Getting rid of the Gabba cricket pitch

[Old Den]

Sure LIONS then DAYLIGHT, we can put it aside,at least for now

I'm very proud,as Brisbane born and bred,of the Gabba ground now compared to when I first saw it as a boy for the 1946 Test, picket fence and all - I can still see it in the mind's eye,seeing the great Don bat and the moment of the match - Keith Miller's prodigious six sailing on to the roof of the old J.S.Hutcheon stand - great photo of the moment on the front page of the Courier Mail the next morning

That's enough of that - cheers

 

[troppo]

I'd like a breakdown of incomes from each sport. Once I know that I'll be happy to discuss this further.

It would be interesting. I have long held suspicions that The Lions provide most of the revenue but have little influence with The Gabba Trust. Sometime, somehow this must change if they can't provide a safe playing field.

 

[_Gin]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/afl/story/0,27046,23853729-5016169,00.html

Commenting on the article, I remember when Harding injured his knee due to the cricket pitch . Charmo looks like he has been playing injured and I'd definitely blame the pitch. Black's one of the best players for the Lions and the pitch can't be good for his groin problem.

The biggest problem in my book is that the Lions don't have anywhere else to go. They're locked in to the stadium for another ten years at least, and I doubt a replacement stadium will ever be constructed.

They're stuck being major tenants and when they raise a OH&S complaint they're told "Don't be a bunch of whiners". From what I know of OH&S, if someone raises the issue of "Hey someone's going to get injured from this" and the entity responsible ignores it, the entity is liable.

The government and the gabba trust better be prepared to wear the cost.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

The difficult thing would be to prove that the wicket caused the injury.

Look, i don't want any of the Lions injured and I can understand where they are coming from with regards to the drop in wicket.

On the other hand i can understand perfectly why the Gabba trust or whoever has concerns regarding the use of a drop in wicket.

I think at this stage the best system would be to try and soften the wicket square using whatever techniques are available. This seems the most suitable option.

Also, it is possible that maybe some of the outside pitches can be taken out to downsize the square to minmize the chance of injury. This could well occur in the future i imagine, but for this to occur i'd imagine a lot of convincing and negotiations would have to take place. I can't see this process helped buy continued media coverage of the issue anytime soon.

 

[_Gin]

I don't think it would be difficult to prove at all. Soil tends to be less hard then concrete.

They're having a problem with the wicket even with them trying to soften the area.

As for the coverage in the media, it highlights the issue and helps get the ball moving on negotiations. Makes the people in charge feel more accountable when people are watching.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Again, I say the pitch has been taken out and dropped in previously. Did that affect the character of the pitch?

Personally I'd prefer the character of the wicket maintained, but IMO using the MCG as a sample size (of one) is a little spurious.

But, hey, just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[lionbear]

This is something we could argue to the cows come home. I think the reality is Queensland cricket control the Gabba and until they lose control it will stay the way it is unless a law suit from an injured player forces them to introduce drop in pitches.

Personally as I have said before I sit on the fence on this topic, I can see both sides of the argument.

The only thing I will say is the amount of Gate takings the Lions bring into the Gabba they deserve to have more of a voice about the running of the Gabba then what I perceive them to currently have.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Again, I say the pitch has been taken out and dropped in previously. Did that affect the character of the pitch?

Personally I'd prefer the character of the wicket maintained, but IMO using the MCG as a sample size (of one) is a little spurious.

But, hey, just playing devil's advocate here.

My understanding is that the character of the pitch revolves around the standard of the root structure.

Taking the pitch out once for a short period (the duration of the olympics) may not totally destroy the root structure compared to the damamge done during constant removal of the pitch for a long period (duration of the AFL season) year after year.

 

[Tassie4ever]

There will never be a drop-in pitch at the Gabba while the AFL remains a secondary sport in Queensland. Accepting this, can anyone explain why the centre square needs to be rolled and mowed during winter, seeing how grass doesn't really grow much up here the colder months.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

My understanding is that the character of the pitch revolves around the standard of the root structure.

Taking the pitch out once for a short period (the duration of the olympics) may not totally destroy the root structure compared to the damamge done during constant removal of the pitch for a long period (duration of the AFL season) year after year.

The pitch was actually removed for months while the entire ground surface was re-done. I can't remember the exact period of time, but I beleive it stayed out for some of the footy seasonmaybe around 3-4 months and the Olympics itself (although i stand to be corrected on that). This was when the ground was flattened and improved drainage put in, so there very little left of the orginal gabba surface anyway, including the some of the subsoil. I can appreciate though that doing it repeatedly may have an impact, but it strikes me that as the cricket types look for any excuse they can lay their hands on why it wouldn't work. I believe vehicular access to the ground was raised as a concern before the 2000 refurb.

