Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Your Cricket => Topic started by: thedon on February 27, 2013, 07:28:01 PM
-
I usually play on uncovered, but really notice the difference when I play on covered. Batting just seems more enjoyable, to the extent I may even move to a club with a covered home pitch.
What are your opinions on the two, and would you ever consider moving clubs because of a better home pitch?
-
I usually play on uncovered, but really notice the difference when I play on covered. Batting just seems more enjoyable, to the extent I may even move to a club with a covered home pitch.
What are your opinions on the two, and would you ever consider moving clubs because of a better home pitch?
Some people say playing on decent wickets is far easier and that it takes more skill to bat on uncovered or not good wickets. Which maybe true. However, as you indicate.. It's far more fun to play on decent true wickets (which surely is the most important thing@??!!??).. So to answer your last question, I think personally that choosing a club with good facilities is a must. Yes playing with mates is also good but if you make the move and do well and have fun you'll be surprised how many will follow! Quite a few people are more timid and insecure than you think or know.. many stay at a club as they are scared to move. Of course, that's not always true though.. many people enjoy where they play no matter what. Each to their own.
To sum up.. If I were you I'd move to a club with a good wicket/outfield and enjoy your batting more. Nothing more annoying than a shooter, or something that breaks the top and pops.. Or seams from outside off to leg stump etc.
-
We have two grounds - our first XI pitch is rock hard, quick and true, and is a pleasure to bat on (if something of a bugger for the change bowlers and the poor sod who is trying to set a field to the set batsman) and our second one is....well, its better than it used to be, but its slow, low and soft....
...lets just say you notice the difference!
-
This is an interesting topic. As a bowler i would always prefer a lively pitch. As a watcher, much like with test grounds, results wickets are best. Do we apply a different standard at club level, where you can have a road and not earn your runs, to what we apply at test level where we expect a wicket to at least provide a contest?
-
in fairness to be my previous comment, I've yet to see a quality bowler fail to get something out of our ones pitch - it just sorts the men from the boys
-
Most of the pitches I play on are uncovered and its a rare treat to play on a covered pitch which are certainly better provided they have used covers correctly. Many times I have turned up to games and the other team have said the wicket will be ok as its been covered since midweek but they have used plastic sheeting. When the sheets are taken of the grass is as long as the outfield because its just sweat under the sheeting.
More of a problem I see but I am not sure if its generally the case in amatuer cricket but there are no qualified groundsman. I guess its due to money but it seems to be the norm now for a comittee member or some of the players prepare the pitch so its pot luck a lot of the time what you get on the Saturday and whether or not the pitch has been covered if someone has had time to do it.
-
The league I play in has a mixture of the two; to echo earlier comments, last season's early games on uncovered, damp, low shooters - as an opening bat - was no fun at all (and doesn't do your bat's toe any good with the damp and low bounce!).
Our home pitch is covered and very well maintained - it is a road (many fifties scored there to date), but good bowlers do get something out of it...
All players look forward to home games, for the good facilities and the enjoyment that always follows, win or lose (or tie in an epic game from last season). I joined the club a couple of years ago and I am enjoying my cricket more than ever before...
-
Really depends on your definition of covered. Most wickets at club level aren't covered for most of the week. When rain is around or in the 48 hours before a game the covers may go on. By and large the only benefit you get is the wicket stays drier longer. Covers as such don't make a wicket a better playing surface. I've played extensively on both and some real dogs that have been covered. You look at the track and think 250, get on it and it's 120 v 100. Wicket is too slow or still doing plenty because the while surface is dry the ground underneath is still sopping wet. Likewise I've played on some uncovered belters, many pretty white and hard. It's more to do with the skill of the groundsman than the covers.
-
Of course the skill of the groundsman is very important but covers make a huge difference. If they didn't no-one would use them.
