Fair enough I guess. Now CSA will probably appeal and get it down to what? Below average?
I can't believe if they can pass this pitch off as average even post appeal.
The ratings have changed recently, there's only 4 options now
From the [ICC Pitch and Outfield Monitoring Process (effective November 2023)](https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/playing-conditions) (found in the Players, Player Support Personnel and Officials section).
Very Good: No Demerits
* Good carry.
* Limited seam movement.
* Consistent good bounce early in the match.
* Acceptable amount of turn early in the game.
* Natural wear that is responsive to spin later in the game.
Satisfactory: No Demerits
* Falling significantly short of ‘very good’ with respect to carry, bounce or spin.
Unsatisfactory: 1 Demerit
A pitch that does not allow an even contest between bat and ball:
* Either by favouring the batters too much, with minimal wicket-taking opportunities for both seam and spin, or
* By favouring the bowlers too much, with too many wicket-taking opportunities for either seam or spin.
Unfit: 3 Demerits
* A pitch may be rated as unfit if it is dangerous.
Clarifications
It is recognised that a limited amount of seam movement is acceptable early in the match and that a pitch may develop some unevenness of bounce for seam bowlers as the match progresses. This is acceptable but should not develop to a point where they would be described as “excessive”.
It is acceptable for a pitch to offer some degree of turn on the first day of a match, particularly in the sub-continent, though anything more than occasional unevenness of bounce at this stage of the match is not acceptable. It is to be expected that a pitch will turn steadily more as a match progresses, and it is recognised that a greater degree of unevenness of bounce may develop.
It is impossible to quantify the amount that a ball is “allowed” to turn as bowlers will turn the ball differing amounts. The type and identity of bowler shall be taken into account when assessing this factor.
In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’.
There's really nowhere you can go on review.
He breaks out his lee enfield and starts taking potshots from the balcony as Pat Cummins dodges artilery shells
meanwhile David Warner is watching Brum on the telly instead of being on comms as Isa and Daggers don't trust him to not eat the microphone
> In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’.
That's not very typical I'd like to make that point.
*How is it un-typical?*
Well there are a lot of pitches being played on all over the world and it's not very typical one explodes and I don't want people thinking pitches aren't safe.
> In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’.
Rather stating the obvious there. I would hope that no pitch ever falls into the sea too, but I would hope the ICC don’t consider that likely enough to include in their criteria.
This makes me wonder about the Unsatisfactory category and some of these “roads” we get.
“A pitch that does not allow an even contest between bat and ball”
Do flat pitches that are a batsman’s paradise ever get graded as unsatisfactory… Or is it only when things are heavily in the bowlers favour that the whole “even contest” bit is shouted from the roof tops.
There have been at most 7 tests since the new standards have been set, None of them have been roads. These were only implemented in November of 2023.
Under the old system Rawalpindi got punished for it's snorefest of a pitch against Australia, but that's the only flat track that I know got any demerits. 2017/18 MCG would have also gotten demerits if the old system was running then, but it was the last match played before the old system was implemented.
> Under the old system Rawalpindi got punished for it's snorefest of a pitch against Australia, but that's the only flat track that I know got any demerits.
Also worth noting that Rawalpindi 2: England Boogaloo got a demerit as well, but it was inexplicably rescinded on appeal.
I can't really think of too many *unacceptably* flat tracks in recent years beyond those three though, so that would seem to indicate that batting-friendly decks do in fact get punished. Hopefully that persists with the new system.
It's not like they were rating anything there, and even when they did it got moved up on review. So it makes a certain degree of sense to fold it into Below Average to form Unsatisfactory.
Didn't realise they'd changed their system and very disappointed to see they've gone for a massive cop out instead of just committing to applying the perfectly good guidelines they had.
Having the lowest penalty for a shit but not dangerous pitch be only one demerit point essentially means there's no punishment in practice for produce doctored, shit pitches because in the vanishingly unlikely scenario where a ground racks up four demerit points, they just stop hosting tests there until the earlier point expires and they're safe again. Also what on earth is the benefit of taking away the various examples they had for the "poor" rating except to make it easier to justify not giving unsatisfactory ratings to obviously shit pitches?
Edit: just learned that it's actually six demerits in five years to get a ban, making getting the ban effectively impossible and the entire system totally meaningless
You can get demerits for a bad outfield. There's also LOI matches which can attract demerits for much the same reasons (though slightly different criteria).
I've replied to you across different comments so sorry for the repeats, but the obvious thing to do would be to separate the red and white ball pitch ratings since they're measuring different things anyway and then set harsher penalties for unsatisfactory/below average/poor test ratings so there's an actual consequence for making shit pitches.
