Early wicket for the Poms.
Gill, out to Anderson for 0.
India v. England. Test Series.
M. Knox talks sense:
"It’s a very crickety thing that just when the game stumbles across an ingredient producing the most enthralling, watchable contests in years, that same ingredient is the subject of protests and formal complaints.
...
In fact, by altering pitches so dramatically in the bowlers’ favour, India might be onto something positive and regenerative for the game’s traditional form.
Cricket is a sport mostly run by batsmen, and it’s their voices that define a ‘substandard’ pitch. What they mean is, these wickets are hard to bat on. ... In every case, it has been a fascinating examination of temperament and skill. Everyone has had to adapt their game. Some have risen, others fallen. Isn’t that what Test cricket should be about?
...
I might be jaded by too many years of watching moderate batsmen rack up immoderate averages, but I love cricket when the bowlers are on top.
...
If it’s a future, it would be a return to a long-ago pasts. When the Ahmedabad match ended within two days, it joined a cluster from many decades ago, when pitches were left exposed to the rain and batsmen really had to earn their runs. The most celebrated games were low-scoring, such as the founding ‘Ashes’ legend at The Oval in 1882 (Australia 63, England 101, Australia 122, England 77. Australia won by seven runs, and the most important match in cricket’s history was over by the second afternoon!). There was no such thing as the flat-track bully: batting on mudheaps, Victor Trumper’s Test average of 39 was worth 69 in today’s money."
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/pi ... 5782p.html
[But Knox (I assume) believes in the Myth of Smith. Otherwise, he'd realize that "too many years of watching moderate batsmen rack up immoderate averages" applies above all else to Smith, possibly the most overrated batsman in the history of the game.]
"It’s a very crickety thing that just when the game stumbles across an ingredient producing the most enthralling, watchable contests in years, that same ingredient is the subject of protests and formal complaints.
...
In fact, by altering pitches so dramatically in the bowlers’ favour, India might be onto something positive and regenerative for the game’s traditional form.
Cricket is a sport mostly run by batsmen, and it’s their voices that define a ‘substandard’ pitch. What they mean is, these wickets are hard to bat on. ... In every case, it has been a fascinating examination of temperament and skill. Everyone has had to adapt their game. Some have risen, others fallen. Isn’t that what Test cricket should be about?
...
I might be jaded by too many years of watching moderate batsmen rack up immoderate averages, but I love cricket when the bowlers are on top.
...
If it’s a future, it would be a return to a long-ago pasts. When the Ahmedabad match ended within two days, it joined a cluster from many decades ago, when pitches were left exposed to the rain and batsmen really had to earn their runs. The most celebrated games were low-scoring, such as the founding ‘Ashes’ legend at The Oval in 1882 (Australia 63, England 101, Australia 122, England 77. Australia won by seven runs, and the most important match in cricket’s history was over by the second afternoon!). There was no such thing as the flat-track bully: batting on mudheaps, Victor Trumper’s Test average of 39 was worth 69 in today’s money."
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/pi ... 5782p.html
[But Knox (I assume) believes in the Myth of Smith. Otherwise, he'd realize that "too many years of watching moderate batsmen rack up immoderate averages" applies above all else to Smith, possibly the most overrated batsman in the history of the game.]
If the batsmen are not good enough, so be it.
It's quality that matters, not quantity (quality of the match, that is, not the woeful batting)... Everyone wins except greedy administrators worried about loss of gate keep and TV time. But they can be satisfied in other ways. If there's a 90% chance of the Test being over in three days, they can schedule back-to-back Tests with only one day break between the fifth day and the first day of the next. Then they can turn 3-Test series into 5-Test series, etc.
What's not to like?
It's quality that matters, not quantity (quality of the match, that is, not the woeful batting)... Everyone wins except greedy administrators worried about loss of gate keep and TV time. But they can be satisfied in other ways. If there's a 90% chance of the Test being over in three days, they can schedule back-to-back Tests with only one day break between the fifth day and the first day of the next. Then they can turn 3-Test series into 5-Test series, etc.
What's not to like?