Nothing riles me more than commentators, who are quick to label a pitch with variable bounce as dodgy, referring to belters as beauties. I presume it has nothing to do with the fact that a majority of the world¹s leading commentators are batsmen, and all to with the age-old prejudice in favour of the bat.

The pitch at Goa didn’t quite turn out to be the monster it threatened to be in the first two or three overs. But it remained a difficult pitch to score on all day, which made Yuvraj Singh’s 73-ball hundred truly special, perhaps even better than his hundred against Australia at Sydney in 2004. But in an ironical way, his innings eventually made the match much less exciting because it the match out of England’s reach. So even though the match in Goa produced the highest number of runs in the series so far, it was also the least interesting. Am I making any sense?

I fully agree with Mr. Bal. The game has become unfairly loaded in favour of batsmen- flatter wickets, heavier bats, flatter seams, covered pitched, shorter boundaries... No wonder we frequently get to see so many 'great' batsmen floundering when confronted by quality bowling even on relatively flat pitches!

Samit you are spot on! ICC have just mentioned that a pitch monitoring committe or what ever will inspect the pitch? but what are the peremeters of a good pitch( it should be bouncing above ankle height),I remember once kapil dev quoting on indian picthes you just have to come to the front foot and smack the ball any where in the park(certainly not possible on newzealand pitches) and would that committe also decide how much amount of grass to be left on a pitch to make it a fair game between bat and ball.So, in my opinion the local authorities should be responsible for preparing a pitch instead getting instructions for the ICC recommended committe !

I agree there exixst some human beings called bowlers in the cricketing arena..

Atleast a batsman's game is entertaining.

What do we do about umpire's games? Should'nt umpires be taken to task for a series of bad decisions that change the outcome of a series.

Umpire's bias/ineptitude is more of a concern than pitch bias

For once, SAmbit, I got to agree with you wholeheartedly.

What gets me is that while you apparently must have a batsmen friendly pitch for "entertaining" cricket, it is the batsmen who can grind a game to a halt playing nothing but defense and clinging to their wicket for their dear lives.

There is no such thing as a defensive bowler.
Even the most conservative spinner is going for a wicket everytime. Seeing a well taken six is nice, but its the bowlers who raise a shout.

Hey I noticed everyone that Sambit Bal touches on the point that the ICC pitch monitoring is unfair which i totally agree with.
I believe a pitch should be tailored to the home team standards, the Goa pitch was a sub standard pitch however the class of the Indian batsmen turned a misfortunate event into their favor. The ICC should monitor the pitches so they are decent to play on. The other conditions of the pitch should be of no worry to the ICC, so wat if the pitch is a runfest or neutral or bowling heaven. Every team has a weakness and strengths, the pitch should be catered to the home team at all times, that is what make a home game a home game. Look back when the Aussies toured India and were wrecked in Mumbai. Thats what the home team advantage is all about.

The thing is, when We Indians make a pitch that helps our spinners show their talents, it become substandard pitch (or as they call it dustbowl). But when countries like Australia or NewZealand make pitches that suit their game, it's ok. (Typical example - India's NewZealand tour just before 2003 world cup. Batsmen in both teams struggled to score in the series except for Sehwag most of them not even reaching double figures and still not a single word was said about those pitches where the batsmen could not show their talents.) It's all about WHO does it rather than WHAT is done. Racism????????????

What makes a good pitch? was the goa pitch bad for batting? If it was, how come we saw 3 very high quality innings (yuvraj, raina & collingwood).... maybe its just about different skills and how batsmen & bowlers adjust to the circumstances that determines their performance...just because its a ODI doesn't mean the batsmen can start belting the ball around from the very first ball; bad habits picked up here are usually exposed in tests where the pitches are more helpful to bowlers and the ball does a bit more!

