Non Turf Wickets

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"

Cots

D3PO wrote: »

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.

sorry I wasnt fully clear there, it was one of many incidents, rather than bore you with every last one of them I thought it would be better to just tell the worst case... put simply it was my view that the mat wasnt the most consistent you would see

Cots

D3PO wrote: »

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.

Yes that is true that 180 may not be a big/good score overall on averages in a senior game but, assuming those stats include North County and Rush, these are grounds where a relative collapse could still lead to a score over 200, in which case you would be right, however if you were to split between the north and south sides I'm sure it wouldn't be the same situation

D3PO

Cots wrote: »

Yes that is true that 180 may not be a big/good score overall on averages in a senior game but, assuming those stats include North County and Rush, these are grounds where a relative collapse could still lead to a score over 200, in which case you would be right, however if you were to split between the north and south sides I'm sure it wouldn't be the same situation

doesnt include rush because they werent and still arent senior 1.

Cots

D3PO wrote: »

doesnt include rush because they werent and still arent senior 1.

is senior 1 not divisions 1 and 2 with senior 2 considered to be 3 and 4?

D3PO

Cots wrote: »

is senior 1 not divisions 1 and 2 with senior 2 considered to be 3 and 4?

Sorry meant division 1 it used to be senior 1,2,3 etc still using the old naming my bad

Cots

D3PO wrote: »

Sorry meant division 1 it used to be senior 1,2,3 etc still using the old naming my bad

no problem, i was just going to say that these good scoring grounds would have off-set the actual average of the different grounds around the county

djimi

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.

Sorry to go back to an old point but this is absolutely ridiculous. Ive played on some horrendous mudbath wickets in my time and its completely pointless cricket. A decent new mat with true even bounce makes for a far better game than some poorly prepared turf wicket that barely manages to produce ankle high bounce; since we got the new mat at NK a couple of seasons ago its been one of my favorite tracks to bat on. Obviously there are also some dreadful mats out there as well but thats a different issue entirely.

In Ireland cricket simply couldnt happen without mats. Especially at the lower end of the leagues; I can tell you know from my experience we would have had seasons where we would have struggled to play 5 games were it not for artificial wickets.

That said, I completely agree with the Irish Cup being played exclusively on turf. Whatever about division 10 or whatever; the senior divisions should only be using mats in extreme circumstances.

Plates

djimi wrote: »

That said, I completely agree with the Irish Cup being played exclusively on turf. Whatever about division 10 or whatever; the senior divisions should only be using mats in extreme circumstances.

Not sure why it should be extreme circumstances. If a club are unable to provide a high quality turf wicket - why shouldn't a high quality non-turf wicket be used? The ECB have noted that the standard of non-turf wickets available now put them on par with good quality turf wickets. What cricketing reasons are there for your opposition to non-turf wickets at senior level?

djimi

Plates wrote: »

Not sure why it should be extreme circumstances. If a club are unable to provide a high quality turf wicket - why shouldn't a high quality non-turf wicket be used? The ECB have noted that the standard of non-turf wickets available now put them on par with good quality turf wickets. What cricketing reasons are there for your opposition to non-turf wickets at senior level?

Because our senior grade cricket is supposed to be developing the current and next generations of international standard cricketers for Ireland, and nowhere in First Class or International cricket do they play on artifical wickets. The ECB can say what they want; while mats provide a good alternative for amatuer league cricket there is no mat I have ever played on that comes even close to emulating a top quality turf wicket, and if we want our top players to progress to the international game then they must spend all of their time playing and developing on the surfaces which best prepare them for the next level.

Plates

djimi wrote: »

if we want our top players to progress to the international game then they must spend all of their time playing and developing on the surfaces which best prepare them for the next level.

So which surfaces in Senior cricket do you think would prepare players for the next level? Bear in mind that the next level generally means playing on wickets with a significant amount of pace and bounce.

How many clubs have a turf practice wicket? I would guess none - which means that the majority of development (since players generally spend more time batting / bowling in nets than in the middle) is done on non-turf surface.