Australia have gone win-less in their past nine Tests on away pitches designed for their downfall. So, should the Aussies return the favour by doctoring decks to their advantage in the return Ashes series?
Spin legend Shane Warne recently claimed Australia had never asked local curators for helpful pitches to his knowledge.
While Warne is not the most reliable pundit, there is no doubt Australia have not sought advantage from home pitches in the same obvious manner as subcontinent sides or the English team.
The Poms have admitted they ensured surfaces were overly slow and dry during the recent Ashes series, which they won 3-0.
Skipper Alastair Cook said in the wake of the fifth Test that this was the prerogative of the home side.
The assumption was that such surfaces would blunt Australia’s one strength, its pace attack, while also favouring champion English spinner Graeme Swann.
However, the Aussie quicks, particularly Ryan Harris, still troubled all of England’s top seven, bar Ian Bell.
Swann did prosper, taking 26 wickets at 29 as he exploited the turn, albeit slow at times, offered by the parched pitches.
But Skipper Michael Clarke said last week he had ruled out asking the curators at Aussie grounds to prepare green decks this summer to aid his quicks.
He said Australia’s recent success at home – eight wins and just two losses since the last Ashes – proved they did not need to alter the conditions.
Clarke, of course, would be unlikely to flag any planned doctoring of pitches so as not to give England time to prepare.
It is entirely possible that one or all of the surfaces at Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth this summer may behave in a manner incongruous with their history.
But, if Australia does decide to have those decks tailored to their strengths, how would they want them to play?
Clearly, given the way they’ve struggled on the slow pitches in India and England, they would request the decks be made livelier rather than more sedate.
However, as Harris noted recently, producing over-juiced wickets could backfire because of the skill of England’s pace battery.
Australia’s batsmen have been exposed against the moving ball, most notably when dismissed for 47 against South Africa on a grassy Newlands pitch in 2011.
Should he recover from his hamstring injury in time to be fully fit for the first Test in Brisbane, Harris will surely delight in the extra pace and carry his home deck will provide.
The Queenslander hounded England’s top three in the recent Ashes, taking the wickets of Alastair Cook, Joe Root and Jonathan Trott 10 times for the combined average of 16.
He may not need extra assistance from the Australian surfaces to continue this domination.
Certainly the Aussies should not need to alter the state of their home pitches to negate the impact of Swann.
Australia is a notoriously difficult place for visiting Test spinners, particularly offies.
Superstar Sri Lankan tweaker Muttiah Muralitaharan, who took a record 800 Test wickets, snared only 12 wickets at the inflated average of 75 in Australia.
Indian off-spinner Harbhajan Singh has tormented the Aussies on the subcontinent with 86 wickets at 25 against them in Tests, yet been reduced to cannon fodder down under where he’s secured nine wickets at 73.
Swann was not nearly as potent on Australia pitches during the 2010-11 series, despite his side running amok en route to a 3-1 series victory.
Bowling with commendable economy but lacking penetration, the Englishman’s 15 wickets cost him 40 runs apiece.
Swann’s success in the recent Ashes series was built on his supremacy against Australia’s left handers.
Contrastingly, he laboured against Michael Clarke, Shane Watson and Steven Smith taking combined figures of 4-321.
That trio were far more vulnerable against the English quicks so it is not surprising Clarke would suggest he does not wish to offer James Anderson and Stuart Broad greater assistance than typical Aussie pitches would already provide.
Perhaps then Clarke is correct and Australia need not ask for spicier pitches this summer.
By hindering spinners and helping quicks but not excessively, the Australian decks are already perfectly suited to the current side when encountering England.
gvb
Guest
Yep have to agree (which pains me greatly lol).
JimmyB
Guest
Good points, well made Tom.