Of course I agree with Sambit Bal. In the history of the game, I can think of very few changes to the laws of cricket that were meant to favour the bowlers. The only one that springs instantly to mind is the change in the lbw law with regards to the batsman not playing a shot. All other measures have been introduced to protect the batsman. In fact, the leg side field placement rules were only introduced after the bodyline series, to stop ball dominating bat so viciously (I might add that Don Bradman averaged over fifty in that series: good batsmen will figure out what to do). My point is that batting does take precedence over bowling, and pitches are prepared to reflect this prejudice. I feel this is to the detriment of the game, rendering it, above all else, boring.

However, batting triumphalists will point out that matches are ending more quickly, with fewer draws than ever before. But this is again due to the dominance of bat over ball: people are scoring more quickly, and it is still not a true contest.

I suggest that a redressing of the balance is required, not in the laws, or pitch preparation, but in the attitude towards bowlers. Only if this occurs will the pitches improve, laws improve and we will bring the distasteful, manufactured "age of batting" to an end.

some excellent points made...it also riles me when a flat batting track is referred to as a "good" pitch while anything with some assistance for the bowlers is a "bad" pitch. As a batsman of (very!) modest abilty, I would prefer a pitch that makes me work hard for my runs rather than a pitch where minimal foot movement and hitting through the line is completely without danger.

Another interesting point you raise is regarding the ICC monitoring pitch standards. If I remember correctly, Clive Lloyd reported the pitches in the last Sri Lanka in India Test Series as poor, despite the 2nd and 3rd Tests being excellent contests between bat and ball! How many truly great Test matches can anyone name where there wasn't an even contest between bat and ball?

Karthik S.

What can be done about the umpiring situation? TECHNOLOGY! It's available, why not use it? Especially since so much time is wasted on seeing if outfielders touch the rope with ball in hand (that rule needs adressing too). Look at the recent Aus vs. RSA test; an early Bucknor era cost the Proteas the match!

Apart from technology, if the umpires make too many noticeable mistakes, drop them. Players can be dropped for bad form; why can't umpires be too?

Just a note to Daison Garvasis to remind him that the worst wicket on that NZ v India tour [in Hamilton] had to be totally rebuilt the following year - then it failed absolutely once more and had to be redone again.

Some great comments! Parameters to decide when the pitch is good is always going to be difficult. Also wondering if high bounce pitches are considered good since they challenge the batsmen why are low bounce pitches considered bad - they too provide the same challenge. If one Yuvraj Singh could play an inning like that when the ball was old - so could have Sehwag. These pitches are the true tests of a batsman's technique - not the pitch in pak where teams scored 200 runs for every wicket.

I dont agree with mr. bal.
i think the pitch was a fair one to bat on.obviously if no cricket has played on the wicket for so long what do u expect.i think it was a sporting wicket with something for everyone.

Matches on a fast pitch are good contest. The Batsman has all the gear to protect him heck there's even a guard for the chest. The Bowler only has the Ball and the Deck for that matter to grind anything out of it. Now if you make a pitch favouring the batsman then so help me GOD 434 might be some day 534. What is the hallmark of a good batsman? To Score anywhere and anytime and most when required. I would love to see Ponting, Dravid, Inzi, Lara anytime as they dont require pitches suiting batsmen to score and they are always there to get their teams out of trouble. For the Sake of the Game if its the batsmen who have to score runs then give them a hard time doing it. They have created a copy of warney they can use the speedy throwers of tennis for the high speeds of Akhtar. They can make the Accuracy of Mcgrath, the Swing of Akram. Then one day it would become a man vs machine match where the person hitting the most runs off a specific machine wins. Hope that day never comes or else there would be no High flying LEE or Akhtars there would be no Genius in the shape of warne & murli. There would be no Smooth actions in the form of Mcgrath or Akram. Fear the Day as the best entertainers on the pitch have always been bowlers not the batsmen. They are the people giving fun.

