Aus vs SA Brisbane test HARDLY lasted 143-144 overs and less than two days.

Second-shortest Test since World War II.

Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.

'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
advertisement for Tests?'

Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
dangerous about it

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-sa-1st-test-potentially-unsafe-
gabba-pitch-under-scrutiny-is-that-a-good-advertisement-for-tests-1350258

Stats - Second-shortest Test since World War II
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-sa-1st-test-stats-second-
shortest-test-since-world-war-ii-1350247

The Ahmedabad pitch for the third Test, a day-nighter where India and
England played out a two-day game, has been given an "average" rating by
the ICC.

The pitch drew a lot of criticism, especially from former England players,
for becoming a turner almost from the beginning
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-vs-england-2021-icc-rates-
ahmedabad-pitch-for-third-test-average-1254786

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:44:56 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>
> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
> advertisement for Tests?'
>
> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
> dangerous about it
>
Elgar's the only person who's come anywhere near saying it was unsafe.
I watched pretty much the entire match and I don't recall seeing anything dangerous about it (yeah, a couple of people got hit but that's always likely to happen when you look at the attacks)

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Aus vs SA Brisbane test HARDLY lasted 143-144 overs and less than two days.
>
> Second-shortest Test since World War II.
>
> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.

Look at the ruination of batting technique and mentality wrought by T20 for the ever increasing batting collapse debacles ...RH

> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
> advertisement for Tests?'
>
> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
> dangerous about it
>
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-sa-1st-test-potentially-unsafe-
> gabba-pitch-under-scrutiny-is-that-a-good-advertisement-for-tests-1350258
>
>
>
> Stats - Second-shortest Test since World War II
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-sa-1st-test-stats-second-
> shortest-test-since-world-war-ii-1350247
>
>
>
>
> The Ahmedabad pitch for the third Test, a day-nighter where India and
> England played out a two-day game, has been given an "average" rating by
> the ICC.
>
> The pitch drew a lot of criticism, especially from former England players,
> for becoming a turner almost from the beginning
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-vs-england-2021-icc-rates-
> ahmedabad-pitch-for-third-test-average-1254786

On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 05:19:16 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:44:56 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
>> advertisement for Tests?'
>>
>> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
>> dangerous about it
>>
>Elgar's the only person who's come anywhere near saying it was unsafe.
>I watched pretty much the entire match and I don't recall seeing anything dangerous about it (yeah, a couple of people got hit but that's always likely to happen when you look at the attacks)

Having seen the pitch, I assumed whoever batted first would be all out
by tea. That doesn't make it dangerous, just wildly imbalanced in
favour of pace bowlers.

Cheers,

Mike

On 12/18/2022 5:19 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:44:56 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>
>> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
>> advertisement for Tests?'
>>
>> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
>> dangerous about it
>>
> Elgar's the only person who's come anywhere near saying it was unsafe.
> I watched pretty much the entire match and I don't recall seeing anything dangerous about it (yeah, a couple of people got hit but that's always likely to happen when you look at the attacks)
>

But the main point is the FACT of the test match lasting just 143 overs
and 34 wickets falling in less than two days.

So, IF Ahmedabad pitch is rated average rightly so by ICC, then so
should Brisbane pitch.

If ICC doesn't apply the same standards to brisbane pitch and rate it
average, then IT IMPLIES ICC is "biased" in FAVOR of pacy bouncy pitches
over turning spin pitches.

Note: I enjoyed BOTH Ahmedabad and Brisbane pitches because they TESTED
batters PACE, BOUNCE and SPIN skills.

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/18/2022 5:19 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:44:56 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>
> >> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
> >> advertisement for Tests?'
> >>
> >> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
> >> dangerous about it
> >>
> > Elgar's the only person who's come anywhere near saying it was unsafe.
> > I watched pretty much the entire match and I don't recall seeing anything dangerous about it (yeah, a couple of people got hit but that's always likely to happen when you look at the attacks)
> >
> But the main point is the FACT of the test match lasting just 143 overs
> and 34 wickets falling in less than two days.