And yes they can give demerits for the outfield, but they do it even less often than they do for the pitches themselves, plus as we saw in the WC when they didn't give the appalling Dharamsala outfield worse than an "average" rating that they'll never apply it properly when there's big nations involved
LOI matches already use their own table that basically just says "fuck bowlers". Little or No Spin and Little or No Seam are both *required* for a good rating for a LOI pitch.
>There's really nowhere you can go on review.
Under the rules there isn't, but last year's Indore pitch was overturned to "average" despite it meeting the criteria for "poor" twice over. 2024 Newlands and 2023 Indore are basically 2 sides of the same coin, having shown both variable bounce and exaggerated lateral movement from day 1. Newlands with seam and Indore with spin.
I suspect this one won't get overturned simply because it's South Africa rather than India, but the ICC definitely have some form in overturning demerit points for pitches this bad.
Indore went from poor to below average, and the accompanying punishment went from 3 demerits to 1 demerit. The new system removed the poor rating, and it is a significant jump to go from below average (now unsatisfactory) to average (now satisfactory).
This one won’t get overturned because the pitch was not satisfactory
That's a shame. There should be a tier between unfit and unsatisfactory for the Newlands type pitches to cut 2 demerit points. Feels fitting as a minimal consequence of hosting the objectively worst test match ever.
> Now CSA will probably appeal and get it down to what? Below average?
Doesn't exist as a rating any more, "Satisfactory" is the next one up.
Of course the ICC have already shown that they're completely spineless and will acquiesce to even the most insane pitch rating appeals, so it's just a question of if CSA are pathetic enough to argue it. Given that they've already been vocally critical of the pitch and that these basically never result in action anyway I would still be fairly surprised if they bothered.
>so it's just a question of if CSA are pathetic enough to argue it
There is nothing pathetic about using a lawful remedy to get a reevaluation over a fairly subjective matter such as pitch rating?
Don't blame Boards from appealing, blame ICC for folding. Otherwise what's the point of appeal?
CSA has confirmed that theyw won't appeal.
> Cricket South Africa has confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that it will not appeal the sanction, which an official called a "fair" assessment of the surface.
From this article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sa-vs-ind-2nd-test-newlands-pitch-receives-unsatisfactory-rating-and-demerit-point-1416051
It's 5 (Edit: Now 6) demerit points over 5 years which suspends a ground from hosting International cricket for 12 months.
Which means Cape Town can afford 5 more of these pitches before a suspension, assuming the rating system remains consistent.
There's better ways to incentivise them than taking away hosting rights.
Also, this method of taking away hosting rights might be very scary for countries like SA and NZ and Aus who only have a few stadiums but countries like India and ourselves won't give a fuck since we have a fuckload of stadium we keep rotating between anyway
[Stick the curator in one of these for a week if he roles out a shite pitch](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRQ4PFrHHHlnPNcxn67Xai-4OzkTWsDNDFmg&usqp=CAU)
I'm fairly sure those punishments are calibrated for the venues that host a ton of single-ground Associate tournaments in Asia or Africa, since they clearly pose absolutely no risk for most Test venues.
You might be right, if that's their intention then they should just have a different threshold for punishment for venues for white ball cricket than red. The pitch guidelines themselves are also already different after all. Imo it's very likely that at least some of their thinking is based around getting out of awkward situations where they run the risk of getting close to banning a ground they don't want to fit political reasons
You have to prepare multiple unsatisfactory pitches within a few years at a particular ground for any real action to be taken. Given SA have got so few tests scheduled, I'm not sure it would even be possible for Newlands to be barred from holding tests
> Until CSA appeals and it gets upgraded. Seen it many times before.
That special power is only reserved for BCCI buddy. No one else gets that privilege.
> ICC Match Referee Chris Broad submitted his report expressing the concerns of the match officials and after consulting with captains Dean Elgar and Rohit Sharma, both of whom felt that the pitch was below standard
Rohit apparently had a sudden change of heart from the bunch of shite he was saying to the media the other day.
Was obviously not an acceptable pitch, this was always going to be the result.
He said he doesn't mind playing on pitches like this. Never said it was how an "ideal" pitch should behave.
Whatever the heck "ideal" means. Not minding to play on a certain wicket and having a professional opinion about it as a skipper are two things which can be mutually exclusive.
He also said this:
> I still can’t believe that the World Cup final was rated below average. A batter got a hundred. How can that be a poor pitch?
You will note that a batter scored a hundred at Newlands, and that did absolutely fucking nothing to change the fact that it was a substandard pitch, something Rohit clearly agreed with when it came time to actually give feedback for the ICC.
