SA Footy

IMO it's rubbish. It's a road every single game, offers little to nothing for the bowlers, not enough results, not enough action.

Adelaide Oval pitch= borefest.

Les Burdett is waiting by the phone for your call.

NFC wrote:IMO it's rubbish. It's a road every single game, offers little to nothing for the bowlers, not enough results, not enough action.

Adelaide Oval pitch= borefest.

How many test matches end up in a draw? I think the difference between Adelaide and most other pitches is that you have to work hard for 5 days(who would've thought ) to get a win. The Aussies win against the poms in the last Ashes series here was a prime example a classic test match.

bad post IMO...adelaide oval is one of very few cricket wickets that are consistent and often provide a 5 day game. has a lot in for the batters, provides some help for the spinners on day 3 and after, the pace bowlers are helped early on aswell.. the perfect pitch and perfet oval and perfect atmosphere...

NFC wrote:IMO it's rubbish. It's a road every single game, offers little to nothing for the bowlers, not enough results, not enough action.

Adelaide Oval pitch= borefest.

Shame on you

Think theres only been about 1 draw in tests in the last 10 years.

Nah I tend to agree with Watto.
It kills the redbacks that pitch, never get results.
At least WA and Qld get results every match, even if they win half of them its more points than we can accumalate at Adel Oval.
Give us some action Les!!!
....... have won the toss and elected to bat - SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!

Adelaide Oval is Adelaide Oval, it has been known to be like this for years, why change it?

I like it the way it is, if the Redbacks actually played alot better and knew how to win, we would get results.

catchisthecry wrote:....... have won the toss and elected to bat - SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!

That's what SHOULD happen.

why SHOULD it happen??
Test series have been decided on the toss of a coin (think India and Ashes 05)
It's getting to the stage with the teams, that whoever bats first wins.
Will need to soon throw away the coin toss and take it in turns!!!!!

Unless the pitch and conditions are so terrible that the batsmen have virtually no chance sides should always bat first. This doesn't mean the pitch is a batting paradise everytime but teams will always prefer runs on the board. The pitches in India were a different kettle of fish designed to produce draws. In Australia the pitches provide ample assistance for both batsmen and bowlers. The Adelaide Oval deck is not as bad as what some of you are saying. It must be remembered that the Redbacks are woeful and often play nfor draws as this is the best result they can hope for. How many Test matches result in draws at AO?

catchisthecry wrote:why SHOULD it happen??
Test series have been decided on the toss of a coin (think India and Ashes 05)
It's getting to the stage with the teams, that whoever bats first wins.
Will need to soon throw away the coin toss and take it in turns!!!!!

Do you have any idea of how many Tests have been won by a team sending the opposition in to bat? Very, very few. Batting first is an advantage, and unless the pitch is a mine field, or one that is likely to improve on days 2 & 3, you always bat first.

Australia have benefited for years by other countries coming to Brisbane for the 1st Test, seeing a tinge of green and assuming it's a bowling wicket ... then Australia went out and make 500 with Warnie to bowl on the final day.

Les Burdett is heralded as perhaps the premier curator in world cricket. He makes a great deck 99 times out of 100. If bowlers aren't good enough to get wickets, it's hardly his fault.

But that's exactly my point AH.
Lose the toss in Australia (and most other countries now) and your chances of winning the test are all but gone.
The most exciting part of the game is the coin toss (well not really, but you know what I mean)
I know exactly why - they want the game to last 5 days for money etc..
But you understand my point??
Batting first is TOO big an advantage in my view - ESPECIALLY in Adelaide!

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

catchisthecry wrote:why SHOULD it happen??
Test series have been decided on the toss of a coin (think India and Ashes 05)
It's getting to the stage with the teams, that whoever bats first wins.
Will need to soon throw away the coin toss and take it in turns!!!!!

Do you have any idea of how many Tests have been won by a team sending the opposition in to bat? Very, very few. Batting first is an advantage, and unless the pitch is a mine field, or one that is likely to improve on days 2 & 3, you always bat first.

Australia have benefited for years by other countries coming to Brisbane for the 1st Test, seeing a tinge of green and assuming it's a bowling wicket ... then Australia went out and make 500 with Warnie to bowl on the final day.

Les Burdett is heralded as perhaps the premier curator in world cricket. He makes a great deck 99 times out of 100. If bowlers aren't good enough to get wickets, it's hardly his fault.

I knew it would happen one day i totally agree with Adelaide Hawk.

catchisthecry wrote:But that's exactly my point AH.
Lose the toss in Australia (and most other countries now) and your chances of winning the test are all but gone.
The most exciting part of the game is the coin toss (well not really, but you know what I mean)
I know exactly why - they want the game to last 5 days for money etc..
But you understand my point??
Batting first is TOO big an advantage in my view - ESPECIALLY in Adelaide!

We batted first against India a few years ago, got 400 first day and still lost. It wasn't an advantage for us then was it.

pretty rare tho -agreed?

catchisthecry wrote:pretty rare tho -agreed?

2006-07 Ashes series the poms batted first and lost the game after making 551.

NFC wrote:IMO it's rubbish. It's a road every single game, offers little to nothing for the bowlers, not enough results, not enough action.

Adelaide Oval pitch= borefest.

worst comment of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

especially when u have shane watson as ur avatar

dinglinga wrote:

NFC wrote:IMO it's rubbish. It's a road every single game, offers little to nothing for the bowlers, not enough results, not enough action.

Adelaide Oval pitch= borefest.

worst comment of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

especially when u have shane watson as ur avatar

MightyEagles wrote:

catchisthecry wrote:But that's exactly my point AH.
Lose the toss in Australia (and most other countries now) and your chances of winning the test are all but gone.
The most exciting part of the game is the coin toss (well not really, but you know what I mean)
I know exactly why - they want the game to last 5 days for money etc..
But you understand my point??
Batting first is TOO big an advantage in my view - ESPECIALLY in Adelaide!

We batted first against India a few years ago, got 400 first day and still lost. It wasn't an advantage for us then was it.

What about England 2006-07? They made over 500 and got rolled.

catchisthecry wrote:But that's exactly my point AH.
Lose the toss in Australia (and most other countries now) and your chances of winning the test are all but gone.
The most exciting part of the game is the coin toss (well not really, but you know what I mean)
I know exactly why - they want the game to last 5 days for money etc..
But you understand my point??
Batting first is TOO big an advantage in my view - ESPECIALLY in Adelaide!

I can see your point, but what I was talking about is batting first in order to give yourself an advantage. The old "We've got 'em, you gotta get 'em" theory. That's not to say batting first guarantees you a victory, you still have to bat well and bowl well.

Although there are very few cases of sending a team in and winning, there are plenty of cases where a team lost the toss, batted second, and won.