Delhi ODI
Well, well, it can't be as ironic as this. The first ODI held at Rajkot was a run fest with the ball not doing anything but accept the batsman's hit, the last ODI at Delhi had a different dish though, where the ball had its revenge, it hit the batsman!
Yes, it is not good to watch the batsmen getting hit quite regularly like that. It is bit tough to bat on that surface as the ball did few things off-the-pitch. The trick was the 'variable' bounce on offer. Now, suddenly the pitch becomes dangerous and in-conducive to batting and the play was called off.
With all the gears that the batsman wears, I just can't understand how a pitch can be dangerous. There is a helmet, a arm guard, a chest guard, a thigh guard as protective gears. This almost covers the entire body of the batsman from getting hit by the red-cherry (the cricket ball!). With so much covering, still they get hit means there must be something terribly wrong somewhere. This pitch called for a superior technique to survive, let alone score runs. There was no half-volley on offer and the ball did zip through, as well as crawl through.
The balls I remember were the ones bowled by Sudeep Tyagi to Sanath Jayasuriya. He bowled two balls that literally pitched on the same part of the pitch and behaved differently. The first one went, rather crawled beneath the bat while the second one sailed over his shoulder. Now, this is exciting stuff. A batsman needs to have proper technique to survive on such a track. I thought Sanath played really well there.
But, now comes the question of calling-off the match. Why can't the batsman try to negotiate such a variable bounce pitch (similar to the last day pitch of a test match with wide cracks and what not!)? Why did the match referee deemed the pitch to be unfit to play? Is that because, the 'modern' batsmen were all breed in a flat track and are incompetent to play on any different surface? I tend to agree with what Chetan chauhan said: "Sri Lanka Chicked out". I just doubt what would have been the decision were it not for a dead rubber (with India already sealing the series). If this match were to be a deciding factor, then I guess Sri Lanka would have opted to carry on rather than abandon it. As I'd guess, the pitch will only get progressively more unpredictable. It would mean a lot tougher to bat second on that pitch.
Just wondering, how these 'modern' players would have played on the uncovered pitches of the past!
Yes, it is not good to watch the batsmen getting hit quite regularly like that. It is bit tough to bat on that surface as the ball did few things off-the-pitch. The trick was the 'variable' bounce on offer. Now, suddenly the pitch becomes dangerous and in-conducive to batting and the play was called off.
With all the gears that the batsman wears, I just can't understand how a pitch can be dangerous. There is a helmet, a arm guard, a chest guard, a thigh guard as protective gears. This almost covers the entire body of the batsman from getting hit by the red-cherry (the cricket ball!). With so much covering, still they get hit means there must be something terribly wrong somewhere. This pitch called for a superior technique to survive, let alone score runs. There was no half-volley on offer and the ball did zip through, as well as crawl through.
The balls I remember were the ones bowled by Sudeep Tyagi to Sanath Jayasuriya. He bowled two balls that literally pitched on the same part of the pitch and behaved differently. The first one went, rather crawled beneath the bat while the second one sailed over his shoulder. Now, this is exciting stuff. A batsman needs to have proper technique to survive on such a track. I thought Sanath played really well there.
But, now comes the question of calling-off the match. Why can't the batsman try to negotiate such a variable bounce pitch (similar to the last day pitch of a test match with wide cracks and what not!)? Why did the match referee deemed the pitch to be unfit to play? Is that because, the 'modern' batsmen were all breed in a flat track and are incompetent to play on any different surface? I tend to agree with what Chetan chauhan said: "Sri Lanka Chicked out". I just doubt what would have been the decision were it not for a dead rubber (with India already sealing the series). If this match were to be a deciding factor, then I guess Sri Lanka would have opted to carry on rather than abandon it. As I'd guess, the pitch will only get progressively more unpredictable. It would mean a lot tougher to bat second on that pitch.
Just wondering, how these 'modern' players would have played on the uncovered pitches of the past!
Comments