In 6 tests, four scores over 500 (none all out) and one score over 600 . Sound like pretty flat pitches to me - particularly if it is your view that our current team aren't that strong. What would a strong team get on these pitches?
I think the only really easy batting pitch was Perth where both teams scored runs at will.
The gulf in class between Australia and West Indies was massive. Their bowling and our batting made those pitches look like a road when we were batting and a minefield when the roles were reversed.
In that first test in particular against NZ, they were rubbish with the ball. We scored at 4.26 in the first innings and 6.28 in the second.
At 157/5 at stumps on day 2, trailing by 400 runs, NZ had already lost the game.
Only an absolutely minefield would make the game substantially closer when the form of the two teams is so far apart.
Our current team isn't that strong but we are good enough to beat most teams comfortably at home (which is generally the case for the top few test sides).
Are pitches that are producing results too flat? What instructions do you give the groundsmen then? We had a result but it was still too one sided so let's aim for pitches that will produce a result inside 3 days?
Does a pitch that is harder to bat on for entirely different reasons help us when we are playing in the subcontinent?