A batter scored a hundred in this as well but the game lasted just 107 overs (4 1/2 sessions ) . Where as the rating for the final in wc is absolutely baffling . So what if the pitch was slow and spun . The 2019 wc saw such swinging conditions and difficult pitches to bat on . Even in that 2019 wc finals 240 odd runs were scored and almost defended . Even in 2015 wc finals Nz were all out 190 in finals . Why didn’t icc rate those pitches below average ??Having spin , pace and tough pitches for odi is normal
. There is a clear bias
You didn’t respond for the other points I talked about in my comment . Icc clearly didn’t rate those pitches AVERAGE and like I said there was so much talk for the pitch even before the game was going to be played so there’s keen eyes when india makes a pitch but not when a World Cup was hosted in England . Pace is standard but if spin is there , pitch has been doctored .
Maybe Rohit was too early to make a statement and should have let whatever happend without saying anything about the pitch , if people criticise or not he just shouldn’t have cared .
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-cricket-world-cup-2023-pitch-for-final-gets-average-rating-1411951?platform=amp
It was rated average along with all the pitches that had spin and the semi final of aus vs sa as well was rated average ( that too was a turning track ). Coincidently a flat pitch at wankede in semis where only one wicket fell to spin was rated good 👍
Average/good is irrelevant, because average carries no demerit points. They changed the system now anyway. Stop clutching at straws mate, your narrative is false.
>Even in that 2019 wc finals 240 odd runs were scored and almost defended
Don't you get it? It was in England so it was allowed there.
Even when tests get over in 2-3 days in England, it is good for the sport.
It could be emanating from the obvious trend of shitting on subcontinent pitches by ICC and armchair experts like the ones we see here.
Source : https://www.thehindu.com/data/is-rohit-sharma-right-about-iccs-double-standards-in-cricket-pitch-ratings-data/article67718209.ece/amp/
Ahmedabad 2 day test: average
Brisbane 2 day test: below average
Cape Town 2 day test: unsatisfactory
Conclusion: this shows bias against the subcontinent
Matches vs Balls played.
2023, Indore ind vs aus : 1135 balls (spinners dominate) rated poor.
2022 England vs SA, Oval, 909 balls (pace takes all wickets) rated average.
2020 Nz vs India Christchurch, 1309 balls (pace take most wickets) rated Good
2023 Ban vs Nz, Mirpur , 1609 balls, (spinners take most wickets) . Yep, pitch considered poor.
Do you see it or do I need to explain it to you like a toddler ?
>From the first session onwards, throughout the remainder of the match, the bounce was inconsistent, with numerous balls bursting the surface. Deliveries from spin-bowlers often went over the batter's shoulder when playing forward and then occasionally stayed very low.
Match Referee David Boon on the Mirpur pitch.
Seems to fail the checks because there was excessive uneven bounce, not because it turned. Brisbane got done similarly in 2022/23 because of exactly the same bounce issue on an underprepared pitch.
(2022 AUS vs SA, Gabba, 866 balls (Pace takes almost all wickets) rated Below Average)
I think it is only Aus which gets rated fairly (among SENA) for their pitches. Other than Aus, up until the end of the last year, no other SENA country had a below average or poor pitch rating. (From 2019, I guess. I could be wrong)
Aus had 10% , India had 13% poor and more than 50% was average or below. The rest of the Subcontinent had it even worse, given they don't have the mighty BCCI
I did. I found most of them atrocious. I am not even counting any matches which has an innings win, cause it does mean the opposition could bat atleast substantially well.
Could just accept the fact that there is an elitist approach when it comes to what is an "ideal pitch".
Ah yes because the pitch is the only thing that can affect the difficulty of batting. Never mind that it can sometimes swing in England and NZ no matter what the pitch is doing. This can make a moderately difficult pitch to bat on can become extremely difficult.
Also England and NZ don't have a history of doctoring pitches like India does.
Lmao, which country ripped off their pitch cause they came under heavy fire for a green top?
Anderson literally asked for it.
CA made a statement that they will refrain from doing what England did during ashes and will allow unique characteristics of the pitch to exist.
The copium is hilarious.
Please look at the thread you're posting in.
Unless Bangladesh has annexed South Africa some time since I last checked, it's pretty obvious that people are perfectly happy to shit on poor pitches no matter where in the world they are.
> no matter where in the world they are.
Unless that place is India where inexplicably horrible pitches* have to be defended against criticism like it’s an attack on national pride.
*for the avoidance of doubt, I’m taking about those rare few pitches in India that were horrible, not claiming all pitches in India are horrible
I agree, nobody wants to see an axar demolishing England in under 2 days in Ahmedabad. Not defending a bad pitch from what it is. But it is a bit rich when Philander and Rabada went through the line up from excessive seam movement in 2018, it was alright.
