I think Perth is a very poor pitch at the moment.

Melbourne seems to be one of the better ones now. Certainly better than two decades ago, even prior to the drop-ins.

Melbourne seems to be one of the better ones now. Certainly better than two decades ago, even prior to the drop-ins.

It was a joke back then when the cooch grass caught some type of fungus and pitch was rubble.

There is still a concern about the consistency of bounce in the MCG drop ins.

Regardless the wicket quality list IMO is

Sydney

Brisbane

Adelaide

Melbourne

Launceston

Perth

It was a joke back then when the cooch grass caught some type of fungus and pitch was rubble.

There is still a concern about the consistency of bounce in the MCG drop ins.

Regardless the wicket quality list IMO is

Sydney

Brisbane

Adelaide

Melbourne

Launceston

Perth

Certainly agree with Sydney on top. In terms of return of test results in the last 10 years, I wonder which city/wicket comes out on top?

It was a joke back then when the cooch grass caught some type of fungus and pitch was rubble.

There is still a concern about the consistency of bounce in the MCG drop ins.

Regardless the wicket quality list IMO is

Sydney

Brisbane

Adelaide

Melbourne

Launceston

Perth

Isn't Bellerive Oval in Hobart?

You got the list pretty right there though. Maybe Hobart above Melbourne. But defintely Sydney and Brisbane are top 2, and Perth is bottom.

Certainly agree with Sydney on top. In terms of return of test results in the last 10 years, I wonder which city/wicket comes out on top?

You piqued my interest HT. Here's the data for matches since 1995:

SCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs India 2004), 14 results in same period

MCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs Sth Africa 1997), 12 results in same period

Adelaide: 2 draws since 1995, 12 results in same period

Perth: 2 draws since 1995, 11 results in same period

Gabba: 3 draws since 1995, 10 results in same period

Hobart: 2 draws in its 8 matches since 1989

Isn't Bellerive Oval in Hobart?

You got the list pretty right there though. Maybe Hobart above Melbourne. But defintely Sydney and Brisbane are top 2, and Perth is bottom.

Correct. Stuff it. I tossed the coin. Called incorrectly. Thanks for that.

You piqued my interest HT. Here's the data for matches since 1995:

SCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs India 2004), 14 results in same period

MCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs Sth Africa 1997), 12 results in same period

Adelaide: 2 draws since 1995, 12 results in same period

Perth: 2 draws since 1995, 11 results in same period

Gabba: 3 draws since 1995, 10 results in same period

Hobart: 2 draws in its 8 matches since 1989

The results of a game often depend upon the quality of the teams playing, attitudes of the Captains, etc. If you are going to look at the results then you have to look at the components of each one. I reckon all of the Test results in Perth for the past 5 years or so have been on sub standard wickets. And I think its getting worse.

However when you have over 1000 runs struck in a Test with less than 25 wickets taken over the 5 days then questions should be asked about the wicket. It happens way too often to pin it on the quality of the attacks.

Correct. Stuff it. I tossed the coin. Called incorrectly. Thanks for that.

The results of a game often depend upon the quality of the teams playing, attitudes of the Captains, etc. If you are going to look at the results then you have to look at the components of each one. I reckon all of the Test results in Perth for the past 5 years or so have been on sub standard wickets. And I think its getting worse.

A 14-year sample is probably long enough to draw some decent conclusions. The key one is that some grounds get the 'short straw' when it comes to staging the high-profile touring sides, so that could have had an impact. the other problem is that the pitches can change quite a bit, but I still think it was a useful exercise.

A 14-year sample is probably long enough to draw some decent conclusions. The key one is that some grounds get the 'short straw' when it comes to staging the high-profile touring sides, so that could have had an impact. the other problem is that the pitches can change quite a bit, but I still think it was a useful exercise.

I dont think so for the current state of Test pitches. And the points are some of the issues you make undermine the value of the exercise particularly the last issue.

The quality of a pitch can change dramatically over one year. Much depends upon the competence and integrity of ground management and administration. The English tour of the WI recently highlights this.

I sometimes feel that curators are got at by Ground Management and TV rights stakeholders to provide "insurance" that the Test will go the full 5 days. They nullify the pitch for bowlers and effectively kill the contest between bat and ball by the end of day 1.

You piqued my interest HT. Here's the data for matches since 1995:

SCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs India 2004), 14 results in same period

MCG: Only 1 draw since 1995 (vs Sth Africa 1997), 12 results in same period

Adelaide: 2 draws since 1995, 12 results in same period

Perth: 2 draws since 1995, 11 results in same period

Gabba: 3 draws since 1995, 10 results in same period

Hobart: 2 draws in its 8 matches since 1989

Thanks for that Titan. That is really interesting. I had a feeling Melbourne was up there for actual results. It confirms my thoughts on Sydney as one of the better wickets despite the return of 14 results.