Proper machinery and equipment is important too and autumn and spring renovation/preparation work is as important as any that goes on during the playing season
Valid point you make Tim but most people on here play limited overs cricket on the weekends so perhaps expecting something like we accept as a good ODI pitch is a better comparison. But then as a batsman I am probably biased in that regard
-
We've had roll on covers for two seasons now and I have to say it's been good and bad. Having a hill doesn't help things as we have to sheet over a track and a half on the higher side to stop the rain water just running under the bloody covers! They can also still have a sweating effect if they aren't taken off early enough. Moisture in the pitch is a big factor but for me it's all about the quality of the surface, rye grass and a clean surface free of thatch.
I help do the wicket at our club and the best thing we've done since I joined eight years ago is Coroing the square. This is basically shaving an inch off of the square and completely replacing the loam and then totally reseeding it. I think it cost about £3,000 to do 12 tracks but it was well worth it as even the next season the wicket went from being complained about to being praised universally by people who remembered it as it was. The season after we were graded 3rd in the whole Sussex league for the quality of our playing surface. Not bad for a Div. 3 side!
-
Is it not to do with continuous decent weather along with a compos mentis groundsman. We play on uncovered tracks, and about 5-6 years ago our track was a 250+ one week in week out, also had a decent groundsman then. Since then we have not had real dry summers and have changed groundsman. With these factors ours and others scores were lower.
-
Valid point you make Tim but most people on here play limited overs cricket on the weekends so perhaps expecting something like we accept as a good ODI pitch is a better comparison. But then as a batsman I am probably biased in that regard
Having played on the Nursery Ground v Cross Arrows, that was, for me, a perfect pitch. It was true, but had a bit for the bowlers. Cross Arrows had scored 350 in a 50 over match on it the day before, yet with good bowlers we were able to restrict them to 220 odd. It seamed a little and turned a little, so you had to bat patiently, rather than being a road that made a bowler's life hell.
-
We've had roll on covers for two seasons now and I have to say it's been good and bad. Having a hill doesn't help things as we have to sheet over a track and a half on the higher side to stop the rain water just running under the bloody covers! They can also still have a sweating effect if they aren't taken off early enough. Moisture in the pitch is a big factor but for me it's all about the quality of the surface, rye grass and a clean surface free of thatch.
I help do the wicket at our club and the best thing we've done since I joined eight years ago is Coroing the square. This is basically shaving an inch off of the square and completely replacing the loam and then totally reseeding it. I think it cost about £3,000 to do 12 tracks but it was well worth it as even the next season the wicket went from being complained about to being praised universally by people who remembered it as it was. The season after we were graded 3rd in the whole Sussex league for the quality of our playing surface. Not bad for a Div. 3 side!
Do you play for Horsham?
-
Nah mate, Henfield. Horsham are Premier division. Are you down my way then?
-
Nah mate, Henfield. Horsham are Premier division. Are you down my way then?
Does Henfield have a slope going across the square?
-
Just like at Lord's fella :)
-
Took 5 for there back in 2000 playing for Ifield 2s. Think I have a painting of the ground in my living room. Small world :)
-
We play Ifield all the time. Every May day at ours and whenever they are in the same league as us which happens every now and then. Because of the east/west split for Div 3 I think we might miss them this year. Good guys.
-
Lovely part of the world (outside crawley lol). Here's the picture I have of Henfield:-
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-z1dP5-6ujsE/US8-nShvvyI/AAAAAAAAI_o/_0Np6s4PBCw/s679/20130228_112440.jpg)
-
Ha! I've seen this painting before. Lovely painting but I'm afraid it's not even close, mate.
Here we is: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4ACAW_enGB413GB472&q=Henfield+CC&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.d2k&biw=1680&bih=871&wrapid=tlif136205177621710&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=ukIvUcG2L4Sp0QX7z4CwCQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&qscrl=1&rlz=1T4ACAW_enGB413GB472&q=Henfield+CC&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.d2k&biw=1680&bih=871&wrapid=tlif136205177621710&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=ukIvUcG2L4Sp0QX7z4CwCQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg)
Get yourself a street view of the real deal. Hope your 'Michelle' memories come flooding back!