 

[Warwick]

Leave the bloody pitch.

Should we remove the goal posts as well in case a player runs into them and injures themselves?

I hardly think the 2000 Olympics is a valid point. Yes, they removed the centre square and levelled the entire surface but the square was replaced and left there. It wasn't being repeatedly dug up every year.

And saying there is just "one" cricket match a year vs 11 AFL matches is complete and utter nonsense. 35 days of cricket vs 11 days of football.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Leave the bloody pitch.

Should we remove the goal posts as well in case a player runs into them and injures themselves?

I hardly think the 2000 Olympics is a valid point. Yes, they removed the centre square and levelled the entire surface but the square was replaced and left there. It wasn't being repeatedly dug up every year.

And saying there is just "one" cricket match a year vs 11 AFL matches is complete and utter nonsense. 35 days of cricket vs 11 days of football.

I never said it was a valid point, but never said it wasn't. I said I was playing devils advocate. I'd prefer to leave the pitch. But why does digging it up repeatedly cause the wicket to be poor. I'd suggest using the MCG as a datum for drop-in pitches is pretty ordinary reasoning. All former VFL ruckmen are ########s if you were to use Sam Newman as your basis for comparison. On that, just out of interest, how many drop-in pitches are there around the world? On grounds that regularly host international cricket, that is. I've got no idea.

Perhaps we should put padding on the centre square. Even better a jumping castle.

 

[Prentice]

I agree that the Pitch should be left there - its part of what makes the Gabba.

As for sueing the State Government would that really suceed? why has no-one tried it before?

More Importantly the Pitch meets the Standards set by the AFL! So obviously the AFL who governs the game has no problem with the Gabba pitch.

The fact is the AFL lacks the clout in Queensland to get the pitch changed and especially in light of the critism of other drop-in pitches its just not going to happen. Besides where else will the Lions go?

 

[Crimso]

So why can't there be two or more separate pitches? First one is dug up and left to lay "fallow" for a season while the other is used. Then when this one is removed it is left for a season while the other is used. This way the pitch is only dug up every second year. If there were three, it would be every third year. Where to place the "fallow" pitch, why not at some of the local grounds, thus improving the quality of these playing surfaces at the same time?

Just a thought.

 

[acuguy]

This Troy Selwood thread is getting out of hand!

 

[Warwick]

So why can't there be two or more separate pitches? First one is dug up and left to lay "fallow" for a season while the other is used. Then when this one is removed it is left for a season while the other is used. This way the pitch is only dug up every second year. If there were three, it would be every third year. Where to place the "fallow" pitch, why not at some of the local grounds, thus improving the quality of these playing surfaces at the same time?

Just a thought.

It's not just one pitch. It's the entire centre square. You can't have one cricket pitch for the entire cricket season.

The costs of replacing and maintaining 2 or 3 centre squares at 2 different locations would be astronomical.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Just to note, that there is never just 'one' cricket pitch, rather it is a square of often 7 or 8 pitches, some are better then others on the square.

I remember that there was concern that digging up the pitch in 2000 would alter the wicket characteristics. However, due to the skill of Burdett the pitch was very good for the West Indies series that year. However, for obvious reasons, digging up the pitch one year is a lot different to periodic intervals every year.

 

[POBT]

However, due to the skill of Burdett

Mitchell?

One of the issues that I see is that we are talking about tampering with what is one of the best cricket pitches in the world. In the case of the MCG and the NZ grounds, due to winter use and poor weather conditions, you didn't always get a quality pitch in the pre drop-in days. While people bemoan the drop in pitches at the MCG, the MCG wicket was never reliable. Moving to drop in pitches was as much about improving the quality of the wicket at that ground.

With the Gabba, you are taking a much bigger risk by using drop in pitches. Maybe the quality of wicket will not change but I think that's a big maybe. As trite as this sounds, it is hard to improve on perfection and the Gabba is as close to wicket perfection as you can get.

I would bet that in the lease of the ground, it says somewhere that the ground must be fit for purpose. If the AFL's testing passes it as fit, then there's really no issue that can be raised. If there's a problem not being picked up by the AFL testing, then look at the test.

One of the issues for the AFL is that they are going to have to bargain with a state government with monopolistic market power - ie the State of Qld owns the only oval venue in the State that is big enough for the Lions. The AFL are good at being the dominant player in a negotiation. Who isn't? On this issue and the issue of a second team, they are going to have to be a little more clever.

There are far more cricket lovers in Qld than Brisbane Lions lovers. To put it bluntly, a knee injury to Mitch Clark won't mean as much to the public as a dead wicket on day 1 of the Brisbane Test. That means cricket has the voting pull and will win out every time.....unless there is something (like the law) which tells the ground management that they have no choice but to bring in a drop in pitch.