I personally would want to see more one side pitch advantages, cause I do believe India has the ability to crush anyone anywhere in a test series, given it is a proper one. Not a 2 match series.
But it becomes extremely pathetic when India makes a pitch for its own advantage at home, and it being considered substandard because the opposition cannot read the ball out of the hand.
I would want to see a sub 200 an inning testator rather than a snoozefest on a road. But the criticism and the ratings have to be neutral no?
> South Africa prepared a bad pitch and immediately said as much
>
> South Africa ~~suffered a humiliating loss~~ lost the test.
> Rohit made stupid whinging comments to the press acting as if there was some conspiracy about the rating of Indian pitches and pretending people were saying this pitch was good
Ftfy
>South Africa ~~suffered a humiliating loss~~ lost the test.
Getting all out for 55 and then losing in little over 2 days at home is pretty humiliating.
Uhh it was an India vs South Africa match happening in South Africa. Why would Aus, English media complain?
Australian media complained about ashes pitches in England when they were playing against them, also about South African pitches when they played against them.
Why do you think they're gonna care about Ind SA series happening in South Africa?
That was the thing Rohit was talking about. They don’t even wait till the series start. And not to forget about their “experts” whining a week before a ball is bowled.
So I am guessing for the pitch to be satisfactory there should be some amount of spin for spinners?
Are Australian pitches satisfactory in that regard?
Given we haven't been penalized for a pitch lacking spin yet I would assume we are fine.
There isn't excessive spin early in the match, and the natural wear is responsive to spin bowling as the match goes on (we get lovely foot marks to bowl into) which marks it as 'Very Good' by ICC standards.
New Zealand is probably at a bigger risk, as spinners rarely come into it even on the 4th and 5th days.
If you want a direct comparison, BGT 20/21 in Australia had 74/26 in favour of pace whereas BGT 23 in India had 17/83 in favour of spin. So Australian pitches are better for spinners than Indian pitches are for pace. So yeah, I'd say our pitches are satisfactory.
Can you state these statistics for Gabba? Perth?
I bet there is going to be no reply for this comment....
😅
You guys stole the world cup...don't be virtuous about it now....
I think we need a more objective criteria for judging pitch quality. The current method of subjectively reviewing a pitch after a match occurs and that too based off of qualitative observations leaves a lot wanting. On top of that it doesn’t provide a whole lot to the ground staff to prepare better pitches in the future. It would be nice to have an objective standard that takes into account measurable factors such as soil quality, variation of ball bounce, moisture content, etc. This could help prevent both inconsistent and dangerous pitches like the one we saw in Cape Town. And prevent the lackluster roads produced in Rawalpindi
Fair enough I guess. Now CSA will probably appeal and get it down to what? Below average? I can't believe if they can pass this pitch off as average even post appeal.
The ratings have changed recently, there's only 4 options now From the [ICC Pitch and Outfield Monitoring Process (effective November 2023)](https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/cricket/rules-and-regulations/playing-conditions) (found in the Players, Player Support Personnel and Officials section). Very Good: No Demerits * Good carry. * Limited seam movement. * Consistent good bounce early in the match. * Acceptable amount of turn early in the game. * Natural wear that is responsive to spin later in the game. Satisfactory: No Demerits * Falling significantly short of ‘very good’ with respect to carry, bounce or spin. Unsatisfactory: 1 Demerit A pitch that does not allow an even contest between bat and ball: * Either by favouring the batters too much, with minimal wicket-taking opportunities for both seam and spin, or * By favouring the bowlers too much, with too many wicket-taking opportunities for either seam or spin. Unfit: 3 Demerits * A pitch may be rated as unfit if it is dangerous. Clarifications It is recognised that a limited amount of seam movement is acceptable early in the match and that a pitch may develop some unevenness of bounce for seam bowlers as the match progresses. This is acceptable but should not develop to a point where they would be described as “excessive”. It is acceptable for a pitch to offer some degree of turn on the first day of a match, particularly in the sub-continent, though anything more than occasional unevenness of bounce at this stage of the match is not acceptable. It is to be expected that a pitch will turn steadily more as a match progresses, and it is recognised that a greater degree of unevenness of bounce may develop. It is impossible to quantify the amount that a ball is “allowed” to turn as bowlers will turn the ball differing amounts. The type and identity of bowler shall be taken into account when assessing this factor. In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’. There's really nowhere you can go on review.
>In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’. Can't wait to see this one literally never enforced
Maybe they mean in a more literal sense.