Virtually nobody is denying it was a rubbish pitch, but that's very different from being physically dangerous and it's significantly less important.
>
> So, IF Ahmedabad pitch is rated average rightly so by ICC, then so
> should Brisbane pitch.

I can't see any way this pitch deserves a rating above poor. based on the criteria, it clearly had excessive seam movement.
>
> If ICC doesn't apply the same standards to brisbane pitch and rate it
> average, then IT IMPLIES ICC is "biased" in FAVOR of pacy bouncy pitches
> over turning spin pitches.
>
How about people stop getting worked up about differences in how different pitches are graded before the grade actually comes out?
There's a metric fuckload of posters complaining that bad Indian pitches get criticised and claiming nothing was said about this one, rather ignoring commentators discussing whether it deserves a poor rating and the comments from the players
>
> Note: I enjoyed BOTH Ahmedabad and Brisbane pitches because they TESTED
> batters PACE, BOUNCE and SPIN skills.

On 12/18/2022 6:04 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/18/2022 5:19 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:44:56 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
>>>> advertisement for Tests?'
>>>>
>>>> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
>>>> dangerous about it
>>>>
>>> Elgar's the only person who's come anywhere near saying it was unsafe.
>>> I watched pretty much the entire match and I don't recall seeing anything dangerous about it (yeah, a couple of people got hit but that's always likely to happen when you look at the attacks)
>>>
>> But the main point is the FACT of the test match lasting just 143 overs
>> and 34 wickets falling in less than two days.
>
> Virtually nobody is denying it was a rubbish pitch, but that's very different from being physically dangerous and it's significantly less important.
>>

I DIDN'T say it is dangerous.

It's Dean Elgar.

Indian batsmen Pujara, Pant and others took severe body blows in
Brisbane in 2021 in the historical chase but I "NEVER" complained about
the pitch.

I praised Indian batters' BRAVERY and so did an australian woman who was
MIGHTY IMPRESSED and ROOTED for India despite being an australian fan.

>> So, IF Ahmedabad pitch is rated average rightly so by ICC, then so
>> should Brisbane pitch.
>
> I can't see any way this pitch deserves a rating above poor. based on the criteria, it clearly had excessive seam movement.
>>
>> If ICC doesn't apply the same standards to brisbane pitch and rate it
>> average, then IT IMPLIES ICC is "biased" in FAVOR of pacy bouncy pitches
>> over turning spin pitches.
>>
> How about people stop getting worked up about differences in how different pitches are graded before the grade actually comes out?
> There's a metric fuckload of posters complaining that bad Indian pitches get criticised and claiming nothing was said about this one, rather ignoring commentators discussing whether it deserves a poor rating and the comments from the players
>

I used the words "IF" ICC.

You are over reacting. I made a casual remark.

>>
>> Note: I enjoyed BOTH Ahmedabad and Brisbane pitches because they TESTED
>> batters PACE, BOUNCE and SPIN skills.

On 12/18/2022 5:48 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 12:44:56 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Aus vs SA Brisbane test HARDLY lasted 143-144 overs and less than two days.
>>
>> Second-shortest Test since World War II.
>>
>> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
>> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
>
>
> Look at the ruination of batting technique and mentality wrought by T20 for the ever increasing batting collapse debacles ...RH
>

You are caught in a time warp.

Nobody can help you cuz you are at a point of NO RETURN.

>
>> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
>> advertisement for Tests?'
>>
>> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
>> dangerous about it
>>
>>
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-sa-1st-test-potentially-unsafe-
>> gabba-pitch-under-scrutiny-is-that-a-good-advertisement-for-tests-1350258
>>
>>
>>
>> Stats - Second-shortest Test since World War II
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/aus-vs-sa-1st-test-stats-second-
>> shortest-test-since-world-war-ii-1350247
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Ahmedabad pitch for the third Test, a day-nighter where India and
>> England played out a two-day game, has been given an "average" rating by
>> the ICC.
>>
>> The pitch drew a lot of criticism, especially from former England players,
>> for becoming a turner almost from the beginning
>> https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/india-vs-england-2021-icc-rates-
>> ahmedabad-pitch-for-third-test-average-1254786

On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 13:48:30 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

> Having seen the pitch, I assumed whoever batted first would be all out
> by tea. That doesn't make it dangerous, just wildly imbalanced in
> favour of pace bowlers.

