Recently the news going around was that the Washington
Park pitches were to be re laid (or reconstructed as
we’re talking cement here, not turf!). I have now
played at almost all the MCC grounds bar the ones in
Indiana and I can safely say that the most enjoyable
cricket is played where the pitches are hard and true.
They offer nice bounce and carry for the quick
bowlers, turn and bounce for the spinners and the ball
comes nicely on the bat for batsmen willing to play
their strokes. The Washington Park pitches offer that
along with the astroturfs at the St. Louis and
Milwaukee United (Lindsay Park is it?) grounds.
The only pitch that needs to be re laid in my opinion
is the one at Hanover Park, which can at best be
described as a spongy carpet! We have all seen time
and again a spinner’s ball bouncing at throat height
from a good length, while the faster bowlers’ balls
sit up. It is definitely a batsman’s paradise as night
cricket is played here which produces quick runs and
also the final last year, where 600+ runs were scored.
I understand that for night cricket to be popular
there have to be 4s and 6s, but it would be even more
interesting if there is a Washington Park style
matting-over-cement or the astroturf seen at St Louis
and Lindsay Park grounds. The Hanover Park outfield is
the quickest of all in my opinion and I don’t think
the runs will dry up if we change the pitch, it will
just make for more exciting cricket.
Written By: Raheel Akhtar ( Pak Gymkhana)
7 comments:
I second that! The Hanover park pitch has nothing for the bowlers. often times bad batsman score big runs on that pitch. i think if you took a poll amongst the best batsman and best bowlers in the MCC, they'd certainly agree with Raheel. To keep the game competitive and fair its best if this turf is replaced.
I believe you are referring to Whitewater ground when you say Lindsay park in Milwaukee.
Budget constraints prevented us from replacing the turf at Hanover park.
I agree that its a batsman's paradise, but I have seen a few bowlers do very well at Hanover Park. The key is not pace, but length and that is a huge challenge for any bowler.
Overall, in my opinion, Hanover Park is awesome to play and watch cricket.
Yep, thats the Whitewater ground. Jaggi, I think the budget should've been directed at the Hanover pitch, Washington Park pitches were fine IMO.
Raheel, the pitch on WP-2 had a huge crack on it. It definitely was not safe for playing. Infact, we didnt schedule a single game in WP-2 in May for the same reason.
The other two pitches at WP have served us for a long time.
Getting permits for this kind of work from the city can be a challenge in itself.
With all that in mind, it was decided to resurface all the WP pitches.
We will definitely take a look at Hanover Park at the end of the season, the budget and make a decision.
"I agree that its a batsman's paradise, but I have seen a few bowlers do very well at Hanover Park. The key is not pace, but length and that is a huge challenge for any bowler".
Just as a crack in the WP-2 pitch shouldn't prevent quality batsmen from scoring ;).
It's fine I guess, I've just always hated that carpet people call a "pitch" at Hanover Park.
"Just as a crack in the WP-2 pitch shouldn't prevent quality batsmen from scoring ;).
It's fine I guess, I've just always hated that carpet people call a "pitch" at Hanover Park."
I dont disagree with you, Raheel.
But there is a difference between
relaying and resurfacing. A
bowling pitch is fine to
have, but a *dangerous* pitch
is not. WP-2, by the end,
was getting ridiculous uneven
bounce due to the cracks, and
was dangerous (I had spinners
bowl good length balls, that
went over the batsman's head -
this happened several times
in different matches late last
year on WP-2 for example).
The pitches at WP needed to
be relaid IMHO - a big expense,
and one that had to be
undertaken. The new pitches will
be excellent hopefully - they
will still have pace and bounce,
but it will be *even* bounce,
and so fair to everyone. Thats
because the covering will still
be matting (which, in my opinion
is the best for cricket other
than actual grass).
The Hanover Park thing is
different - its a surface issue.
The pitch itself is fine, but
the spongy matting slows the
ball down and gives it a tennis
ball bounce, leaving nothing for
bowlers. That can be remedied,
IMHO, by just going to matting
instead of astroturf (or else
the rare "good astro").
The astro at Hanover is still
*playable* though - and with a
huge expense incurred this year
for relaying WP, it makes sense
to wait for a bit before doing
anything at Hanover. In the
long-run astro is more economical
than matting (though IMHO matting
produces much better cricket) -
its a balancing act that the
league will have to decide on
eventually. Secondly, it will
have to be seen if matting will
even be allowed at Hanover - its
a suburban ground, used during the
week by people for things other
than cricket, they probably dont
want a slab of ugly concrete
sitting uncovered in the middle
of their green field :-)
Of course, the best thing would
be to get "good astro" if possible
- but I dont *any* astro is as
good as matting, really, not
even the Whitewater ground (which
is much better than Hanover or
Heritage, but still not as
quick or skiddy as matting).
Sadiq
Post a Comment