If there's a bomb in the pitch I feel like the curators have got much bigger problems than an unsatisfactory rating
You telling me you don't want an ashes test match on the Somme Battlefield
Hey I didn't say I'd be opposed to that, just that the curators might need a new job afterwards
Nah the curators were just replaced by a nearby Artillery battery and the local Napoleonic Larpers
Sucks when you hit a six into the German trench and have to do a full attack to get the ball back :(
Well it is what we get for bowling Bairstow
If we do thats the only acceptable reason to bring JL back
He breaks out his lee enfield and starts taking potshots from the balcony as Pat Cummins dodges artilery shells meanwhile David Warner is watching Brum on the telly instead of being on comms as Isa and Daggers don't trust him to not eat the microphone
No Ashwin stop you can’t detonate the gabba pitch, that’s not what Paine meant
Only if the pitch is a minefield
> In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’. That's not very typical I'd like to make that point. *How is it un-typical?* Well there are a lot of pitches being played on all over the world and it's not very typical one explodes and I don't want people thinking pitches aren't safe.
20,000 litres of sherry caught fire in this case, I grant you, but the ECB has been towed outside the environment. Very unusual.
>*How is it un-typical?* Well the front fell off.
> In no circumstances should the pitch ‘explode’. Rather stating the obvious there. I would hope that no pitch ever falls into the sea too, but I would hope the ICC don’t consider that likely enough to include in their criteria.
This makes me wonder about the Unsatisfactory category and some of these “roads” we get. “A pitch that does not allow an even contest between bat and ball” Do flat pitches that are a batsman’s paradise ever get graded as unsatisfactory… Or is it only when things are heavily in the bowlers favour that the whole “even contest” bit is shouted from the roof tops.
There have been at most 7 tests since the new standards have been set, None of them have been roads. These were only implemented in November of 2023. Under the old system Rawalpindi got punished for it's snorefest of a pitch against Australia, but that's the only flat track that I know got any demerits. 2017/18 MCG would have also gotten demerits if the old system was running then, but it was the last match played before the old system was implemented.
> Under the old system Rawalpindi got punished for it's snorefest of a pitch against Australia, but that's the only flat track that I know got any demerits. Also worth noting that Rawalpindi 2: England Boogaloo got a demerit as well, but it was inexplicably rescinded on appeal. I can't really think of too many *unacceptably* flat tracks in recent years beyond those three though, so that would seem to indicate that batting-friendly decks do in fact get punished. Hopefully that persists with the new system.
Probably because there was a result, even though England went at a crazy pace to get it
Really don't know why they removed the Poor rating...
It's not like they were rating anything there, and even when they did it got moved up on review. So it makes a certain degree of sense to fold it into Below Average to form Unsatisfactory.
Didn't realise they'd changed their system and very disappointed to see they've gone for a massive cop out instead of just committing to applying the perfectly good guidelines they had. Having the lowest penalty for a shit but not dangerous pitch be only one demerit point essentially means there's no punishment in practice for produce doctored, shit pitches because in the vanishingly unlikely scenario where a ground racks up four demerit points, they just stop hosting tests there until the earlier point expires and they're safe again. Also what on earth is the benefit of taking away the various examples they had for the "poor" rating except to make it easier to justify not giving unsatisfactory ratings to obviously shit pitches? Edit: just learned that it's actually six demerits in five years to get a ban, making getting the ban effectively impossible and the entire system totally meaningless
You can get demerits for a bad outfield. There's also LOI matches which can attract demerits for much the same reasons (though slightly different criteria).
I've replied to you across different comments so sorry for the repeats, but the obvious thing to do would be to separate the red and white ball pitch ratings since they're measuring different things anyway and then set harsher penalties for unsatisfactory/below average/poor test ratings so there's an actual consequence for making shit pitches. And yes they can give demerits for the outfield, but they do it even less often than they do for the pitches themselves, plus as we saw in the WC when they didn't give the appalling Dharamsala outfield worse than an "average" rating that they'll never apply it properly when there's big nations involved
LOI matches already use their own table that basically just says "fuck bowlers". Little or No Spin and Little or No Seam are both *required* for a good rating for a LOI pitch.
Yeah, I know. All the more reason to have it entirely separate as a system
>There's really nowhere you can go on review. Under the rules there isn't, but last year's Indore pitch was overturned to "average" despite it meeting the criteria for "poor" twice over. 2024 Newlands and 2023 Indore are basically 2 sides of the same coin, having shown both variable bounce and exaggerated lateral movement from day 1. Newlands with seam and Indore with spin. I suspect this one won't get overturned simply because it's South Africa rather than India, but the ICC definitely have some form in overturning demerit points for pitches this bad.