Tom,
Guest
I don't believe England doctored pitches to suit them, other than with the mower and roller - which we all do. I'm a meteorologist used to British weather and the simple fact is that the unusually dry weather in England before the Tests produced pitches that suited neither side. The best England batsmen love the ball coming on to the bat and these pitches, with the exception of Old Trafford were too slow for them. Similarly, the England seamers and swing bowlers like bounce and cloud, both of which were lacking - except at Old Trafford - which was a great cricket wicket. The one pitch that was "doctored" - Chester le Street - was done by accident! They have recently installed a new drainage system that is obviously too efficient at taking water from the surface. It has either not settled in or needs re-doing. To be frank, you'd have to be insane to try and doctor pitches in the England summer when, all over the country, the chances are of regular showers apart from much of August. This is going to keep the outfield healthily moist and carry some water to the wicket even when covered - hence the green grass! In short, the pitches for the Ashes series, apart from OT, stopped England's best batsmen scoring easily and neutered England's swing and seam attack (after spending months on deliberately dead wickets in India and NZ). England doctored pitches? I think not! It all comes down to England being the better side at the moment.
nickyc
Guest
Bayman, You're getting a little confused. Bedi, Underwood and Vettori were/are not off-spinners but slow left-armers. In addition I missed off-spinner Ian Johnston off my list of Aussie spinners with 100 wkts.
nickyc
Guest
Actually, Bayman historically most English spinners have been slow left-armers. Nineteen English spinners have taken more than 100 test wickets and twelve of them have been lefties: Bobby Peel; Johnny Briggs; Colin Blythe; Wilfred Rhodes; Hedley Verity; Johnny Wardle; Tony Lock; Derek Underwood; Phil Edmonds; Phil Tufnell; Ashley Giles; and Monty Panesar. There have been six offies: Jim Laker; Fred Titmus; David Allen; Ray Illingworth; John Emburey; and Graeme Swann with Doug Wright the only leggie. By way of contrast seven Aussie spinners have taken more than 100 wickets in tests. Five leggies - Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Warne and MacGill - and two offies - Trumble and Mallett. No Aussie slow left-armer has achieved the feat so far. By the way Aussie batsmen have frequently struggled against off-spin at least outside Oz. Even in Oz I can remember them having problems against guys like Prassana. And in the late seventies Geoff Miller and John Emburey took more than forty wickets in one series in Oz.
James
Guest
so your understanding of doctoring is if it is done just for one or two games. but its not like players and teams cant just go check the pitch weeks before the game, months sometimes. they must know what they will be facing and if the groundskeeper changes the pitch too much surely that would actually benefit the travelling team more than the local team who are used to a certain field being a certain way more and so are more thrown when stuff is different?
AlanKC
Guest
I guess time reveals most things and it will be interesting to see how the decks play in the return series here - it will also be interesting to see how the English pitches play when India visits for 5 tests next English summer...
Da spoon
Guest
I've got. Better idea to thwart the opposition. Why don't you improve your team?
JimmyB
Guest
No
MervUK
Guest
A wonderful informed summation blade....absolute green tops for India, absolute roads for the saffas, that is what you call home advantage. Indian pitches have always been slow low turners due to the climate and that they'll remain...
MervUK
Guest
I saw the original interview with mark Nicholas, he simply said the pitch is slow and difficult o score on
MervUK
Guest
Irrespective of the media comments, think we can all guarantee that CA will ensure that none of the wickets in the return ashes will turn a jot....
ChrisUK
Guest
I'm not comparing the two, that's a straw man argument and not worthy of you. I'm saying that for an offspinner known for giving the ball a huge rip to not be able to get it off the straight on a fifth day pitch anywhere is pretty clear evidence that the pitch is not remotely conducive to spin. Warne might have been able to extract prodigious turn on most pitches, but it's hardly breaking news that the Gabba allowed turn when he played for others too - Warne was simply more dangerous because he was so good. I don't really see how you can deny that the Gabba turned a lot more (for everyone) when he played, than it does now. It's simply true.
Bayman
Guest
Chis, You can't compare Warne and Swann. One a leggie, the other an offie - even ignoring the fact that Warne is clearly a better and more dangerous bowler in most conditions. The two bowlers will land the ball in different areas. Warne will be far more likely to land in the bowlers foot marks and take advantage of the rough. He will likely, as good as Swann is, get more bounce than Swann and he is more likely (at least until 2013) to find batsmen with less clue about how to play him and survive. Warne's rev-counter would also compete very favourably with Swann. Warne also tended to work a batman over more than Swann who relies more on the batsman losing patience and making a mistake - or maybe that's just against us. Swann is a very good bowler, and currently the best of his type, but I wouldn't read too much into Warne's record at Brisbane versus Swann's. I've seen plenty of offies struggle to get much deviation out here only to see Warne spin it a foot. But even Warne could have trouble on some tracks on some days. The number of wickets he took should not necessarily be seen as a guide to how much the track was spinning.
