3 of the 6 fastest tons (in balls) in Tests...

So, what, because none of them are on the subcontinent that means that the subcontinental teams don't produce roads? Keep telling yourselves that.

This proves that the WACA is usually a good wicket. Fast and true - plenty in it for good pace bowlers and spinners (though there are very few of either in this match) and true value for your shots as a batsman.

A slow shitty wicket emasculates the bowlers and doesn't allow the batsmen to play with freedom, despite never being tested much.

I wonder if they could create a reading for pace / bounce of a pitch. I'm sure with a speed gun and bowling machine some sort of barometer could be created.

Nah, Gary, I think both the WACA and Adelaide are pretty much dead.

Not true,

Adelaide has tended to be slow and low whereas Perth has always promoted more attacking, entertaining cricket.

Since 1970, Adelaide Oval =
39 Matches, Average Run Rate = 2.93, Batting Average = 35.77, 33% of Matches drawn

Since 1970, Perth =
37 Matches, ARR = 3.10, Batting Average = 33.23, 19% of Matches drawn

Adelaide has been the roadiest road that has been laid, with few competitors, that I've seen. Maybe a little harsh on the WACA, but that has been pretty much on the flat side as well.

Adelaide is similar to an Indian wicket,

eg. Eden Gardens since 1970:
20 Matches, Average Run Rate = 2.86, Batting Average = 34.84, Matches Drawn = 45%

Wankhede Stadium,
21 Matches, ARR = 2.82, Batting Average = 29.16, Matches Drawn = 29%

Think it's a wrong way to look at things. Flatness of a wicket doesn't always mean draws, the same way lively wickets don't always mean results. For one, the Indian team has always been ultra cautious and defensive which results in more draws. More recently, ie, the last decade or so, we haven't always had the bowlers to finish off the job. Hence the larger draw percentage. Adelaide and Perth can be similarly explained by the awesomeness of the Aussie team of the last 2 decades.

Which is not to say Indian pitches aren't batsmen friendly. Just not flat and dead (barring a few exceptions)* like Adelaide or Antigua. The Eden and Wankhede both are (or perhaps were) excellent test wickets IMO.

*Recent attempts to 'green' up our pitches though have resulted in levels of turgidness that lay waste most of my arguments here.

doremi wrote:the same way lively wickets don't always mean results.

Unless it rains, they pretty much do.

Gary 111 wrote:Not true,

Adelaide has tended to be slow and low whereas Perth has always promoted more attacking, entertaining cricket.

Since 1970, Adelaide Oval =
39 Matches, Average Run Rate = 2.93, Batting Average = 35.77, 33% of Matches drawn

Since 1970, Perth =
37 Matches, ARR = 3.10, Batting Average = 33.23, 19% of Matches drawn

A lot those must have been in the 70s and 80s because Australia didn't have many draws at home in the 90s and 00s

embee wrote:3 of the top 6

Balls Batsman Match Location Year
56 IVA Richards West Indies v England St John's 1985-86
57 AC Gilchrist Australia v England Perth 2006-07
67 JM Gregory Australia v South Africa Johannesburg 1921-22
69 S Chanderpaul West Indies v Australia Georgetown 2002-03
70 CH Gayle West Indies v Australia Perth 2009-10
71 RC Fredericks West Indies v Australia Perth 1975-76

Cheers...always had trouble counting on two hands...

Gary 111 wrote:Adelaide is similar to an Indian wicket,

eg. Eden Gardens since 1970:
20 Matches, Average Run Rate = 2.86, Batting Average = 34.84, Matches Drawn = 45%

Wankhede Stadium,
21 Matches, ARR = 2.82, Batting Average = 29.16, Matches Drawn = 29%

So South Australia is actually in India?

Are there a lot of call centre operators there?

JGK wrote:It was certainly a West Indies bowlers paradise for about 20 years.

Not taking away anything from the great West Indies teams of that era, but for a lot of that time, Australia was also shit at cricket.

Invader Zim wrote:always had trouble counting on two hands...

A Wozzie with less than 6 fingers on each hand. Now I've seen everything.