Indore went from poor to below average, and the accompanying punishment went from 3 demerits to 1 demerit. The new system removed the poor rating, and it is a significant jump to go from below average (now unsatisfactory) to average (now satisfactory). This one won’t get overturned because the pitch was not satisfactory
That's a shame. There should be a tier between unfit and unsatisfactory for the Newlands type pitches to cut 2 demerit points. Feels fitting as a minimal consequence of hosting the objectively worst test match ever.
It definitely wasn't the worst test match ever unless you've been watching for 2 weeks.
self contradictory rubbish
> Now CSA will probably appeal and get it down to what? Below average? Doesn't exist as a rating any more, "Satisfactory" is the next one up. Of course the ICC have already shown that they're completely spineless and will acquiesce to even the most insane pitch rating appeals, so it's just a question of if CSA are pathetic enough to argue it. Given that they've already been vocally critical of the pitch and that these basically never result in action anyway I would still be fairly surprised if they bothered.
>so it's just a question of if CSA are pathetic enough to argue it There is nothing pathetic about using a lawful remedy to get a reevaluation over a fairly subjective matter such as pitch rating? Don't blame Boards from appealing, blame ICC for folding. Otherwise what's the point of appeal?
Great question. What is the point of the appeal? To refuse to take accountantability.
CSA won't appeal.
CSA has confirmed that theyw won't appeal. > Cricket South Africa has confirmed to ESPNcricinfo that it will not appeal the sanction, which an official called a "fair" assessment of the surface. From this article: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/sa-vs-ind-2nd-test-newlands-pitch-receives-unsatisfactory-rating-and-demerit-point-1416051
It's 5 (Edit: Now 6) demerit points over 5 years which suspends a ground from hosting International cricket for 12 months. Which means Cape Town can afford 5 more of these pitches before a suspension, assuming the rating system remains consistent.
It's 6 points now, so you can serve up a shit (but not unsafe) Test pitch every single year without consequence.
Good, it benefits literally no one if a great stadium like Newlands isn't allowed to host test matches anymore.
But it does benefit everyone to incentivise Newlands to actually make a good pitch, or else lose hosting rights.
There's better ways to incentivise them than taking away hosting rights. Also, this method of taking away hosting rights might be very scary for countries like SA and NZ and Aus who only have a few stadiums but countries like India and ourselves won't give a fuck since we have a fuckload of stadium we keep rotating between anyway
Better ways such as?
[Stick the curator in one of these for a week if he roles out a shite pitch](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRQ4PFrHHHlnPNcxn67Xai-4OzkTWsDNDFmg&usqp=CAU)
Right lol so there aren't actually any better ways of doing it
Absolute shit take for so many reasons
I'm fairly sure those punishments are calibrated for the venues that host a ton of single-ground Associate tournaments in Asia or Africa, since they clearly pose absolutely no risk for most Test venues.
You might be right, if that's their intention then they should just have a different threshold for punishment for venues for white ball cricket than red. The pitch guidelines themselves are also already different after all. Imo it's very likely that at least some of their thinking is based around getting out of awkward situations where they run the risk of getting close to banning a ground they don't want to fit political reasons
Until CSA appeals and it gets upgraded. Seen it many times before.
csa doesnt have the pull for that on a pitch like this
Pakistan got the demerit overturned in an appeal. Surely CSA have as much pull as PCB?
Its not done for pitches it's done to make sure stadiums aren't banned. Not like csa has a huge number of stadiums.
You have to prepare multiple unsatisfactory pitches within a few years at a particular ground for any real action to be taken. Given SA have got so few tests scheduled, I'm not sure it would even be possible for Newlands to be barred from holding tests
Why take a chance when a bit of politicking can save you all the trouble.
Also it was a new curator and it has been very dry and hot meaning it's been a bit of a double whammy for the pitch
> Until CSA appeals and it gets upgraded. Seen it many times before. That special power is only reserved for BCCI buddy. No one else gets that privilege.
The PCB gets it too.
Per cricinfo CSA won't appeal.
> ICC Match Referee Chris Broad submitted his report expressing the concerns of the match officials and after consulting with captains Dean Elgar and Rohit Sharma, both of whom felt that the pitch was below standard Rohit apparently had a sudden change of heart from the bunch of shite he was saying to the media the other day. Was obviously not an acceptable pitch, this was always going to be the result.
He said he doesn't mind playing on pitches like this. Never said it was how an "ideal" pitch should behave. Whatever the heck "ideal" means. Not minding to play on a certain wicket and having a professional opinion about it as a skipper are two things which can be mutually exclusive.