What is an ideal test match pitch? Some seam movement on the first morning, settles down as the day goes on. Cracks slowly over 5 days, so that even on the last session on the fifth day there is no square turn to be hand. It has sufficient bounce all through the 5 days that ensure any bowler is encouraged to bend his back. There should be some grass to allow for seam movement. Overall, a batsman might make a 50 plonking his front foot down but not 300. It should ensure a gradual build-up and tense denouement on the last day.

In a one day match all this has to be condensed. So, there has to be early seam movement and then bounce to support spinners all day long. Boundaries should be a little long so that brutal mishits do not carry for 6.

The 2001 India-Australia series was played on such pitches. It helped to have the last 2 test matches go all the way into the last session on the 5th day. Even the pitches laid for the 2 test SL/ Pak series in Pakistan last year were pretty good.

Worst wicket in the world has to be Antigua. Incrediby batsman oriented. The aforementioned cabbage patches of New Zealand too were a disgrace.

Flat pitches that inevitably yield runs aplenty when played on in the absence of proven quality bowlers of Warne or Flintoff's ilk, are frustratingly referred to as 'good'. These are bad wickets for cricket. Good for a thrash and a bash, but because of the monotonous regularity of these pitches the diversity and interest which cricket used to provide is being lost.

I recall reading an article sometime late last year where New Zealand batsman Scott Styris told he preferred to have minimal net training because footwork on flat pitches is needed less now. It seems batsmen now are of the theory it is better to establish a firm base, hit through the line and see even toe-ended miscues fly across the short outfields for yet more bowler punishment. Current conditions are leading to - somewhat perversely in light of the higher scores posted - a degradation of batting standards. Then when the ball does nip around a bit, these batsmen who have become attuned to maximising their stroke range on true wickets are swiftly found out as bowlers exact, undoutedly with some relief, a welcome if transient revenge.

The pitches during the 2005 Ashes, though pacier than modern decks, were comparatively slower and flatter than the pitches of the 80's and 90's. It was only the genius of Warne and the air, not pitch movement, of the swingers Jones, Flintoff et al that allowed a fair and truly fascinating fight. When the ability to swing and reverse swing is absent, either due to the lack of conducive overhead conditions, ball type or, most pertinently, bowler ability batsmen have it all too easy.

why does everyone keep picking on the ODI which hailed 872 runs?? was that all to do with the pitch? or was it two outstanding knocks by two outstanding shot makers? please someone give the batsmen some credit!

Just to pick up on VS Ramesh's point: the leg side field placement rules were not changed as a result of bodyline. The two-behind-square limitation was first introduced as an experimental law change for the 1957 English season, nearly 25 years after the bodyline series, and was actually in response to the plethora of boring medium-pacers bowling a constant diet of inswing.

Spot on of course. The Fourth Umpire (a great cricket blog) wrote about this a few times at http://4thumpire.blogspot.com/

Why don't people understand that bowlers play cricket too?

well the most exciting games where you have both wickets falling, but one batsman who stands out and takes the game for their side.

It is easy to sit in your sofa at home and criticize the pitch. Why all this noise on the pitch quality when it happens in india/pak/SL. What abt the series in 2003 in NZ when India and NZ struggled to cross 200. Sweeping on a turning track is as much an art in batsmanship as is hooking the ball off you nose in Perth. Why is a turning track in India substandard while tracks like Perth and Headingly a true contest between bat and ball.
Besides I do not agree with the game being loaded in favor of the batsman. The bowler can get hit for boundaries and come back and clean up the batman next ball(even literally... read Justin Langer in the 3rd test in SA)however the batsman has just one chance. One mistake and you are gone.
I agree batting should have become more rewarding with technology taking over bat making.

