A poor pitch? And Australia won?

Cricket pitch (CC licensed by Anders Sandberg via Flickr)

Cricket pitch (CC licensed by Anders Sandberg via Flickr)

The Pune pitch on which Australia beat India was rated poor on the grounds that it gave too much assistance to spinners.

This is a paradox.

Australia made 260 and 285.

Australia did.


Australia, with their leaden hands and their be-aggressive-but-patient-and-show-a-bit-of-mongrel-and-play-in-this-one-specific-way-but-find-your-own-method approach to facing spin bowling. They managed to make more runs than the opposition and yet the pitch was rated poor.

How can this possibly be?

Chris Broad, the match referee, cited a loose surface at both ends with spinners’ deliveries exploding from the surface early in the match.

One can only presume that Australia’s random gameplan generator for facing spin bowling for once struck gold.

Seemed a good pitch to us.

World Cup "content"

England's World Cup squad and strategy

Where you can catch highlights, plus the easiest (and cheapest) way to watch the World Cup live

Easy ways to follow this website

Get the email

On Twitter

On Facebook

4 Appeals

  1. As far as I could tell, Matt Renshaw only had a loose surface at one end.

    • Close to the line, Sam. Not over it, but headbutting it for sure.


      Hope there was no line when poor Matty Renshaw got those runs – imagine the dilemma.

  2. Steady on KC, you’ll be saying the game’s weighted in favour of the batsmen next.

  3. In fairness to Australia (which here means “let’s not assume they’ve figured anything out”), the eight players not named Smith, Starc and Renshaw made 104 in the first innings and 115 in the second. Considering Smith and Starc were two of the three Aussies to enhance their reputations as batsmen the last time Australia toured India, I think it’s too early to draw any conclusions about whether or not the rest of the side have a clue. I mean, they’re still picking the Marsh brothers, after all.

Comments are closed.

© 2019 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