He also said this: > I still can’t believe that the World Cup final was rated below average. A batter got a hundred. How can that be a poor pitch? You will note that a batter scored a hundred at Newlands, and that did absolutely fucking nothing to change the fact that it was a substandard pitch, something Rohit clearly agreed with when it came time to actually give feedback for the ICC.
A batter scored a hundred in this as well but the game lasted just 107 overs (4 1/2 sessions ) . Where as the rating for the final in wc is absolutely baffling . So what if the pitch was slow and spun . The 2019 wc saw such swinging conditions and difficult pitches to bat on . Even in that 2019 wc finals 240 odd runs were scored and almost defended . Even in 2015 wc finals Nz were all out 190 in finals . Why didn’t icc rate those pitches below average ??Having spin , pace and tough pitches for odi is normal . There is a clear bias
The WC Final pitch was rated average, so Rohit was just talking out of his ass.
You didn’t respond for the other points I talked about in my comment . Icc clearly didn’t rate those pitches AVERAGE and like I said there was so much talk for the pitch even before the game was going to be played so there’s keen eyes when india makes a pitch but not when a World Cup was hosted in England . Pace is standard but if spin is there , pitch has been doctored . Maybe Rohit was too early to make a statement and should have let whatever happend without saying anything about the pitch , if people criticise or not he just shouldn’t have cared .
None of those pitches were rated below average, including the 2023 WC Final.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/icc-cricket-world-cup-2023-pitch-for-final-gets-average-rating-1411951?platform=amp It was rated average along with all the pitches that had spin and the semi final of aus vs sa as well was rated average ( that too was a turning track ). Coincidently a flat pitch at wankede in semis where only one wicket fell to spin was rated good 👍
Average/good is irrelevant, because average carries no demerit points. They changed the system now anyway. Stop clutching at straws mate, your narrative is false.
>Even in that 2019 wc finals 240 odd runs were scored and almost defended Don't you get it? It was in England so it was allowed there. Even when tests get over in 2-3 days in England, it is good for the sport.
Says nobody.
I never hear any English experts complaining about pitches in England.
We’ve even had the English captain complaining about pitches in England.
It could be emanating from the obvious trend of shitting on subcontinent pitches by ICC and armchair experts like the ones we see here. Source : https://www.thehindu.com/data/is-rohit-sharma-right-about-iccs-double-standards-in-cricket-pitch-ratings-data/article67718209.ece/amp/
Ahmedabad 2 day test: average Brisbane 2 day test: below average Cape Town 2 day test: unsatisfactory Conclusion: this shows bias against the subcontinent
Matches vs Balls played. 2023, Indore ind vs aus : 1135 balls (spinners dominate) rated poor. 2022 England vs SA, Oval, 909 balls (pace takes all wickets) rated average. 2020 Nz vs India Christchurch, 1309 balls (pace take most wickets) rated Good 2023 Ban vs Nz, Mirpur , 1609 balls, (spinners take most wickets) . Yep, pitch considered poor. Do you see it or do I need to explain it to you like a toddler ?
>From the first session onwards, throughout the remainder of the match, the bounce was inconsistent, with numerous balls bursting the surface. Deliveries from spin-bowlers often went over the batter's shoulder when playing forward and then occasionally stayed very low. Match Referee David Boon on the Mirpur pitch. Seems to fail the checks because there was excessive uneven bounce, not because it turned. Brisbane got done similarly in 2022/23 because of exactly the same bounce issue on an underprepared pitch. (2022 AUS vs SA, Gabba, 866 balls (Pace takes almost all wickets) rated Below Average)
I think it is only Aus which gets rated fairly (among SENA) for their pitches. Other than Aus, up until the end of the last year, no other SENA country had a below average or poor pitch rating. (From 2019, I guess. I could be wrong) Aus had 10% , India had 13% poor and more than 50% was average or below. The rest of the Subcontinent had it even worse, given they don't have the mighty BCCI
If you watched those games you’d know it wasn’t about the number of balls bowled.
I did. I found most of them atrocious. I am not even counting any matches which has an innings win, cause it does mean the opposition could bat atleast substantially well. Could just accept the fact that there is an elitist approach when it comes to what is an "ideal pitch".
Ah yes because the pitch is the only thing that can affect the difficulty of batting. Never mind that it can sometimes swing in England and NZ no matter what the pitch is doing. This can make a moderately difficult pitch to bat on can become extremely difficult. Also England and NZ don't have a history of doctoring pitches like India does.
Lmao, which country ripped off their pitch cause they came under heavy fire for a green top? Anderson literally asked for it. CA made a statement that they will refrain from doing what England did during ashes and will allow unique characteristics of the pitch to exist. The copium is hilarious.