And a battery of pretty good pace bowlers at that, on both sides.

Although I suspect it's more about modern big bat bat-wavy techniques mollycoddled thick pads and helmets that's the heart of the problem, obvs.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 3:10:01 PM UTC, richsdi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 13:48:30 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> > Having seen the pitch, I assumed whoever batted first would be all out
> > by tea. That doesn't make it dangerous, just wildly imbalanced in
> > favour of pace bowlers.
> And a battery of pretty good pace bowlers at that, on both sides.
>
> Although I suspect it's more about modern big bat bat-wavy techniques mollycoddled thick pads and helmets that's the heart of the problem, obvs.

or a lack of bazball by RSA batters. Oz were 35-4, another 50 runs more by RSA, and
they might have won.

mike

On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 2:19:48 AM UTC+11, mike wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 3:10:01 PM UTC, richsdi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 13:48:30 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> > > Having seen the pitch, I assumed whoever batted first would be all out
> > > by tea. That doesn't make it dangerous, just wildly imbalanced in
> > > favour of pace bowlers.
> > And a battery of pretty good pace bowlers at that, on both sides.
> >
> > Although I suspect it's more about modern big bat bat-wavy techniques mollycoddled thick pads and helmets that's the heart of the problem, obvs.
> or a lack of bazball by RSA batters. Oz were 35-4, another 50 runs more by RSA, and
> they might have won.
>
I suspect Khawaja & Smith wouldn't have played the way they did if the target was larger.

On 12/18/2022 6:04 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2022 at 12:51:19 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/18/2022 5:19 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 11:44:56 PM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'Potentially unsafe' Gabba pitch under scrutiny - 'Is that a good
>>>> advertisement for Tests?'
>>>>
>>>> Elgar raises concerns over the pitch; Cummins says there was nothing
>>>> dangerous about it
>>>>
>>> Elgar's the only person who's come anywhere near saying it was unsafe.
>>> I watched pretty much the entire match and I don't recall seeing anything dangerous about it (yeah, a couple of people got hit but that's always likely to happen when you look at the attacks)
>>>
>> But the main point is the FACT of the test match lasting just 143 overs
>> and 34 wickets falling in less than two days.
>
> Virtually nobody is denying it was a rubbish pitch, but that's very different from being physically dangerous and it's significantly less important.
>>
>> So, IF Ahmedabad pitch is rated average rightly so by ICC, then so
>> should Brisbane pitch.
>
> I can't see any way this pitch deserves a rating above poor. based on the criteria, it clearly had excessive seam movement.
>>
>> If ICC doesn't apply the same standards to brisbane pitch and rate it
>> average, then IT IMPLIES ICC is "biased" in FAVOR of pacy bouncy pitches
>> over turning spin pitches.
>>
> How about people stop getting worked up about differences in how different pitches are graded before the grade actually comes out?
> There's a metric fuckload of posters complaining that bad Indian pitches get criticised and claiming nothing was said about this one, rather ignoring commentators discussing whether it deserves a poor rating and the comments from the players
>
>>
>> Note: I enjoyed BOTH Ahmedabad and Brisbane pitches because they TESTED
>> batters PACE, BOUNCE and SPIN skills.

Mark Waugh thinks brisbane pitch will get "below average rating".

Former Australian player Brad Hogg ridiculed the wicket and called the
game “as quick as a back yard Test on Christmas Day’

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/australia/australia-vs-south-africa-cricket-scores-first-test-two-days-reaciton-gabba-pitch-wicket-brisbane/news-story/5a500286b376735027d0df8cdf5c4052

Ricky Ponting thinks Brisbane pitch will get "POOR RATING".

https://www.mykhel.com/cricket/two-australia-legends-slam-gabba-pitch-after-test-ends-in-two-days-204763.html

Ponting further commented that the pitch may get a poor rating from ICC,
before revealing some of the players told him that the pitch was the
toughest one they had ever played in their career. "I actually think it
will get a poor rating. To have 22 wickets fall in the first four
sessions of a Test match says to me these are very, very good bowling
teams, no doubt about that, but I don't think that the batting teams are
that bad," Ponting said.

