Lifeless Pitches Will Kill Test Cricket

Notwithstanding our victory , cricket in the recent India-Australia series has flattered to deceive; it’s been good but not great. And that is because the wickets have by and large been lifeless. Test cricket needs sporting wickets and the sub-continent has to defy history and move towards a more result-oriented outlook.

The wicket supposed to be a gift for Anil Kumble in Delhi had nothing in it for the bowlers; a total of 1,429 runs were scored for the loss of 22 wickets, at an average of about 65 runs per wicket. By that logic the gift would have got unwrapped somewhere around the 10th day.

On India’s tour to Pakistan in 2006, the wickets for the first two games were so heavily loaded against the bowlers that a commentator said that centuries scored in those two matches were not really worthy of the record books. In the first match at Lahore, Pakistan declared at 679 for seven and India replied with 410 for one, all in just two-and-a-half days of play.

The strategy goes back to the days of hostility between India and Pakistan. As losing was not an option, wickets were prepared to nullify the impact of bowlers. Both countries played not to lose.

The success of our fast bowlers this time should give us the confidence to reverse the trend. A look at our victories outside the sub-continent in the past decade shows our fast bowlers have done a commendable job overseas. In the 10 victories in this period, the fast bowlers have picked up 127 wickets compared to 64 by the spinners. This is not a reflection on the spinners—we’ve mostly played with just one—it’s rather an argument that we’ve won in Leeds, Johannesburg, Perth, Nottingham, Port of Spain, Adelaide etc, venues where our fast bowlers have outbowled the fancied opposition attack.

This and the fact that in Ishant, Zaheer, RP Singh, Sreesanth, Munaf, and Irfan we have perhaps the most enviable pace bowling strength at the moment, should spur us to create wickets with bounce and carry in India. It would give the much needed boost to our fast bowlers and help our batsmen tackle conditions abroad more competently.

This victory should spur India to become the number one Test team in the world. And that in the real sense would be achieved when our team is good enough to nullify the toss and the conditions. Great teams don’t worry about who they play and where they play. The West Indian team of the '80s and the Australian team just a few years ago had that confidence and ability.

Engrossing

In July 2005, the third month after I had got married, my wife discovered my complete neurosis. To be precise, on the 21st of July when England and Australia kick-started the battle for the Ashes at Lord’s. The first two days, when I was prancing in and out of the room were the most shocking and amusing for her. The series was lively and spectacular 'til it ended in September, and along the way I learned to remain interested and calm at the same time.

Three years hence, I have become much better at masking my love for the game; now sometimes I miss the highlights after watching a full day of Test cricket.

In Sydney and Perth earlier this year, never mind the controversies, India and Australia produced memorable and magical cricket. The India- Australia series in 2001, home and away, also touched great heights. Yet how many days of Test cricket have been exactly like that? The almost empty stands at Nagpur, when the rivalry of the past decade was fighting for the series, are an indicator of the ill-health of Test cricket. When India’s favourite son was about to become the highest runscorer in the history of the game, there was hardly any audience worth the occasion.

Test cricket is not about instant gratification. It is the test of skills and strategy over a period of five days. It is a test of endurance, of mental and physical toughness, of leadership and character. And like most good things, Test cricket always gives you a second chance. Cricket historian and writer Gideon Haigh reckons, “Glorious uncertainty sometimes entails profound disappointment; but without disappointment, excellence becomes prosaic, banal.

Why is it that we are so anxious to guarantee Test cricket as an entertainment package? After all, this is a game, not a pop concert. It can only be because we live in an age where a game crossed with a pop concert—Twenty20 cricket—is imposing its standards on everything else.”

Languishing

The threat from Twenty20 is imminent, and administrators must act before the long form of the game becomes extinct. The threat is exacerbated by the fact that most cricket boards do not have the money to prevent the exodus of their players. New Zealand is already suffering the consequences, as at the end of the day players are also professionals trying to improve their lot in life.

India is the game’s financial power with 70 per cent of the revenues being generated here. And it must also take a large share of the responsibility to ensure that the game’s oldest and truest form remains healthy.

Such health in the times of Twenty20 is possible if we move towards sporting wickets and daring captains. A hard-fought draw is not a problem, but games going nowhere with the only interest being statistics will damage Test cricket further.

Although being hailed as a brilliant move now, former Australian captain Ian Chappell was not too impressed by India’s tactics on the fourth morning in Nagpur. “Once India put the Australians into that non-strokeplaying mode, they were unable to get out of that mode and get back into a position where they could dominate. It is not the sort of cricket I like to see.

Administrators have got to think about suggesting that perhaps no more than two-thirds of the fielders can be on one side of the wicket.

It really isn't a lot of fun watching the bowlers bowling well wide of the stumps and batsmen putting their bats on their shoulders.” After Ponting was being blamed for his lack of acumen on the fourth day in Nagpur, Haigh wrote in his defence, “Indeed, Ponting might well have lost Australia the Test, but if so, he did it on the first day, when he lost the toss; ditto Mohali. It’s no fluke that Australia’s best performance during the series came the only time they won the toss.”

Lamenting

I don’t buy that argument, though his point might have some weight as India’s only win the last time Australia toured came after batting first in Mumbai, that too despite being bowled out for a paltry 103. My reservation against the argument is that if a flip of the coin was everything, then Australia should have closed the game in Bangalore. And if the toss was everything then they should have also won after making India follow on in the memorable Kolkata Test.

Also India won after conceding 500 plus runs in Adelaide in 2002. India’s win in this series was fair and square; Australia lost because they did not have the ammunition to dismiss India twice.

The only weight Gideon’s argument carries is that it is the general perception of our cricket and we must remind ourselves what the Australians were told at the boot camp before the last Ashes, that ‘perception is reality.’ The tried and tested method of winning the toss, scoring big and letting the spinners run riot is fine, but we must embrace new methods as well.

With the old order slowly changing and a positive Dhoni at the helm possessing a potent new ball attack, it would be interesting to see the direction Indian cricket takes from here on.

This piece was done on Nov. 13, 2008 for Mail Today , a New Delhi-based newspaper.