I agree with RR's assertion that curators maybe influenced by Ground management and stakeholders in TV rights - to some degree. There is a balance, but you would want 4-5 days of play evertime you host a Test Match. In particular at Melbourne and Sydney venues.

I'd imagine management would be feeling quite nervous in the first two sessions of a test match. Crossing everything for a minimum of wickets to be taken.

Our shirts are getting worse and worse.

Go back to the mid 90s!

Hey, at least we won a match!

At least we won the series. lol

Symonds GAWN.

The only surprise for me is that he was ever back in the first place

And here we go again......

Andrew Symonds has been dumped from the Australia Twenty20 squad

Thanks for coming Queenie

Thanks for coming Queenie

Yeah, you beat me by all of a minute you speedy bugger :D !!!

Discraceful.

Playing old never was beens in the 20/20 insted of proven 20/20 specialists. serves the aust team right! BL = terrible and will probably cost a good young bowler their spot in the ashes! Time to retire.

Don't get me started about hodge!

It's not just Brett Lee. Ponting's no good at Twenty/20 either.

I don't care though. Cricket is about test cricket. So long as we win the Ashes, does it really matter?

It's not just Brett Lee. Ponting's no good at Twenty/20 either.

I don't care though. Cricket is about test cricket. So long as we win the Ashes, does it really matter?

Well, yes Cricket is about Test Match Cricket, if you listen to the scribes and those that love a Test. Much like me. And yes, the Ashes are very important.

However, there are different forms of the game now. One Day and 20/20 have their own supporters and followers. Nations have players who suit different forms of the game.

I agree with Monty in that it's a bit of a disgrace and it's a shambles in that the selectors ignore certain players that suit formats such as the 20/20. And some don't suit the 20/20 format.

ie.

IMO: -

Brett Lee is not a 20/20 bowler.

Brad Hodge suits the 20/20 format.

Dirk Nannes suits the 20/20 format.

The treatment of Hodge is bizarre. Despite getting another CA contract he's not picked for the Ashes or the 20/20 World Cup.

Why are we giving him a contract if he's not good enough to make any of the squads? It's not like it's one of the encouragement award signings for a youngster.

If he's not good enough to make the Test or 20/20 squads how is he good enough to get a contract? Put another way, if he's good enough to get a contract how is he not good enough for the Test or 20/20 squads?

I'm not sure I would have taken him on the Ashes tour but I'd certainly have taken him to the 20/20 World Cup - he's one of the best.

PS. Since we're talking of Victorians, how many more chances does David Hussey have to establish himself as a quality player at international level?

If he's not good enough to make the Test or 20/20 squads how is he good enough to get a contract? Put another way, if he's good enough to get a contract how is he not good enough for the Test or 20/20 squads?

Indeed.

I'm not sure I would have taken him on the Ashes tour but I'd certainly have taken him to the 20/20 World Cup - he's one of the best.

Yes. He averages around 55 at 20/20 level, which puts him second to none for Australia at 20/20 level.

PS. Since we're talking of Victorians, how many more chances does David Hussey have to establish himself as a quality player at international level?

Good point. I think the selectors are in for some turbulent times before this years Australian Summer.

Good point. I think the selectors are in for some turbulent times before this years Australian Summer.

After we lose the Ashes?

After we lose the Ashes?

If we lose the Ashes. Definitely. I think they will face further media & public scrutiny regardless. Not necessarily with regard to the Test Squad. But the 20/20 and one day squads, some of their selections or non-selections of players in form are puzzling from my point of view, especially given their reasons. In particular with regards to the selections/non-selections of Andrew Symonds, Brad Hodge & Brett Lee to name a few.

Edited October 5, 200915 yr by High Tower

I'm very worried about our chances in the Ashes.

My main worry is our poor technique and approach against the spinners.

I can see Monty and Swann causing us lots of bother.

I reckon our guys should attack them from ball one. Blocking and waiting for the loose ball is doomed for disaster.

The Poms will provide Spinners' pitches. We should have picked Jason Krezja(?spelling). We have no-one who'll trouble them.

Hauritz isn't bad, but Pietersen will hit him off his length.

Bopara looks a danger with the bat.

The big x-factor is Hughes. If he comes off in a big wAy, as well he might, that'll help us a lot. Don't know what he's like against the spinners.

I'm worried.

We're probably down one batsman all things being considered, especially now that Watson is injured....yet again.

Hughes's biggest issues may well be the sharp bounce, given that he got out twice in the trial game to short pitched stuff from Harmison.

And our spinner is quite useless. The question is do they risk going in with the four quicks or play a useless spinner?

We have a spinner?