Well what do we do then? Standardise all pitches? Of course not! That is one reason why cricket is so exciting.Every pitch offers a new challenge and hence an altogether unique match provided players rise to the occasion. So the variety in pitches and ICC regulations regarding pitches should be observed but only with the players' safety in mind.

sambit,
I agree that the pitches need to be prepared by local authorties and not based on any codes or regulations that ICC provides. but, i don;t believe that one-day cricket is a batsmens game. First of all, odds are against the batsmen, he just gets on chance, if he makes one mistake he will perish. Not the same with bowlers, they can come back and all the need is one good ball. cricket is about adapting, you need to adapt to the changes. When u r in india, a bowler should bowl full to let the ball swing, probe at good lenght, keep the basics right and then if the batsman misses u hit. One-day cricket is about 11 batsmen outscoring 11 batsmen for opposit team. test cricket is about getting 20 wickets after giving least runs. see the difference?

I say. The English gentry (batsmen of course!) traditionally dragged men from the coal mines to bowl at them.

And what's wrong with that?

Every game where u have players doing different tasks, there are advantages and disadvantages.Take for example Baseball, its called pitcher's game, where the upper hand is for the pitcher's(a.k.a bowlers :-)) !!! So this makes the game more interesting !!!

Cricket, lovely cricket, a game of glorious uncertainties. a real battle between the bat and the ball. a strategic tossle between captains and between teams. An engrosing event when ball came out to intimidate the bat only to be met with comparable aggression, or defensive composure. a contest where victory often hangs in the balance only to be defied by a tailender with a bat. Oh cricket, real cricket where have you been? I searched far and wide but rarely do you surface anymore. two plus billion fans worldwide long for you to once again cause palpitation, irritation, excitement, anger,joy, and jubilation. we buy tickets but cannot sit, bring food but we cannot eat. No political discussion at this time please, that's my surrogate now at the crease. why is he now rearranging the field? no stupid runout or unnecessary appeal. No intellectual discourse now, I cannot think. No rum, no beer for me, I just can't drink. wearing the colours I'm so very proud. Like I know the bowler, shouting his name out loud. the bowler now enters into his stride.......

I finally woke up and was disturbed to discover that cricket will never get back to those days of authentic battles between bat and BALL.

Just a quick note about some comments on NZ pitches. It has been known for a long time that pitches in NZ are not at their best until late january/february, while the 2003 series that everyone seems to be citing was played in early December - akin to playing in England during March i should think. Also to the chap who cited racism - get a grip, even though that series was played in what could almost be described as our off season, there was quite a lot of debate about the standard of them, the NZC did not just turn a blind eye, and as a result the hamilton pitch (and outfield) has been completely relaid, and this season it was quite good. Just because this wasnt reported in india doesnt mean that they didnt investigate the problem.

"What do we then make of a pitch that produces 872 runs in 100 overs?"

Dude what's with you and high scoring games? Get over Wanderers. Trust me, a slog-fest it may have been but a LOT of people really enjoyed it. Chill out!

It is strange that the ICC spend so much time setting up committees to look into pitches and their suitability for cricket and they spend so little time and resources on the single most important thing.The bizarre umpiring we have to put up with over and over.This affects the game more than pitches do.
I think it is now time for the ICC to stand up and be counted and not get carried away with something as frivilous as the condition of the pitches.
A lot of factors affet the pitches and we all know them.
Also every contributor has generally stated the obvious.

Look, I feel that the batsmen should be given more priority in this game. But saying that the game should also be fair to the bowlers. A batsman is a lonely person in the cricket field where he has to do his job all by himself where as the bowlers have 10 people to support him and he can get a way by doing loads of mistakes.

Talking about cricket pitches, imagine if all pitches around the world were similar, how boring cricket will be. People love to watch batsmen making hundreds on grassy seaming wickets, watching Murali or Warne spinning webs around batsmen and Batsmen hammering the crap out of bowlers like Mcgrath or Akthar. All this entertainment is created by different pitches around the world. This does not mean that it will not help batsmen. If a batsmen is up to international standards then different conditions should not be a major factor. They call it INTERNATIONAL for that very reason. At this moment the balance between batsmen and bowlers looks ok. Therefore I personally feel that cricket should be left the way it is. ICC stop messing around.

