Is Lord's England's Worst Test Cricket Venue?

Lord's is perhaps the most famous cricket stadium in the entire world.

Everybody knows Lord's. They know the grand old pavilion, the space age media centre, the slope, the MCC members sporting their yellow and red stripes. They know it as the self-proclaimed "home of cricket."

This reputation, the impressive nature of the stadium, and the influence of the MCC, ensure that two of England's seven home test matches are staged there every summer.

Who could argue with that? Is there anything better than a test match at Lord's?

The answer is yes: a test match anywhere else.

The problem is that despite the reputation and the look of the place, it's very rare that Lord's produces a good wicket or a good game.

The first test against South Africa was a perfect example of a game at Lord's. Rather than being a contest between bat and ball, it was merely an exhibition of batting.

England posted nearly 600 runs against the best pace attack in the world in the first innings. I don't want to belittle this feat. The English top order, in particular Bell and Pietersen, batted superbly. But the pitch was so dead that even the world's best attack could get nothing out of it.

England bowled superbly in both their innings, but the pitch offered them nothing. It was only South Africa's horrendous batting in the first innings that allowed them to take 10 wickets.

With clearer heads and a greater application, South Africa proved in the second innings that wickets were impossible to come by on such a wicket. Neil McKenzie amassed 144 runs from a day and a half at the crease, never really being threatened in that period.

Maybe this was just a one off?

Well, no it wasn't. In fact, exactly the same set of events occurred two years ago against Sri Lanka. England posted an imperious score, Sri Lanka were bowled out cheaply, followed on, and batted forever to get a draw.

In fact, since Australia beat England at Lord's in 2005, every game there has been drawn.

The fact is the pitch is always dead and so are the games.

Compare this to Old Trafford. There will be no test matches there for the foreseeable future, yet Old Trafford always provides a good game of cricket and normally a result.

Trent Bridge is a fabulous stadium, and again often provides a good game and a result, yet it has been overlooked for the Ashes next year.

I will be at Headingley on Friday for the second test against South Africa. Why did I choose to go to Leeds and not Lords' to watch test cricket? Because unlike Lord's, there is always something for both the batsmen and the bowlers at Leeds, and a good game is guaranteed.

Furthermore, it costs twice as much to watch a match at Lord's than Headingley or Trent Bridge. What are the fans paying that extra money for? Certainly not for quality entertainment.

In an age in which test cricket finds itself under threat, the ECB need to start doing their utmost to ensure every match is a fantastic contest. And as long as there are two games at Lord's every year you can be sure there will be at least two lifeless draws.