ChrisUK
Guest
The players didn't. I posted below my challenge to find anyone in officialdom or amongst the players who had said any such thing openly. The best that came up was Cook saying home advantage is useful, and that Old Trafford looked like it normally did. So whilst I have no doubt that England want to ensure home advantage counts for something (the Murali debacle at the Oval inspired this) and has a general desire to see certain traits, it doesn't mean for a single second that the pitches have changed character completely from normal, because they haven't. The one exception to this is Trent Bridge - that was a horrible, horrible pitch, and awful for everyone. Media and commentators develop a meme, I don't see why this should be taken as being a normal fact when they also built up the absurd notion that Broad cheated. If someone can find open and incontrivertible statements from someone in the England set up that they wanted the pitches tailor made for Swann, I'll accept that - but I never have seen it, have you?
Bayman
Guest
Chris, If those English tracks were playing consistently with how they have played in recent years then fine, but my question would be this, "If that is the case, why was every player, official, press and fan that I spoke to - on both sides - openly saying the tracks had been prepared for Swann?" As opposed to, "Don't worry, it was the same last year and the year before that". It's simply a question.
ChrisUK
Guest
No, I know and accept that, off spinners don't do well in Australia. But what I was saying was that Swann does give the ball a hell of a rip, and if he can't get it off the straight, then it's clearly very unfriendly to spin. And yet when Warne played, it did spin. Now I'm not saying that they did anything with Swann particularly in mind (though note that at Adelaide he was extremely dangerous), but I am saying that the Gabba being much more conducive to spin when Warne was playing is unlikely to be a coincidence. And again, I haven't the slightest issue with that - except when there's the implication that England are somehow evil nasty types doing things the brave noble Aussies would never stoop to. Cos it's cobblers!
Bayman
Guest
Chris, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the ball did not spin on day five it wasn't because of any great fear of Swann. Nobody here really thought Swann would be the problem. Off-spinners here have never been a problem. The idea that we suddenly got nervous about Swann is to suggest a fear of him that has never manifested itself for any other off-spinner. And I'm talking Laker, Gibbs, Prasanna, Bedi, Underwood, Vettori, Harbi, ...the lot. It may well have been a road - but it wasn't to negate Swann. He took just fifteen wickets for the series and seven of them came in Adelaide. In each of the other four Tests he took just two wickets per game. As I said, whatever was done in Brisbane it was not done with Swann in mind. In Perth he went for 51 of just nine overs. Unusual for Swann, I admit, but indicative of just how tough off-spin bowling can be out here. If Swann takes a truckload of wickets next series it will be an indictment of our batsmen, not the pitches.
ChrisUK
Guest
But that's no different to me saying that the Oval, Old Trafford, Durham and Lords weren't doctored either - they played how they always do these days, with the proviso that it was an exceptionally hot, dry summer so the pitches were drier than normal. Yet that point doesn't seem to be accepted. Had it been a wet summer, I don't care how much England would like Swann to be the difference, you're going to get seaming tracks not spinning ones! As for South Africa at the Gabba, you've had lots of people here saying that track was made into a bowlers' graveyard to nullify the South African attack - Ronan says it too. Now, again, I haven't the slightest, remotest, tiniest issue with any of it. Never have, never will. There are occasions such as the West Indies one I mention elsewhere where I'm bored watching because of the pitch, and I don't like that, and I was a bit uneasy at the way in India you had spinners opening the bowling in a Test match (think that happened both against England and Australia), but only from the perspective of it not being great for cricket - not because it gave some kind of unfair advantage.
Bayman
Guest
Chris, Those decks were not 'doctored' to maximise Australia's advantage over Sri Lanka. They played exactly the same as they had always done. Out here we are committed to have a Boxing Day Test (Melbourne) and a New Year's Test (Sydney). Because South Africa wanted that time slot at home it meant that Sri Lanka got those two iconic matches. Trust me, if SA had agreed then those two Tests would have featured the South Africans and the decks would have been exactly the same. Don't forget that Brisbane Test lost a day (2) to rain and it ended with SA five for and a lead of just 51. Who knows what might have happened if the second day had not been lost. More than one game has been won where both teams topped 400 in the first innings. Clarke made 200 but Warner, Quiney and Ponting got 13 between them. Maybe it was a road but maybe it was a result pitch robbed of the chance by second day rain. We'll never know.