A terrible pitch in Guyana

According to some reports the pitch in Guyana was the worst PR for Guyana since the Jonestown massacres.

People start lining up to drink the koolaid.

“Yes, it was a close match, but what a disgusting pitch”

“Low and filthy, the curator should be gunned down on an airplane.”

“Batsmen just didn’t get a fair go, it’s disgusting to think this was a test match pitch”.

You know, and other bollocks like that.

Fuck all that. The Guyana pitch was a proper test pitch, it was tough to get runs on, you had to earn everything, and even wickets didn’t always come easy.

Tailenders were the hardest to get out in this match, the Windies had a 50 run partnership for the tenth wicket in the third innings.  That’s not a terrible pitch, that’s a tricky pitch.

Two teams with limited talent and questionable professionalism just slogged it out.

It wasn’t a heavy weight contest, it was two fat guys mud wrestling after a night on the piss.

It was a contest.  On the last day of the test both teams could have won. It was low down and dirty right until Umar Akmal went out.

Both teams were scrappy, it was a test you try and survive as much as win.

It wasn’t always pretty, and there were few maximums or breath taking cover drives, but it had spirit this test.

And some of that has to go to this gutter crawling bastard of a pitch, who may look like an ugly bastard you wouldn’t wanna cross at midnight, but was actually the kind of salt of the earth kind of pitch that other pitches should try and emulate.

Test cricket should be hard, and not just on bowlers.

The ICC shouldn’t send any congressmen to check on this pitch, the bastard is tough, but fine.

Tagged ,

17 thoughts on “A terrible pitch in Guyana

  1. Erez says:

    I agree. At the end, it was a very dramatic and tense match. It was everything Twenty20 is not, and for the best. Although not exactly what the ICC have in mind as a poster-child of the long form, I’d wager.

  2. Mykuhl says:

    It was what a test cricket pitch should be. A test.

    And it delivered a result.

    And it wasn’t one sided.

    And it was 1000000 times better than a road at Napier or Mohali. Those are the pitches that should be investigated.

  3. Lolly says:

    It was a cracker of a test match, I thought. That tenth wicket partnership for the West Indies between Bishoo and Shiv was quite heroic.

  4. Alvaro_FSS says:

    Eddie Hemmings would have approved.

  5. Homer says:


    If the ICC can issue a show cause notice for this


    it is only proper that the Providence wicket be sanctioned as well.

    And while we are at it, lets not confuse our view of what a good Test match wicket should be like and what the ICC’s Pitch Monitoring Process mandates what a good Test wicket should be.


    • jrod says:

      Homer & Raj, They shouldn’t have shown a show cause for that pitch, they shouldn’t for this pitch. Why keep repeating mistakes? Also, why shouldn’t our view of what a good test match pitch be used, clearly the ICC’s rulings have been flawed before.

  6. Rob says:

    Well said here young man.

  7. raj says:

    Homer, as ever, you are the one who can put perspective.
    Jrod, what are your views on that match homer referred to or mumbai 2004?
    Hint: two top class batsmen(real class ones) made outstanding half centuries. No verbal gymnastics to differentiate that case, please. I think – correct me if I am wrong – the last time I raised the question you parried it off saying “any pitch which clarke takee 6 wickers isn’t good”. How about 5-fer for Sammy. You won’t hold that against this pitch eh? Double standards eh? (Unless I am wrong about your clarke defence of mumbai pitch)

  8. Homer says:


    In that case, the ICC must issue an unconditional apology to the curator and staff at Kanpur..

    If the ICC has a flawed process in place, and no effort has been made to rectify said process, then it is only right by the standards of that process that the Providence pitch be deemed unsatisfactory.

    You may consider it a repetition of mistakes, but not doing so raises the charge of double standards.


    • jrod says:

      Homer, I have no problem with that. I’d prefer to rectify the situation than perpetuate it just to be “fair” to previous mistakes.

  9. raj says:

    Forget ICC, you have now changed your views on Mumbai pitch, if I am right. I think you were happy with the denouncing of that pitch before and when asked why you had used the Clarke defence. Now you are saying it didn’t deserve denouncing? Am I right or wrong? Have you or have you not changed your views here?

  10. raj says:

    Ok, that’s a new line of defence

    basically, what was your first reaction to Mumbai 2004 when it happened? (Fill in Answer here)
    Did you think ti was a diabolical pitch? (Fill in Answer here)

    Did you somewhere along the line blog about it directly or in the context of some other discussion (that it was a poor pitch)? (Fill in Answer here)

    Did someone confront you on that?
    Did you react that “Since Clarke took 6 wickets, it was a diabolical pitch”, temporarily relieved that you had parried the question off?
    Now, are you saying “It wasnt a diabolical pitch”? (Fill in Answer here)

    • jrod says:


      A, any pitch that Michael Clarke gets wickets on is wrong.
      B, at the time, probably, that said, I didn’t see every ball of that match.
      C, No idea, have written 4000 posts and had over 40,000 comments. So chances are it’s come up.
      D, See above.
      E, Being that I have never used the word diabolical, I doubt I said that, I probably said it was a shit pitch because Clarke took wickets, because that’s what I say.
      F, I have no idea how much of that test I saw, or what I was doing during that time in my life. I do know I didn’t have pay TV, so chances are I only watched highlights. That combined with Clarke’s spell might have made me say it was shit, but to be honest, I have no real idea. What I do know is that even if that pitch was shit, having spent 4 years watching about 150 tests, I now realise that pitches that are hard for batting, like Mumbai 04, this pitch or a WACA pitch that breaks up, are far better for cricket than constant roads that only get results if teams fall asleep while batting. I think I’ve been pretty consistent on that for about 3 years, this isn’t the first time I’ve written about it. So perhaps what you should do, is go back through all my posts, and weigh up exactly what I’ve said about shit pitches and hard to bat on pitches then make a pie chart of your results. It seems like you have the time.

  11. raj says:

    I have the answer already. You dissed the mumbai pitch without even seeing the match. Clarke is just an excuse. Anyway, good that you can change your views now that someone other than india have produced one of those pitches – can’t say that for many others who have the nous to still argue that if india does it, it’s sinister and anyone else does it, it is great for the game.

    • jrod says:

      Raj, how many times have I said that the MCG is one of the worst, or even, the worst pitch in cricket?

  12. Advait says:

    Raj, seriously do us all a favour and do one! Some people are worth having a go at (maybe), uncle JRod is not one of them!

Comments are closed.