket nor do I subscribe that this is the only reason some of the scores are low. I mean you check some of last seasons scores 304 runs first innings 149 all out second innings. Clearly the level of batting and not the pitch is to blame.

And anyway in regards to slow and low wickets Id argue from a development perspective a batsmen is going to learn more playing on a pitch like that then playing on a flat or hard and fast wicket.

P.S just to put some perspective on the comment that 180 is considered a good score. In over 30% of last seasons Senior 1 games not affected by rain (46 matches) both teams scored 200 plus runs.

In over 56% of games at least 1 team topped 200 runs

Just to add a bit of balance here as its being portrayed that 180 is a good score.

Plates

D3PO wrote: »

And anyway in regards to slow and low wickets Id argue from a development perspective a batsmen is going to learn more playing on a pitch like that then playing on a flat or hard and fast wicket.

That must be why Australia, South Africa and the West Indies have produced such ordinary batsmen over the years. Someone should enlighten them to the developmental opportunity they're missing out on by not playing on "sticky dogs".

D3PO wrote: »

In over 56% of games at least 1 team topped 200 runs

Just to add a bit of balance here as its being portrayed that 180 is a good score.

So in 44% of games at the top level of club cricket in Leinster - neither side mustered more than 200 runs? And you don't think that points to poor / inconsistent quality of wickets?

Don't get me wrong here - I appreciate that clubs do what they can with the resources they have - but with Zero guidance from the LCU, nothing in the regulations that mentions acceptable standards and a climate that certainly doesn't help - they certainly aren't being set up for success. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I long for the day that the wicket in The Hills is considered the standard as opposed to the (exceptional) exception.

D3PO

Plates wrote: »

That must be why Australia, South Africa and the West Indies have produced such ordinary batsmen over the years. Someone should enlighten them to the developmental opportunity they're missing out on by not playing on "sticky dogs".




So in 44% of games at the top level of club cricket in Leinster - neither side mustered more than 200 runs? And you don't think that points to poor / inconsistent quality of wickets?

Don't get me wrong here - I appreciate that clubs do what they can with the resources they have - but with Zero guidance from the LCU, nothing in the regulations that mentions acceptable standards and a climate that certainly doesn't help - they certainly aren't being set up for success. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I long for the day that the wicket in The Hills is considered the standard as opposed to the (exceptional) exception.

re your comment on international teams. Look at India they are brutal outside the subcontinent because they cant play on anything but roads. Ultimately to improve you should play on all types of surfaces. That was what I meant in my post so playing th eoccasional game on a slow and low track isnt a bad thing and certainly isnt an indicatio that it is a poor wicket.

re senior 1 cricket yes in 44% of the top level games no team made 200 but if you review them you will find a lot of the time the side chasing would have made 200 if they were batting out their overs but becasue the first team got skittled they didnt get the opportunity.

which again Id argue is down to the quality of batting rather than the pitch

D3PO

Plates wrote: »

I long for the day that the wicket in The Hills is considered the standard as opposed to the (exceptional) exception.

out of curiosity can I ask you which senior 1 wickets you consider up to a freasonable standard and which you consider below par ?

if you dont want to post it here then Im happy to get via PM. I just think your being overly critical to be honest.

theres only 2 senior 1 wickets that I would consider below par personally. So for the most part I think they are fine.

Plates

D3PO wrote: »

re your comment on international teams. Look at India they are brutal outside the subcontinent because they cant play on anything but roads. Ultimately to improve you should play on all types of surfaces. That was what I meant in my post so playing th eoccasional game on a slow and low track isnt a bad thing and certainly isnt an indicatio that it is a poor wicket.

Don't get caught up in the current media hype. Judging by your previous posts you seem to appreciate the value of statistics:

From 1981 - 2011 in ODI's:

India at home - played 277 - won 160 - a win ratio of 58%
India away - played 253 - won 100 - a win ratio of 40%

So they're less effective away from home - like most teams (it's called home advantage) - but winning 40% of your matches away from home is hardly "brutal"