The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Pitch doctoring is just not cricket

Was this Steve Smith's best Test century? AFP PHOTO / GREG WOOD
Roar Rookie
22nd July, 2015
9

I have been watching cricket for over 50 years and despite my fading memory I can still recall far more entertaining Test matches than those being played today.

Sure I want my side to win, but I prefer it to be a close contest that keeps me on the edge of my seat rather than to watch centuries being made in the first two days that shut the other side out of the game.

Cricket is a complex tactical game and the pitch must play its part but when one aspect of the contest dominates others to the point where it renders them ineffective, then the intent of the contest is lost.

Of course different countries inherently will produce different conditions. Home sides are used to their own conditions by virtue of how often they play on them; that is home ground advantage.

In years past, the preparation of a Test match wicket was left to the groundsmen with a specific goal of creating a pitch that produced an even contest between bat and ball. Groundsmen were judged on the result of a fair contest that gave neither side a match-deciding advantage but produced wickets for bowlers and runs for batsmen.

Most teams that won the toss knew that the first session of a match, especially under cloudy skies was going to give a short term bowling advantage and would be keen to exploit that situation knowing that it may probably last for only one session.

A side batting under these conditions knew that if they were diligent in their batting and survived the first session with maybe only one or two wickets down for an emerging score, that they could enjoy the better conditions that were coming later in the day.

In Australia for example, pitches do tend to be somewhat drier than those in England so the choice of batting or bowling first can be a bit tricky and some times it’s line-ball anyway. It is part of a skipper’s skill to make the right decision and so would begin a great contest.

Advertisement

And now there is a new tool in the armoury of a home side. It’s one that is now overtly practiced and unashamedly promoted as a legitimate tactic.

But to deliberately produce a wicket that is dead and lifeless to expressly negate the effectiveness of an opposition’s bowling attack is not in the spirit of the game. It is disrespectful to the home side and announces that they are incapable of beating their opposition without doctoring the pitch.

For anyone in an official capacity to influence groundsmen to produce such a wicket is tantamount to cheating and there seems to be clear utterances that this is what is happening in the English cricket hierarchy.

The tactic of pitch fixing is at best a 50-50 proposition anyway as it relies on the home side winning the toss. As we saw in the second Test at Lord’s, the tactic backfired spectacularly because Australia won the toss. There could not have been a clearer intent in skipper Michael Clarke’s mind that he was going to bat when he saw the pitch and Alastair Cook even said that he would have batted as well had he won the toss.

The practice of pitch fixing is akin to ball tampering and that would not be sanctioned by anyone in cricket so how did pitch tampering become ok? Has money influenced the outcome of the game so much and is the “win at any cost” attitude so much more important than what used to be a gentleman’s game.

close