I think the SA-Aus match was great not because of the no. of runs scored, but because of the tense last over, last wicket, almost last ball finish... and also the circumstances preceding this match.... SA desperately trying to prove that they could match up to Aus all thru the season and also trying to shake off the tag of 'chokers', which they incidentally picked up in a similar last over, last wicket situation!

If this match had got over with say, 2 overs & 4 wkts to spare, not sure if it wld have been so 'great'...

The point is exciting matches are not so because of the number of runs scored, but the tension of a close, hard-fought encounter!

Rather than looking for helping tracks, it is better that bowlers are helped. Allow some more for bowlers, 2 bouncers, things like that. Bring some changes in the ball so that it swings more, reverses more, bounces more , much prominant seem.........

I completely agree with Mr Patel here. Except for the last word. Anyways why does the question always gets raised when there are spin friendly pitches and not when there are pitches like the one recently in South Africa, where every other delivery threatened to take some batsman out. When teams like Australia after becoming such a strong side can make pitches that suits there players whether spin or fast why cannot others do it. After all if every country specially in India starts making bouncy and green pitches like all our foregone Indian cricket pundits then we will loose out the uniqueness we have here. Dont we?????

I have to agree with Sambit Bal, while high scoring matches such as the one dayer between Australia and South Africa recently can be exciting, these matches are no comparison with lower scoring matches where bat does not daminate ball. Obviously ball should not dominate bat either but surely the best pitches are those where there is an even contest between both bat and ball. If every pitch that cricketers played on were flat and lifeless, there would be no reason for the great bowlers to bother anymore. For me anyway the charm of cricket is in its mystery as to what might take place, with flat, lifeless pitches the charm is gone.

Absolutely you are making sense. Prejudice is just not for the bat but also for the subcontinent wickets. When India fall drasticaly in Newzealand, there were cries for faulty techniques of Indian batter, now wouldn't that be applied to Englishmen and other so called world class batters.

What one want is a good cricketing wicket, an even contest between bat and balls, not an absolutely ridcule in favour of batsmen. People are callin wanderers wonder as the greatest ODI match ever played. What made that match good was not the amount of runs but toughness and closeness of the competition between two teams.

And it is right as well, that commentators do make that same mistake. Agreed that Sabina Park pitch was dangerous but this Goa pitch was not. Rahul Dravid even made it clearer in the after match press conference by saying it was a good pitch to bat for anyone who was ready to buy some time.

So why a fuss over that pitch, because a player of mediocre ability couldn't score against a good attack. Ridicules isn't it?

That is not only mistake made in this era of batting. Ponting hailed as the best since Bradmen. The comparisons are out putting Ponting over the others. But what was forgotten that Ponting has a hit a purple patch as late as after 90 odd test matches, he has an averahe of 12 in 8 test matches in India, and his purple patch has come when the attacks are not that good. He is a great batsmen, no doubt about that, but please don't compare him statistically with others. Every inning is a new inning and at the start of that every one is a like. What matters is making run on that day when it was needed most.

And definitely a committe is required to ensure good cricketing wickets, unlike wanderers beauties. And by the way I think the greatest ODI ever played was a low scoring affair between the same two teams, SA ad Aus. Does anyone remebers that semifinal of 1999 world cup.

I don't agree with Sambit Bal. I think one day cricket is all about batting and test cricket is all about bowling. Having flat picthes for test matches will be fruitless but very entertaining for one day matches. I can't agree with Farhan about bowlers becoming useless if pitches don't support them. If one team get 450 the other team must have good bowlers to stop them from getting 451, you will still need bowlers just as much as you would need batsmen in a low scoring match. As long as the pitch remains even and fair for both teams batter or bowling I don't see a problem

that mumbai pitch in 2004 produced three high quality fifties, from martyn, laxman and tendulkar. none of these innings ended because of the pitch. i remember tendulkar top edging a sweep, and laxman being caught and bowled brilliantly off a ball destined to reach the straight boundary. besides this, gillespie hung around undefeated for more than fifty deliveries, while hayden and gilchrist fell to appalingly poor shots. the pitch was certainly tilted towards the spinners, but well within the limits of test standard pitches.