Former Australia batter Matthew Hayden also concurs with his former
colleague. He was stunned by the excessive movement in the pitch and
says he has never seen a greener pitch than the Gabba one. "It was such
an unusual place to come and play, basically it is not really a home
game for Australia either.

They have to come here and get used to the conditions, both with bat and
ball in hand. "But in my opinion, it started too green. And that's just
from someone that has seen this from a very young age, there is no need
to make it so full of grass, such heavy grass content. Because it seamed
too much," Hayden concluded.

On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.

How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?

On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
>> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
>
> How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?

I DON'T have any "personal" world view.

Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".

Below average rating changes nothing.

It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.

Average rating should have been fine.

"Probably" ICC thought Brisbane pitch is dangerous physically to batters
COMPARED to Ahmedabad turner (which is obviously NOT dangerous) and
hence rated it "below average".

I actually ENJOYED watching both Ahmedabad turner, and bouncy, swingy,
seamy Brisbane pitch.

Once in a while, pitches like these actually "tests batters skills" in
the "extremes".

The POINT I was making was straight forward that "IF" Ahmedabad pitch
was rated "average", then so should be Brisbane pitch.

That's all.

On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 07:44:46 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
> >> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
> >
> > How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?
> I DON'T have any "personal" world view.
>
> Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".
>
> Below average rating changes nothing.
>
> It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.
>
> Average rating should have been fine.

If they had rated as average a pitch that some of the players reportedly described as " the
toughest one they had ever played in their career", I might have questioned whether they know what "average" means.

> "Probably" ICC thought Brisbane pitch is dangerous physically to batters
> COMPARED to Ahmedabad turner (which is obviously NOT dangerous) and
> hence rated it "below average".

.... but presumably not dangerous enough to abandon the Test.

On 12/21/2022 5:37 AM, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 07:44:46 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
>>>> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
>>>
>>> How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?
>> I DON'T have any "personal" world view.
>>
>> Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".
>>
>> Below average rating changes nothing.
>>
>> It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.
>>
>> Average rating should have been fine.
>
> If they had rated as average a pitch that some of the players reportedly described as " the
> toughest one they had ever played in their career", I might have questioned whether they know what "average" means.
>

I have NO qualms about whether they rate it average or below average as
long as they applied the same standards to bouncy pacy pitches like ICC
does to rank turners.

In form batter Travis Head dealt with the pitch beautifully.

I honestly WANT to watch test pitches like Ahmedabad and Brisbane "ONCE
IN A WHILE" to spice up test cricket.

>> "Probably" ICC thought Brisbane pitch is dangerous physically to batters
>> COMPARED to Ahmedabad turner (which is obviously NOT dangerous) and
>> hence rated it "below average".
>
> ... but presumably not dangerous enough to abandon the Test.
>
>

"May be" ICC got influenced by Dean Elgar and some former Australian
players' views about the pitch, "AFTER" the match is over.

I have NO idea.

On 12/21/2022 5:37 AM, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 07:44:46 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
>>>> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
>>>
>>> How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?
>> I DON'T have any "personal" world view.
>>
>> Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".
>>
>> Below average rating changes nothing.
>>
>> It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.
>>
>> Average rating should have been fine.
>
> If they had rated as average a pitch that some of the players reportedly described as " the
> toughest one they had ever played in their career", I might have questioned whether they know what "average" means.
>

I have NO qualms about whether they rate it average or below average as
long as they applied the same standards to bouncy pacy pitches like ICC
does to rank turners.

In form batter Travis Head dealt with the pitch beautifully.

I honestly WANT to watch test pitches like Ahmedabad and Brisbane "ONCE
IN A WHILE" to spice up test cricket.

These pitches TESTS the combo of batter's "perception skills, reflexes
and bravery".

