> Ok before I get flamed for starting another pointless discussion on the
> relative merits on the two countries pitches I'll admit that I'm kiwi fan
> and I know very little about the mechanics of pitch preparation.
> The two pitches prepared for the first two pitches are pretty good one-day
> pitches, but not that great as Test pitches. I wonder if that is a mindset
> of the officials in India or of the conditions before the tests. In NZ
> against India we produced awful pitches, Sorry. It was a very wet summer and
> for a number of places we don't have the weather that early in the season to
> produce the perfect pitch all the time.
> I look at the drop-in pitches at Eden park and Lancaster Park and they
> haven't got it right. Remember the glued pitch against SAf. that would have
> been even more of a road than Mohali.
> The best pitch in NZ was Carisbrook and we didn't get a test for years and
> then when we did it rained for five days.
> This test series is not fair on the bowlers. The series in New Zealand was
> not fair on the batsmen. All in all it would seem to even itself up. My only
> disappointment is that Bond and Cairns were not fit enough to join the team
> for the test matches.
Heh. On the morning of the 5th day, in the Ahmedabad test, all of the 4
results were possible, albeit with different probabilities. At lunch on
the 5th day at Mohali, two of the 4 results were possible, albeit only
due to atrocious cricket from India.
IMO, the first and foremost requirement of a test match pitch is that it
should last 5 days without being a complete lottery. It is 5-day cricket
and the wicket should be *sane* (OK, it wears out over 5 days and all, but
still) on the 5th day. It shouldn't be completely random, even if it is
hard to bat on due to a shade of randomness. This is a requirement of a
*test* wicket, considering that a test match lasts 5 days.
The wicket at Hamilton on India's last tour there failed this criterion,
IMO. It was completely random on day 1. As I mentioned earlier, the "best"
batsman was the one who "placed" his edges the best. Perhaps that wicket
may have become better on days 4 and 5, but we never managed to find out.
It wasn't as if the teams were playing particularly poorly either. Both
teams struggled and nobody really did anything terribly wrong in their
respective first innings.
That the wicket shouldn't be such a complete road that the teams struggle
to complete 1 inning each by the 5th day is, IMO, a secondary requirement.
It is one of the requirements of a *good* test wicket.
Mohali and Ahmedabad perhaps fail the requirement of being good test
wickets. Even that is debatable seeing as the game has been alive and
kicking at tea on day 5 of both tests - from the p.o.v. of the game as a
spectacle, what more can one ask for? It's true that the Mohali game is
only alive due to staggeringly poor cricket from India. But to wear a team
out mentally over 5 days and cause them to play atrocious cricket, the
wicket must last 5 days! But IMO the wickets passed the primary criterion
of being *test* wickets i.e. they lasted 5 days, for 5-day cricket. Good
test wickets, I'd agree they weren't.
-Samarth [ what kind of wickets India *should* produce given their record
and everything is a different matter - the above is my general opinion
on test wickets ].