 

[Old Den]

Leave the bloody pitch.

Should we remove the goal posts as well in case a player runs into them and injures themselves?

I hardly think the 2000 Olympics is a valid point. Yes, they removed the centre square and levelled the entire surface but the square was replaced and left there. It wasn't being repeatedly dug up every year.

And saying there is just "one" cricket match a year vs 11 AFL matches is complete and utter nonsense. 35 days of cricket vs 11 days of football.

I'm back again,I had hoped to keep out of this discussion at present,but I just couldn't pass up a comment on this - there are only the 5 days of cricket (the Test) when anyone raves about how good the Gabba pitch is and then it's mainly the "pundits"on the TV,who are mainly ex international captains who had to learn to assess the playing surface and it does give useful information to the viewers

The shortened forms of the game could just as easily be played on a concrete wicket as far as the batting surface is concerned - all they want is a tame or benign wicket,such is the nature of these games that are usually played on a "used" pitch

Domestic first class matches are very poorly attended except the Pura Cup final(if there is one at the Gabba) which is almost always played on a good batting wicket which lasts for the 5 days of the final and does not do much for the spinners - A well prepared pitch is required for home and away Pura Cup games - it does not need to be "the best wicket in the world"

I don't buy that the Victorians have had a lean period for producing Test cricketers recently because of the MCG portable pitch - if it is different or difficult,good batsmen learn to handle it - there must be plenty of typical,if not lively,pitches used for district club matches in Melbourne where first class cricketers "cut their teeth" and once established in the State side,they play half their games in other cities around the country and test batsmen will have to succeed on different pitches around the world

OK, goal posts have been the cause of injury - Wayne Carey's leg at AAMI stadium was very nasty - but footy can't be played without them;it can be played on a better and less dangerous surface without the large cricket wicket area

To conclude,there IS only one cricket match a year where the quality of the Gabba pitch gets world wide publicity -the TEST - and who could deny that is a good thing for the city of Brisbane and Australian cricket - what I find irritating is the seeming refusal to find a solution for the problem that the Lion's club has - why not try the previouly mentioned idea - leave one pitch,maybe two in case of problems,for the Testmatch - all other cricket on drop in pitches - not the perfect answer, but better than at present,and that is only one possibility for improvement,there must be others

 

[POBT]

There's a couple of issues at law that are relevant.

The first is that an employer has the obligation to ensure a safe place of work. This is a legislative obligation and can't be ignored or contracted out of. There are penalties, including fines and jail terms for breaching the Act. But, according to the testing, it is a safe place of work. Again, I go back to the testing regime.

The second issue is the likelihood that the Lions, AFL and the State will be sued for failing to discharge the duty of care it owed to a player who was hurt because of the pitch. This might manifest in two ways. The first is the horrific immediate injury - like a knee or broken leg which then shortens or ends a career. That would be fairly easy to prove, provided the pitch had something to do with the injury. The second is the wear and tear situation, which seems to be more the focus at the moment. A player would need to prove that the pitch was a contributing factor in the wear and tear suffered and that the club/AFL/Government should have done something about it. A lot harder to prove.

If I were advising the AFL at the moment, I'd tell them to make sure that their testing was unchallengeable and that would be it. If I were advising the State, I'd say that the risk of successful legal action against it for the hard wicket is probably remote. For the Lions, if they truly believe and can prove that the centre wicket creates an unsafe workplace, then they may only have 1 option - don't play.

 

[_Gin]

I agree POBT, lets all get the Lions to go back to Fitzroy, and have the gabba sustain itself on Cricket alone. .

As a side note, even if their testing regime says its up to scratch for OH&S, if a party can prove that it isn't that's good enough for the law. Plus it's slightly worse, it means the person in charge willfully ignored the problem.

Harding did bang his knee on the pitch and get hurt, I doubt he or any of the lions/club/AFL would ever sue over that though. It won't be until theres a season or career ending injury where the proverbial s*** will hit the fan.

BTW League is the primary sport in Queensland, IMO opinion Cricket is categorised as Secondary Sport status next to AFL.

 

[Pedro the Lion]

Good to see the Courier Mail have kept their reputation for well rounded, unbiased journalism.

An editorial written by the Courier Mail was printed today that starts with the sentence "Leigh Matthews needs to pull his head in" in case you missed it.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24061100-13360,00.html

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Got to catch a midnight train, first to Paris and then to Spain.

 

[Pedro the Lion]

Got to catch a midnight train, first to Paris and then to Spain.

Travel with a document, all across the continent

What's your point?

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Trying to find someone who likes New Order.