Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Turf Wars

In the lead up to the 1st Test between Australia and Sri Lanka starting in Hobart on Friday, Cricket Tasmania (CT) has been forced to defend the wicket prepared by curator Marcus Pamplin after recent matches in this season’s Sheffield Shield has seen three teams bowled out for less than 100 runs in an innings.

New Zealand's Chris Martin celebrates an
Australian wicket at Bellerive Oval last year
I can’t help but notice a bit of a double standard in regards to discussion regarding the preparation of test match wickets around the country. The pitches prepared for the first two tests against South Africa in Brisbane and Adelaide were considered ‘good wickets’ and there is no doubt they produced exciting matches, the Adelaide Test in particular. Whether they provided an even contest between bat and ball however, is another matter. The series was dominated by the bat with almost 4000 runs scored in the 3 tests and only those in Perth witnessed all 40 wickets taken.

Now as the Test against Sri Lanka approaches in the Apple Isle, we hear that the wicket at Bellerive Oval is not up to scratch and will not provide an even contest because it has ‘too much grass’ and therefore will be a bowlers paradise. Some newspapers are even speculating the test could be moved to another venue.   

In the 3 Sheffield Shield matches played in Hobart so far this season there have been one century and several half centuries. So what can we take from this? As a batsman, you have to work hard for your runs and if you apply yourself the runs will come.

It’s funny how when batsmen score plenty of runs, but bowlers fail to take wickets, the pitch is hailed as an excellent wicket. However when it’s the other way around and the pitch is a bowler's paradise, where batsmen have to knuckle down to score runs, it apparently doesn't provide an even contest between bat and ball.

Oh how it’s a batsman’s game.


  1. Good article Will. Wonder what Kerry and the gang at ABC Grandstand would think. Have you tweeted the article? If not you should.

  2. Hi Resey, thanks. I didn't tweet it, have gone a bit slack on twitter lately. Will have to get back into it.