Will the cricket pitch laid out for the 2nd test between South Africa and England be investigated by the ICC? That at Nagpur was looked into with the reason being cited as variable turn, variable pace and variable bounce on the first day. Plausible enough to warrant an investigation. The pitch assisted spinners right from ball one, while that at Newlands assisted pacers and continues that assistance till day five closes. Why isn’t assistance to pacers considered a criteria for launching investigation into pitches?
To clear the cobwebs, the following lines illustrate verbatim the rules for declaring a pitch ‘poor’ and in need of investigation:
Rule 1:
To an extent, this rule seems fine. Too much of nectar is poison, it is said. I beg to differ, only in this case. Excessive seam movement is what draws viewers to the grounds and the TV screens during the first and second days of a Test. Watching the batsmen prod, unsure of the ball’s movement, is a sight to behold! Survive this ordeal and thou shalt enjoy batting towards the end of second and most of day three. Do we need bowlers losing hope of wicket-taking even before the morning session closes? The batsmen would be very sure of the bounce that the pitch will render, and those who do not possess required skills could also emerge a success and eventually a false positive to the selectors, critics and the player himself. When the team for tours abroad is selected with the inclusion of this player, the truth emerging then, will sting. The player would feel betrayed in a bigger stage. All this can be avoided at the domestic level, provided the pitch has been inspected prior to play, for safety and unfairness.
Rule 2:
If there was unevenness of bounce, it isn’t more of ‘poor’ than it is of ‘dangerous’. Batsmen should be tested by the pace and movement, not so much by the bounce that a pitch offers. He should be prudent enough to assess the bounce in the first dozen overs of Day1 and Day 3 and quite naturally, he will trust the bounce to remain the same. If the first rule has an inclination to throw up false positives, this rule could throw up false negatives. Unevenness will fluster the batsman, causing him to curb his stroke-play, his defence and eventually his skill. A talented player could lose his spot in the side solely because the pitch wasn’t prepared properly. Either extreme is detrimental to Test cricket and more specifically in this case, there occurs an additional detriment to batsmen. Though the bowlers will have a field day posing batsmen tough questions, the viewer would feel hard done.
Rule 3:
The 2nd Test at Newlands between SA and England falls under this category. If a Test starts on an already deteriorated pitch, stringent action should be taken against the curator. Agreed. But what of the other extreme? What if a pitch doesn’t deteriorate even at Stumps of Day 5? Should not this be looked at? Stroke-play is ever-present and so is the bowlers’ toil. The only difference is the joy of batsmen in the former while despair in the latter. The next time a bowler measures his run-up, his toil in the previous game would play heavily on his mind. This would result in erroneous lines and lengths in a game where the pitch plays out normally. A huge dent in confidence! Consistency in adhering to a strategy of a particular line and length marked the careers of players like McGrath and Siddle, while its lack destroyed the careers of Sreesanth and the like. If a player bowls bad on a perfect pitch, it is quite reasonable to shun him out. Why should he be shunned out of the side for playing on a pitch solely assisting batsmen or spinners, for no fault of his?
Rule 4:
Of all the rules stated above, this is the most reasonable for declaring a pitch ‘poor’. A pitch that offers no seam movement, no bounce, and by extension, no turn due to deterioration, can prove interesting to watch, only if the bowlers tread on the danger zone breaking open cracks on his follow-through. He couldn’t do this without incurring a reprimand or a penalty or both at the end of play. Lose-lose situation either way. Such kind of pitches are one of the many reasons for dwindling of crowds at a Test. Shortened boundaries and wider blades constitute two other.
Why is it completely fine if batsmen exploit intact pitches to score a huge quantity of runs in five days and effectively close the doors on the possibility of a win/loss result while it isn’t if spinners exploit deteriorated pitches and close the Test in three days? Skewed justice! The ICC should start looking into this issue as soon as possible.
To clear the cobwebs, the following lines illustrate verbatim the rules for declaring a pitch ‘poor’ and in need of investigation:
- The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match
- The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match
- The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match
- The pitch displays little or no seam movement or turn at any stage in the match together with no significant bounce or carry, thereby depriving the bowlers of a fair contest between bat and ball.
Rule 1:
To an extent, this rule seems fine. Too much of nectar is poison, it is said. I beg to differ, only in this case. Excessive seam movement is what draws viewers to the grounds and the TV screens during the first and second days of a Test. Watching the batsmen prod, unsure of the ball’s movement, is a sight to behold! Survive this ordeal and thou shalt enjoy batting towards the end of second and most of day three. Do we need bowlers losing hope of wicket-taking even before the morning session closes? The batsmen would be very sure of the bounce that the pitch will render, and those who do not possess required skills could also emerge a success and eventually a false positive to the selectors, critics and the player himself. When the team for tours abroad is selected with the inclusion of this player, the truth emerging then, will sting. The player would feel betrayed in a bigger stage. All this can be avoided at the domestic level, provided the pitch has been inspected prior to play, for safety and unfairness.
Rule 2:
If there was unevenness of bounce, it isn’t more of ‘poor’ than it is of ‘dangerous’. Batsmen should be tested by the pace and movement, not so much by the bounce that a pitch offers. He should be prudent enough to assess the bounce in the first dozen overs of Day1 and Day 3 and quite naturally, he will trust the bounce to remain the same. If the first rule has an inclination to throw up false positives, this rule could throw up false negatives. Unevenness will fluster the batsman, causing him to curb his stroke-play, his defence and eventually his skill. A talented player could lose his spot in the side solely because the pitch wasn’t prepared properly. Either extreme is detrimental to Test cricket and more specifically in this case, there occurs an additional detriment to batsmen. Though the bowlers will have a field day posing batsmen tough questions, the viewer would feel hard done.
Rule 3:
The 2nd Test at Newlands between SA and England falls under this category. If a Test starts on an already deteriorated pitch, stringent action should be taken against the curator. Agreed. But what of the other extreme? What if a pitch doesn’t deteriorate even at Stumps of Day 5? Should not this be looked at? Stroke-play is ever-present and so is the bowlers’ toil. The only difference is the joy of batsmen in the former while despair in the latter. The next time a bowler measures his run-up, his toil in the previous game would play heavily on his mind. This would result in erroneous lines and lengths in a game where the pitch plays out normally. A huge dent in confidence! Consistency in adhering to a strategy of a particular line and length marked the careers of players like McGrath and Siddle, while its lack destroyed the careers of Sreesanth and the like. If a player bowls bad on a perfect pitch, it is quite reasonable to shun him out. Why should he be shunned out of the side for playing on a pitch solely assisting batsmen or spinners, for no fault of his?
Rule 4:
Of all the rules stated above, this is the most reasonable for declaring a pitch ‘poor’. A pitch that offers no seam movement, no bounce, and by extension, no turn due to deterioration, can prove interesting to watch, only if the bowlers tread on the danger zone breaking open cracks on his follow-through. He couldn’t do this without incurring a reprimand or a penalty or both at the end of play. Lose-lose situation either way. Such kind of pitches are one of the many reasons for dwindling of crowds at a Test. Shortened boundaries and wider blades constitute two other.
Why is it completely fine if batsmen exploit intact pitches to score a huge quantity of runs in five days and effectively close the doors on the possibility of a win/loss result while it isn’t if spinners exploit deteriorated pitches and close the Test in three days? Skewed justice! The ICC should start looking into this issue as soon as possible.
Comments
Post a Comment