>> "Probably" ICC thought Brisbane pitch is dangerous physically to batters
>> COMPARED to Ahmedabad turner (which is obviously NOT dangerous) and
>> hence rated it "below average".
>
> ... but presumably not dangerous enough to abandon the Test.
>
>

"May be" ICC got influenced by Dean Elgar and some former Australian
players' views about the pitch, "AFTER" the match is over.

I have NO idea.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 05:37:42 -0800 (PST), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 07:44:46 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> >> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
>> >> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
>> >
>> > How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?
>> I DON'T have any "personal" world view.
>>
>> Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".
>>
>> Below average rating changes nothing.
>>
>> It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.
>>
>> Average rating should have been fine.
>
>If they had rated as average a pitch that some of the players reportedly described as " the
>toughest one they had ever played in their career", I might have questioned whether they know what "average" means.

This "they" you're talking about - would that be the match referee,
whose job it is to rate the pitch?

Richie Richardson said that the pitch did not provide a fair contest
between bat and ball and said it deserved a "below average" rating.

Cheers,

Mike

On 21/12/2022 15:27, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 05:37:42 -0800 (PST), David North
> <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 07:44:46 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
>>>>> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
>>>>
>>>> How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?
>>> I DON'T have any "personal" world view.
>>>
>>> Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".
>>>
>>> Below average rating changes nothing.
>>>
>>> It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.
>>>
>>> Average rating should have been fine.
>>
>> If they had rated as average a pitch that some of the players reportedly described as " the
>> toughest one they had ever played in their career", I might have questioned whether they know what "average" means.
>
> This "they" you're talking about - would that be the match referee,
> whose job it is to rate the pitch?

Yes, I hadn't thought about who it was doing the rating tbh.

> Richie Richardson said that the pitch did not provide a fair contest
> between bat and ball and said it deserved a "below average" rating.

Fair enough. I just wondered whether an "average" rating actually meant
average, or whether, as so often, it was being used as a euphemism for
"poor". From the way that Sampath talks about the "average" rating of
the Ahmedabad pitch, I assume that it is not very common for Test
pitches to get that rating, in which case, what is it supposed to be the
average of? If it meant average for a Test pitch, I would expect it to
be the most common rating.

--
David North

On Thursday, December 22, 2022 at 6:13:52 PM UTC+11, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 21/12/2022 15:27, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 05:37:42 -0800 (PST), David North
> > <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 07:44:46 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>> On 12/20/2022 2:32 PM, jack fredricks wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 10:44:56 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >>>>> Since ICC gave Ahmedabad pitch an AVERAGE rating, Brisbane pitch should
> >>>>> ALSO get an AVERAGE rating from ICC.
> >>>>
> >>>> How does the Gabba getting a BELOW AVERAGE rating fit into your world view?
> >>> I DON'T have any "personal" world view.
> >>>
> >>> Everything I say is based on "processing of REAL REALITY".
> >>>
> >>> Below average rating changes nothing.
> >>>
> >>> It means some body at ICC thought Brisbane pitch is below average.
> >>>
> >>> Average rating should have been fine.
> >>
> >> If they had rated as average a pitch that some of the players reportedly described as " the
> >> toughest one they had ever played in their career", I might have questioned whether they know what "average" means.
> >
> > This "they" you're talking about - would that be the match referee,
> > whose job it is to rate the pitch?
> Yes, I hadn't thought about who it was doing the rating tbh.
> > Richie Richardson said that the pitch did not provide a fair contest
> > between bat and ball and said it deserved a "below average" rating.
> Fair enough. I just wondered whether an "average" rating actually meant
> average, or whether, as so often, it was being used as a euphemism for
> "poor". From the way that Sampath talks about the "average" rating of
> the Ahmedabad pitch, I assume that it is not very common for Test
> pitches to get that rating, in which case, what is it supposed to be the
> average of? If it meant average for a Test pitch, I would expect it to
> be the most common rating.
>
Since 1-Jan-2019 until August this year there have been 5 test pitches rated "Below Average" and no poor or unfit ratings.
So average isn't average, probably more accurate to call it "acceptable"