Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

Initially, when Australia was bowled out cheaply in the first innings, there was the usual debate about whether the pitch was too helpful to the seam bowlers. Sensible commentators simply accepted that this was part of the challenge of playing in Australian conditions and no more excuses were made for a fairly poor batting display by most of the batsmen apart from Michael Clarke and Simon Katich. Daniel Vettori was magnanimous in defeat, conceding that his batsmen did not have the skills or experience to cope with these very-Australian conditions. No apologies, no excuses.

A few ignorant callers to a radio program that I host referred to the so-called ‘doctored’ pitches in India as an excuse why the Australians surrendered the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. I'm afraid I failed to grasp their logic.

In general though, many cricketers still cling to the notion that hard, fast and bouncy = GOOD but low, dusty and spinning = BAD. Even in lower levels of cricket, the word ‘good’ is invariably used to describe a surface that is hard and fast whereas a dry, slow pitch that looks like it might turn is immediately disparaged. Perhaps it is an inadvertent use of the term ‘good’, unlike in horse racing where it is merely used to describe a certain type of surface rather than give it positive or negative attributes. For too long, cricket has always associated fast pitches with being good pitches.

In Mumbai in 2004, Australia was bowled out chasing a low score and the pitch was widely panned for being sub-standard because they scored less then 100 runs in the last innings. In the very next Test, NZ was shot out for 76 at the Gabba on a good wicket. A few weeks later at the WACA, Pakistan were humbled for just 72 runs in the final innings but there was still no question whatsoever about the quality of the pitch. It was just that the hapless touring teams were unable to cope with the skills required to cope with the extra pace and bounce. No apologies, no excuses.

It was not always so. In the 1980s when the West Indies fast bowlers were running rampant, Australia deliberately prepared spinning pitches in Sydney for Bob Holland, Murray Bennett and even Allan Border to spin Australia to victory. The mighty West Indian batsmen had their techniques shown up as being inadequate to even counter part-time spinners like Border. No apologies, no excuses.

The famous Gabba pitch is now under threat from a plan to rip it up to make the centre wicket area softer for the winter football codes. If this happens, it is likely to lose the unique character that makes it such an attractive cricket destination. That will be a shame because one of the great things about Test cricket is watching touring sides cope with first day conditions in steamy Brisbane at the start of a series. If you can’t handle the pace, bounce and seam movement, that’s just bad luck. You come to Australia, you learn to play on our pitches. No apologies, no excuses.

So long as the reverse also applies for Test cricket played in other parts of the world. As Sachin Tendulkar once said “just because it spins, does that mean it’s not Test cricket?” No apologies, no excuses.

Michael, you write: "In Mumbai in 2004, Australia was bowled out chasing a low score and the pitch was widely panned for being sub-standard because they scored less then 100 runs in the last innings."

This is very, very wrong. 40 wickets fell in about 200 overs. THAT's why the pitch was panned. It wasn't just the fourth innings. India had just as much trouble as Australia batting on it, apart from some of Nathan Hauritz's bowling.

In your next two examples, lots of runs were scored earlier in the match.

If people want to argue that pitches that spin on day one and then deteriorate are good, fine. But that Mumbai pitch was atrocious.

Well, that exactly is the essence of test cricket. If every pitch is like what Australian term as a good wicket, then I am sorry to say that the Australians are sore losers. What if the track is spinning a lot? You should have the skill sets to tackle it, if you don't have those skill sets, then your team is weak. Sachin and Dravid time and again proved that runs could be scored on any kind of pitch. Be it Australia, Newzealand or England, they were also prolific in Sub-continent tracks. The australians instead of developing players of those caliber, have always played the complaining game. Even going to the extent of calling Indian tracks sub standrad and India a third world country for poor over rates. Now is Australia a third world country? why do they have poor over rates in their own country with civilised people? They should understand the ground reality. The current Indian team is capable of beating them, both in Aus as well as in India
Anyways, very nice article.

The comment by Ajithkumar Chandramouli posted above is a perfect example of why I rarely visit these blogs anymore. Once again the site moderators have allowed another poster to beat their breast & insult Australian cricket completely out of context. As David Barry wrote, the pitch in Mumbai was criticised because neither team was able to bat out a full days play, with even Dravid admitting it was not an ideal pitch. But Ajithkumar sees something in this article to broadly paint Australian cricketers as sore losers. Yeah, I guess he's right, they did threaten to boycott the tour and have an umpire removed didn't they?! Too much leeway is given to posters to heedlessly insult others, be it Australians insulting Indians or vice versa, and I for one am sick of it. Comments should keep to the matter at hand or not be posted. This site should be the pinnacle of cricket on the internet, not a psychiatrists couch for the petty, vented frustrations of cricket "fans".
Will this even be posted

Hi David Barry. Mate, I can't argue with your logic on that issue about Mumbai. Yes, it wasn't just the fourth innings that was a low score. The funny thing though was that I was in Mumbai for that game in 2004 (eerily enough, staying at the Taj Hotel which was attacked last night) and when I spoke to the players on that final morning at breakfast, there were no issues whatsoever with the quality of the pitch. They just felt that they had outplayed India for the first two days (which they had). The next morning at breakfast was a totally different story! I wasn't however criticising any one country - all I'm saying is that Test cricket is about succeeding in all types of conditions and that good pitches come in all different forms. Australia is a pretty good country to tour because you do get good variety (generally) across the country with Adelaide and Sydney offering entirely different challenges to say Perth and Brisbane. A 5 Test series here is a good test of technique.

will wonders never cease? I actually agree with Michael on this one (taking into account david barry's astute statement.) Punter said at the end of the BG test series that "india outplayed us in every facet and aspect of the game." Yes they did. SO what if they produced a turner or two? Playing spin is a part of the game too & is an art unto itself. It requires as much skill to play as good pace bowling. Most countries produce a wicket to suit their side. Its called Home Town advantage. If you are good enough you will over come the odds: thats what defines greatness. The windies won everywhere, so did the modern aussie side. The recent BG series in India was played in as fair conditions as any recent test series Ive seen. I think its a part of the charm of the game: variety in wickets. If all wickets were ubiquitous you may as well play on artificial surfaces.Personally I think the "good wicket sydrome" is a hangover from the early days of the game & is not applicable now.