Lately, any discussion about test cricket, anywhere around the
globe invariably leads to a debate about the pitch and what is a good test
cricket pitch. Especially in light of the current India vs South Africa series,
pitch has garnered as much attention as the cricket played on the pitch itself.
Should an ideal pitch be turning, should it be seaming, how much of an
assistance should there be for the bowlers, how many first innings runs vindicate
the curator and several other questions are on everyone’s mind. I would like to
present an alternative viewpoint that may invalidate the premise of a few.
How important is the pitch?
Cricket is primarily a contest between bat and bowl. When
two school kids play cricket in their backyard, they don't discuss pitch
conditions. All they care is if one can get the other one out or if the
other can score as many runs possible.
Growing up, playing backyard cricket, if the batsman didn’t get out, it was
time to invent new rules to get him out. Harder the rules, quicker the
interchanges, more fun it was. I think it is time to reflect upon the focus of our attention. Cricket should be not held
hostage to references of previous matches or statistical averages. Neither
should the quality of a test match be dictated by them. Quality of a test match
should be determined by the balance between bat and bowl and the contest between two sides. A good pitch is one where
each run is earned, not scored; a pitch where each run is an achievement and
not a God given right of the batsman. That means, that only two kinds of
pitches should in fact raise genuine concern – one that is unplayable and dangerous for batting and second which is
flat and so placid that Muralitharan with a
baseball bat can score a century on it. (I have nothing against Murali, but
have you seen him bat? Its like he is battling an army of flies with a swatter.)
My point being, a good test match does not depend on type of
pitch as much as it depends on how close the contest is. As long as the pitch is same for both the teams, it is a fair contest. By that logic, the Mohali and Nagpur test matches were fantastic with ball
spitting, bouncing, turning and batsman struggling to survive. It was a
relief to see a bowlers dominate a cricketing contest for once. I think the curator should
be applauded for making a result oriented pitch. It was the kind of pitch that
can differentiate a good batsmen from a great one unlike the Perth pitch (Australia
vs New Zealand) where almost every batsman scored century. How do you tell who is
a great batsman if every batsman in the top order scores century?
I say all pitches that are challenging and result producing are good pitches. The joys of cricket are as much in spin, seam, swing, bounce as in a nicely timed cover drive. Let us not debate pitches, let us discuss how well each team adapts to the conditions. It gets hard for a
cricket lover like me to defend test cricket where it ends up being a draw
after 5 days while whining about 3 hour long goal-less soccer matches.
What about batting averages?
When a batsman faces a deadly fast bowler or a guileful
spinner at the pinnacle of his ability, all the batting averages of the world mean
as much to him as a comb to a bald man – something he can display in a cabinet but cannot use if his life depended on it. Cricket
is over obsessed with averages and statistics. How about if we agree to keep T20’s as a batsmen's game and aspire for test matches to be bowler friendly?
Did India exploit home advantage?
Indians took home advantage, exploit would be a rather strong
word indicating they did something they were not authorized under the rules. They chose to play cricket on pitches more suited to their skills, which every home team
does. Anyone disagreeing must watch India’s last tour to South Africa where SA prepared
green tracks and Dale Steyn was swinging the ball like it was a boomerang. Sachin
was the only batsman who was able to withstand those conditions, but not
without having played and missed a million balls. So no, India did not exploit
home advantage, so all Indians, please purge yourself of the guilt. I read
somewhere Hashim Amla mentioning importance of scoring an honorable win. The
pitch was equally challenging for both the teams, India bowled better, India
batted better, so yes, Kohli and co. scored a very honorable win. A not so honorable win might have been if pitch conditions had changed drastically over the course of
a match rendering major advantage to one of the teams but that has not happened in this series so far.
Should away tests be that hard to win?
Yes, traditionally, in test cricket, an away win is
considered like a battle won in enemy territory, it is worth its weight in gold.
However, I believe that home advantage is considerable advantage. To negate this advantage, toss should be eliminated and choice of batting or bowling first should be made prerogative
of visiting captain. Also, ample time must be given to teams travelling abroad for preparation and skill adaptation, so they can pose a genuine challenge to the home side.
Should India just keep preparing spinning tracks?
For the sake of cricket, probably not. All batsmen should be
tested against different pitch conditions, there should be variety which would
make test cricket a lot more interesting. Each pitch should be different and
offer something unique, no matter how subtle the difference might be. Yes,
tracks in subcontinent would predominantly be spinning but variety can be introduced
in extent of spin and bounce. Still, having a result oriented track is still
better than flat ones. Only a comatose person would have found this test series
uninteresting, that for obvious reasons.
What should South Africa do?
Spin is easy to play if and only if your
instincts are acute. There are only two ways to play spin – you either go forward if
you can reach to the pitch of the ball or you stay back and allow the ball to
spin. This however assumes that you have read the ball of
the bowlers hand correctly, to a certain extent, . Even then, whether to go forward or back can be a
judgement call if the bowler pitches it in that nagging in-between spot. This ability
to judge differentiates a good player of spin from a not so good one. When under
pressure with 6 fielders around the batsmen ready to pounce on any small/big
edge from the bat, this judgement needs to come instinctively. Instincts come with heaps of practice, day in and day out. When Australia was to tour India
for a three test match series in 1997-98, it is common knowledge that Tendulkar
practiced his defence for days against spin bowling on uneven tracks to hone his skills so he could counter Warne. How many batsman these days practice defense, let alone
practicing playing against spin?
To now answer the question above, there is no easy way for SA.
Their batters need more practice, clear mind, confident head on their shoulders
and trust in their defense. Indecisiveness in going forward or staying back is causing their downfall. In the book of spin, it seems attack is not the best form of defense, only solid defense is the best form
of defense.
What should India do?
India have only fared marginally better than South Africa
in this series. If you are going to prepare spin friendly tracks, then maybe
you should ensure that spin is still your strength. Luckily, it’s the quality
of spin bowlers in Indian side that have saved them the blushes. What should
they do – be prepared to spend time on the crease and rotate strike. South
African’s spinners are still not of age, so there will be loose balls –
capitalize on them and anyone who loses wicket to an aggressive shot should be
made to listen Saeed Ajmal speaking English for hours. If that does not scare
them, I don’t know what would.
What should Delhi pitch be like?
This question, really? After all the discussion about cricket
and not pitches.
I honestly don’t care as long as it leads to exciting
contest and that is what cricket is all about.