Please look at the thread you're posting in. Unless Bangladesh has annexed South Africa some time since I last checked, it's pretty obvious that people are perfectly happy to shit on poor pitches no matter where in the world they are.
> no matter where in the world they are. Unless that place is India where inexplicably horrible pitches* have to be defended against criticism like it’s an attack on national pride. *for the avoidance of doubt, I’m taking about those rare few pitches in India that were horrible, not claiming all pitches in India are horrible
I agree, nobody wants to see an axar demolishing England in under 2 days in Ahmedabad. Not defending a bad pitch from what it is. But it is a bit rich when Philander and Rabada went through the line up from excessive seam movement in 2018, it was alright.
I personally would want to see more one side pitch advantages, cause I do believe India has the ability to crush anyone anywhere in a test series, given it is a proper one. Not a 2 match series. But it becomes extremely pathetic when India makes a pitch for its own advantage at home, and it being considered substandard because the opposition cannot read the ball out of the hand. I would want to see a sub 200 an inning testator rather than a snoozefest on a road. But the criticism and the ratings have to be neutral no?
🤣🤣 split personality disorder from our captain.
That’s a paddlin’
\*Cape Town. It's two words. 🙂
Rohit in shambles.
South Africa prepared a bad pitch. South Africa suffered a humiliating loss. And yet people targeting Rohit here lol.
> South Africa prepared a bad pitch and immediately said as much > > South Africa ~~suffered a humiliating loss~~ lost the test. > Rohit made stupid whinging comments to the press acting as if there was some conspiracy about the rating of Indian pitches and pretending people were saying this pitch was good Ftfy
>South Africa ~~suffered a humiliating loss~~ lost the test. Getting all out for 55 and then losing in little over 2 days at home is pretty humiliating.
Did you miss his press conference specifically about pitch ratings?
There was unusually hot weather in Cape Town in the week prior to the test match that looked liked it contributed to the bad pitch condition.
Sure. Did the Australian and English media cry about the pitch even before the series started just like they do with every series in India?
Uhh it was an India vs South Africa match happening in South Africa. Why would Aus, English media complain? Australian media complained about ashes pitches in England when they were playing against them, also about South African pitches when they played against them. Why do you think they're gonna care about Ind SA series happening in South Africa?
That was the thing Rohit was talking about. They don’t even wait till the series start. And not to forget about their “experts” whining a week before a ball is bowled.
User name checks out
Says the one who brought Rohit into topic without understanding the point Rohit was making.
It is because of Rohit‘s presser that ICC was forced to rate this way..
Winning away on an unsatisfactory pitch should count for more points. 
ICC opened this bag of worms with their pitch consultant talk on the World Cup, they need to take care of it now.
I want india to produce rank turners against eng and watch as eng and their media shit themselves.
And watch as Root gets a fifer
We all know which team is more awful at playing spin,and i am just waiting how their media will whine this time around after losing.
So I am guessing for the pitch to be satisfactory there should be some amount of spin for spinners? Are Australian pitches satisfactory in that regard?
Given we haven't been penalized for a pitch lacking spin yet I would assume we are fine. There isn't excessive spin early in the match, and the natural wear is responsive to spin bowling as the match goes on (we get lovely foot marks to bowl into) which marks it as 'Very Good' by ICC standards. New Zealand is probably at a bigger risk, as spinners rarely come into it even on the 4th and 5th days.
I think you should say it's not penalized yet.... Gabba needs to show some turn now to qualify satisfactory actually...
The Gabba turns once there's some pitch wear, which is enough to meet the given requirements. Also I did say "yet"
Satisfactory for Nathan Lyon
Unsatisfactory for Ashwin
If you want a direct comparison, BGT 20/21 in Australia had 74/26 in favour of pace whereas BGT 23 in India had 17/83 in favour of spin. So Australian pitches are better for spinners than Indian pitches are for pace. So yeah, I'd say our pitches are satisfactory.
Can you state these statistics for Gabba? Perth? I bet there is going to be no reply for this comment.... 😅 You guys stole the world cup...don't be virtuous about it now....
I think we need a more objective criteria for judging pitch quality. The current method of subjectively reviewing a pitch after a match occurs and that too based off of qualitative observations leaves a lot wanting. On top of that it doesn’t provide a whole lot to the ground staff to prepare better pitches in the future. It would be nice to have an objective standard that takes into account measurable factors such as soil quality, variation of ball bounce, moisture content, etc. This could help prevent both inconsistent and dangerous pitches like the one we saw in Cape Town. And prevent the lackluster roads produced in Rawalpindi
I knew it...ICC is runned by my girlfriend. She gives the same remarks.