Often in cricket and particularly of the Test-match kind, flat surfaces come in for abuse and rightfully so. Test cricket is supposed to be the complete test, a test of every skill required of a cricketer. And a flat, lifeless surface does not provide for that. A lifeless surface sucks the life out of any cricket match played on it. It is one of the biggest dangers to the future of Test cricket as a format.
What is somehow missed in all this is that a shift to the opposite end of the spectrum often produces similar results.
There is no other way to put this: the Nagpur pitch on which India and South Africa played the third test last week was a lottery. And while Virat Kohli, Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar can go to town crying about how India were just enjoying home advantage, it does not fool anyone. It was home advantage mainly because India had a better spin attack than South Africa. If Pakistan suddenly decided to come to India tomorrow, you can be rest assured that India will think twice before making a similar pitch to welcome Yasir Shah and co.
Minimum effort, maximum result
Test cricket is not interesting when batsmen bat all day and make double centuries. But the opposite is also true. Test cricket is definitely not interesting if bowlers can dislodge batsmen through minimum effort. And that in a nutshell was the story of this Test match.
Of course, India are perfectly entitled to play this way. But it raises uncomfortable questions, about the very nature of following a sport. Other than the most rabid of fans, people tune in out and take out time to watch a sport for entertainment. There is no inherent entertainment when the odds are completely stacked on one side.
There is an inherent distinction between the Nagpur pitch and the seaming paradises that India claim are served to them when they tour abroad. A greenish, seaming pitch is difficult to bat on, but not impossible. The ball does not stop and come at an uneven pace. It does not scoot low. It swings, yes, but even the bowler has to ensure that he puts the ball in the right places to make the best possible use of the swing on offer. Great batsmen may even be able to read the swing and play the ball. It makes for an exciting contest, mainly because both bat and ball are equally tested.
Contrast that with Nagpur, a game where the highest score of the match was Murali Vijay’s 40 in the first innings. For a batsman to succeed on this wicket, he had only one recourse available to him: pray to the stars that it was his lucky day. Otherwise, he had no chance. Over after over, the spinners on both sides just had to come in and pitch the ball. The pitch would do the rest. One would turn, one would not. One would bounce up and one would scoot low. There were plays and misses, catches dropping just short, close calls every single over. To sum it up, it just wasn’t cricket.
No contest
By all means, create spinning surfaces. But if the batsmen, one substantial portion of a cricket match, have no role at all to play in the game, then what is the point of the contest? It is similar to creating a road where bowlers of all shapes and sides get smashed all over the park. If the former is criticised, then the same criticism should also apply to the latter.
The worst part is that the performances of cricketers on these kinds of surfaces get diluted. Ravichandran Ashwin was brilliant with his bowling in this Test match, bowling the perfect lengths. He would have been difficult to face on any surface anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, because of the surface, his 12 wickets in the Test match will remain under the shadow of doubt. Many will put his wickets down to the uneven nature of the pitch. And that is unfair for a bowler who bowled his heart out and got his just rewards.
It is not just a question of international Test cricket in this country. Take a peek at the Ranji Trophy and look at the scores you get. Matches getting over between two and three days. Bowlers getting more than ten wickets as a regular occurrence. And when someone like Rahul Dravid expresses his displeasure at the quality of the surfaces in India, there is a definite problem somewhere.
Cricket, at its most basic, is a contest between bat and ball. In such a simple premise lies the beauty of a 138 year old game. By loading the dice completely in favour of the ball, India might have won the series. But Test cricket as a whole might just come off worse. More countries will start making these kind of pitches. And as long as the desired results are achieved, who cares about the spectators tuning in, right?
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
What is somehow missed in all this is that a shift to the opposite end of the spectrum often produces similar results.
There is no other way to put this: the Nagpur pitch on which India and South Africa played the third test last week was a lottery. And while Virat Kohli, Ravi Shastri and Sunil Gavaskar can go to town crying about how India were just enjoying home advantage, it does not fool anyone. It was home advantage mainly because India had a better spin attack than South Africa. If Pakistan suddenly decided to come to India tomorrow, you can be rest assured that India will think twice before making a similar pitch to welcome Yasir Shah and co.
Minimum effort, maximum result
Test cricket is not interesting when batsmen bat all day and make double centuries. But the opposite is also true. Test cricket is definitely not interesting if bowlers can dislodge batsmen through minimum effort. And that in a nutshell was the story of this Test match.
Of course, India are perfectly entitled to play this way. But it raises uncomfortable questions, about the very nature of following a sport. Other than the most rabid of fans, people tune in out and take out time to watch a sport for entertainment. There is no inherent entertainment when the odds are completely stacked on one side.
There is an inherent distinction between the Nagpur pitch and the seaming paradises that India claim are served to them when they tour abroad. A greenish, seaming pitch is difficult to bat on, but not impossible. The ball does not stop and come at an uneven pace. It does not scoot low. It swings, yes, but even the bowler has to ensure that he puts the ball in the right places to make the best possible use of the swing on offer. Great batsmen may even be able to read the swing and play the ball. It makes for an exciting contest, mainly because both bat and ball are equally tested.
Contrast that with Nagpur, a game where the highest score of the match was Murali Vijay’s 40 in the first innings. For a batsman to succeed on this wicket, he had only one recourse available to him: pray to the stars that it was his lucky day. Otherwise, he had no chance. Over after over, the spinners on both sides just had to come in and pitch the ball. The pitch would do the rest. One would turn, one would not. One would bounce up and one would scoot low. There were plays and misses, catches dropping just short, close calls every single over. To sum it up, it just wasn’t cricket.
No contest
By all means, create spinning surfaces. But if the batsmen, one substantial portion of a cricket match, have no role at all to play in the game, then what is the point of the contest? It is similar to creating a road where bowlers of all shapes and sides get smashed all over the park. If the former is criticised, then the same criticism should also apply to the latter.
The worst part is that the performances of cricketers on these kinds of surfaces get diluted. Ravichandran Ashwin was brilliant with his bowling in this Test match, bowling the perfect lengths. He would have been difficult to face on any surface anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, because of the surface, his 12 wickets in the Test match will remain under the shadow of doubt. Many will put his wickets down to the uneven nature of the pitch. And that is unfair for a bowler who bowled his heart out and got his just rewards.
It is not just a question of international Test cricket in this country. Take a peek at the Ranji Trophy and look at the scores you get. Matches getting over between two and three days. Bowlers getting more than ten wickets as a regular occurrence. And when someone like Rahul Dravid expresses his displeasure at the quality of the surfaces in India, there is a definite problem somewhere.
Cricket, at its most basic, is a contest between bat and ball. In such a simple premise lies the beauty of a 138 year old game. By loading the dice completely in favour of the ball, India might have won the series. But Test cricket as a whole might just come off worse. More countries will start making these kind of pitches. And as long as the desired results are achieved, who cares about the spectators tuning in, right?