Why the Batting Favoured Pitches?

[Boundaries]

I am sick to death of seeing pitches were bowlers get whacked every over. I love Test Cricket when the bowlers are all over the batters and it's a struggle to get runs, cricket at it's best.

 

[rahuldravidfan]

Commercial viability. People don't really come to see the bowler dominate but to see 4s & 6s. Sad but true.

However, nothing replaces a hostile Zak/Ishant/Fred/Sree spell for me

 

[pcfan123]

I am sick to death of seeing pitches were bowlers get whacked every over. I love Test Cricket when the bowlers are all over the batters and it's a struggle to get runs, cricket at it's best.

Just stop watching matches in the subcontinent and you will be fine. NZ ENG AUS and SA produce wickets that offer something for both bat and ball.

 

[STLIndian]

Because runs are more fun to watch than great bowling.

Might not be mine or your view on things, but this is the casual fan's take, and there are (much) more casual fans than diehard fans.

 

[angryangy]

Grounds like the Gabba and the Wanderers tend to see both plenty of boundaries and wickets, so it's a misconception that pitches which do one can't do the other. Batsmen can enjoy the ball coming on, but the quicker the ball comes onto the bat, the less margin for error.

 

[drainpipe32]

Its just a matter of making sure the match goes into five days....

 

[aussie1st]

The casual fans may like their team scoring runs. But I don't think many of them would be interested in seeing their own team getting 600 runs put on them.

 

[drainpipe32]

Pitches like the one the Adelaide Oval produced in the last Ashes are perfect.

Big 500 scores in the first two innings, and then the Poms got tumbled out in one session.

Or was that just Warne magic?

 

[King Cricket]

Because runs are more fun to watch than great bowling.

But now they are getting so goddamn boring to watch! Teams are putting 600+ totals on the board almost everyday (in the sub-continent)! Takes away all the fun from the game. The pitches should offer some minimum assistance to the bowlers, otherwise it would only result in a dull, high scoring draw, which no one is interested in watching.

 

[pcfan123]

I personally watch cricket for the bowling, nothing gets me going like vicius spells of fast bowling like Jerome Taylor against the Poms this year or Steyn bouncing Hussey earlier this year as well.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

TV channels pay to broadcast matches.

They earn through advertising.

Longer the matches go, the more advertising, and thus the more they'll be willing to pay

And hence we have dead pitches. Especially in places where money is more important, like India/Pak.

 

[Bluebagger]

I haven't seen too many high scoring draws since I don't watch matches involving India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or West Indies unless Australia play.

 

[TumTum]

Of course nobody likes too see bowlers dominate in the sense of the run rate.

But heck I love a fiery spell of fast bowling where batsmen find it hard to put bat on ball.

 

[drainpipe32]

Yeah like that spell of Ishant to Ponting in Jan 2008. That was brilliant to watch, even on a pitch that usually supports batsman.

And that over of Freddie during the 2005 Ashes.

 

[Owzat]

Its just a matter of making sure the match goes into five days....

Exactly. It's nothing to do with what spectators want, it was too many matches finishing inside four days and sometimes three that made us suffer predictable matches. The organisers want five days worth of ticket sales, s*y want to have five days of cricket to fill the schedule set aside for that purpose and the result is batsmen now average over 40 and 50 more than in the 90s and bowlers don't very often average in the low 20s anymore. What you get is too many sides putting on big totals 1st innings, gaining a lead and then batting their way to a declaration before the pitch finally gives the bowlers a chance.

I prefer low scorers with the batsmen having to choose between survival and trying to score runs. Some argue it makes it too easy for the bowlers, I say the opposite. The pressure is on the bowlers to bowl well, bad balls are still bad balls but it costs more when you bowl then defending totals of 200-250 than 400. In fact (relatively) good balls can get punished as much as bad balls on the pitches they produce. Also a good bowler-friendly wicket will force the batsmen to play well, good innings are really good innings and a hundred means something. That the highest Test score stood for decades and then was broken three times in about a decade says it all. Even relatively ordinary batsmen like Hayden and Sehwag are making triples.

The word "Test" is rather undermined by the five day pitch policy, are matches decided by a contest between bat and ball or by pressure (of a big total), mistakes and the gap between the two sides? Let's have a mixture ffs, throw in a few low scoring Tests (and ODIs) in series. Maybe the organisers will have to settle for slightly less income, perhaps they should develop back-up plans ie play T20 or ODIs on any days that remain unused. It isn't as if an ODI doesn't fit nicely into a slot designed for Tests. Start a little bit earlier or maybe lop a few overs off. I'm guessing the spectators won't mind too much, rather watch an ODI than have a refund and be inconvenienced, while I'm sure the armchair viewers will not miss anything since they would have watched the Test conclude. I doubt people will not subscribe because the Test ended on day three, it does from time to time anyway