I fully agree with Sambit. He is spot-on here. In fact, he has given a completely different perspective to this whole thing of looking at a pitch as "good for cricket" and "not-so-good". If, for example, Sabina Park (1998, West Indies Vs England) and Indore (1997, India Vs Sri Lanka) can be termed "poor" wickets, how about the one at the Wanderers, Johannesburg, which, while producing the highest-ever runs in any one-day game, had no scope whatsoever for ANY bowler to showcase his skills. Something for the ICC to think about! I hope that the "people who matter" in the ICC are, somehow, made to understand this viewpoint!

"...I presume it has nothing to do with the fact that a majority of the world¹s leading commentators are batsmen...."

Not sure if I agree with that - sample this. There is a fair representation of bowlers in the commentary team -
Willis,Srinath, L.Siva,Akram, Waqar,Botham who is perhaps 60% a bowler,Thomson,Shastri and their ilk.

On a related note, why are most captains batsmen?

How about an analysis on how "things" have changed last few years. Owing to my age, what I am looking at is a period from 90s to the current period.

Looking at ODI alone:
Factors that beneffited bowling:
1) Bowlers bowling lot faster today (at least thats what these instruments say). One might argue that it was not measured hwen holding and Golmes where firing in the cherry. But, lets go what we have as facts.

2) This enigma called "doosra". Has definetly foiled many batsmen.

3) The ball that defines tradiational swing bowling - Reverse swing.

Factors that helped batsman

1) Pitch - more batsman friendly

2) Some rules like bouncers, field restrictions.

3) Newer techniques developed by todays batsmen. Hit over the infield, minimal footwork - stand and deliver.

If you discount the "pitch" factor, the biggest change is perhaps the attitude of the batsmen. Its like a war between two armies and the batsmen have definetly progressed way faster by ridiculing some of the traditional "methods" of batting.

As an example, our very own Krish Srikanth was ridiculed for his attempts to hit over the in-field. People thought he was crazy to attempt a cover drive before spending enough time in the middle. It took a while for people to realize that convention can be replaced by "convenience". If the ball is there to be hit, go for it. It doesnt matter if you dont spend enough time, nor does it matter if it looks more like a tennis shot.

The point that I am trying to make is, there is definetly a learning curve in any sport with time and in cricket, the batsmen have definetly managed steeper curve.

basically it is true ...a batsman dominated game cricket is becoming even more batsman friendly...but guys when u pay money from ur pocket to watch an 8 hour game, u really want something entertaining...i think we should n fidget with the rules of the game....even the powerplays should have been introduced...it boring...cricket should be changed to how it ws in the late 90's...same rules...its true we don wanna see bowlers jus being tormented and smashed around the park..we have to think about their dignity also..but u don wanna sit and watch batsmen defending 4 out six balls ..for over 8 hrs....so what we need is to build pitches that support both batsman and bowlers somewhat...we want close contests,Technically the pitches in austrailia are best...perfect for a game of cricket...its bouncy and hard + fr batsman ,it has a fast outfield another +.. but it also has grass fr bowlers..and turn pivded for spinners..so overall we can expect good scores of 270-300..which makes the chasing very interresting..u wannt to see the ball and bat trying to beat to each other.....BASICALLY..U WANNA SEE RUNS EARNED..NOT GIVEN FOR GRANTED..WITH SHORT FIELDS AND POWERPLAYYS..U WANNA CREATE A PITCH WHERE EACH TYPE OF PLAYER CAN GIVE SOMETHING TO THE GAME , WHETHER IT BE A SPINNER,SEAMER ,WICKET KEEPER.FIELDER,SLOGGER,WALL LIKE BATSMAN..OR OPENER....WE WANNA SEE BATTLES ON THE FIELD GUYS!!!!

Who's Golmes?