Is low and slow really a no-go?

Two days into the third Test between Australia and India at the MCG I read an interesting article by my Roar colleague David Schout.

‘If the Perth pitch was ‘average’, the MCG is diabolical’ the headline exclaimed and, happy to see what the fuss was all about, I gave it the once-over.

It was well-argued and made some interesting points, and it certainly provided food for thought given the amount of attention that the pitches get these days.

Yet having checked the score first thing in the morning and referring to the headline, a touch of surprise was in order as, unless the scorecard I’d seen was pulling a fast one, India had declared their first innings closed with the scoreboard reading 7-443.

It didn’t take much in the way of forensic investigation to see that this total was hardly amassed at breakneck speed – in two balls shy of 170 overs to be precise – but a wicket taken every 145 and a bit deliveries doesn’t scream ‘average’ to this particular spectator.

As David pointed out in his piece, the run-rate was, by modern-day standards at least, a leisurely 2.4 per over but, again, this doesn’t lean towards such a strong condemnation of the surface.

Yes, there is more to what makes a decent surface than simply a list of numbers on a screen, and one man’s ‘good’ is another’s ‘poor’, but any judgement made needs to come in the aftermath and not in the middle of.

Alastair Cook, with an unbeaten double-century to his name, probably hasn’t got a bad word to say about the 2017 MCG vintage, but I doubt Jackson Bird, with 30 fruitless overs to his credit, thinks the same.

That particular contest produced 1081 runs for 24 wickets in 387.3 overs, and as Australia eased to safety on the final day, with the ball barely doing anything, it was apparent to all and sundry that the 22 yards in question weren’t the best.

Just as the effectiveness of any decision to enforce, or otherwise, the follow-on can only be given when it has been allowed to naturally play out, the same is true of the pitch. Of course the standard of player will always have something to do with it, but that is just how it is and shouldn’t really affect the judgement.

(Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)

A Test match going into the fifth day and producing a positive result with the better side coming out on top is surely a good thing, no?

A contest on a faster, bouncier pitch may well lend more to those doing the watching and some of those doing the playing, but as the calls for a return to traditional values – the ability to bat time, patience in place of panache, determination over dynamism and so on – increase in volume, it seems a bit rich to place the majority of the blame at the door of the turf being used.

India showed exactly how to play on what the MCG presented. They took their time – Virat Kohli taking in excess of five hours and 200 deliveries to make 82 a good example – they negated whatever a decent home attack had to offer and they put themselves into a very strong and ultimately matchwinning position.

I doubt they were bothered that it took them the best part of two days and that their opponents were unable to follow their lead. It was Test cricket as it’s sometimes meant to be – take stock of what’s in front of you, play accordingly and grind out your rewards.

No doubt Australia would like more life, and Tim Paine has openly admitted as much, as they are far more at home when a faster, looser game can prosper, but what you want and what you get, especially in the inexact science of cricket pitch production, often differ somewhat.

That only one Australian, Pat Cummins – and, my word, he really is a seriously good cricketer – at No.8 managed to make a half-century and bat for in excess of a couple of hours tells you all you need to know, and if any ire is to be directed, then the flaky top order is where it should be headed.

Because, let’s face it, the pitch really isn’t the problem.