The last two pink ball Tests involving India have taken us all by surprise in how swiftly the matches finished.
Day 3 of the Adelaide Test started on a leisurely Saturday and shocked us with an Indian batting collapse for the ages.
Similarly, we went into Day 2 of the Ahmedabad Test expecting an Indian batting day. What followed was absolute mayhem that saw 17 wickets fall in a day, and the matched decided by late evening.
When such shocking collapses have England at the receiving end, excuses, complaints, conspiracy theories and endless debates on the pitch’s unfairness are not too far off.
As expected, the pitch was termed poor and the victor was discredited of the win.
(Photo by Daniel Kalisz/Getty Images)
Let’s try to understand the controversies surrounding the pitch.
Pitch was unplayable – myth
The straight ball got most of the wickets, and this should tell us that most of the batsmen played without a clear strategy on a turning pitch.
If you remember that Steven Smith masterclass in Pune in 2017, Smith played every delivery inside the ball’s line, assuming that it will turn into him. So when the ball spun away, it beat his bat comfortably. He scored a masterful century on the same pitch on which the other batsmen came a cropper.
Like Axar Patel in Ahmedabad, Stephen O’Keefe got his wickets in Pune with the ball that went straight with the arm.
Wasim Akram said in an interview that Martin Crowe was the batsman who played him best. Akram said that Crowe would play every ball assuming it will swing back into him. So when the ball held the line, it beat his bat most of the time.
So irrespective of how helpful the conditions were, when the batsman faces a bowling unit that can threaten both edges of the bat, the batsmen will need a clear strategy to guard himself.
Most of the time, the successful ones have played inside the line, protecting their pads and the stumps.
With this knowledge, if you watched the Ahmedabad Test, you could see that the batsmen’s thought processes on both sides was not correct.
Indian batsmen also collapsed, so the pitch must be bad – myth
There was a time when India used to produce batsmen who played spin brilliantly. This is not the case with the Indian teams of the past ten years or so.
We have seen them collapse to spin on various occasions at home and away, such as Pune in 2017, Mumbai in 2012, Southampton in 2014 and 2018, Ahmedabad in 2021, Chennai in 2021, the list goes on.
The point is that Indian batsmen have stopped being the barometer of batsmanship against spin. They are now part of the problem and have made the regular Indian pitch appear unplayable.
Pink ball, the hidden villain – true
The joker in the pack is the pink ball. The Ahmedabad Test was the first occasion when the pink ball was tested on a turning pitch.
(Photo by Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)
During his post-match interview, Joe Root spoke about how the ball hurried on to the batsmen after pitching and surprised the players. Virat Kohli, Ajinkya Rahane and Ben Foakes shaped for a cut but instantly found themselves trapped in front or lost their stumps.
The batsmen’s unfamiliarity with the pink ball’s behaviour on a turning pitch is a big reason for the collapse on both sides.
If the match had been played with the red ball, at least the Indian batsmen would have put up a better show.
My recommendation to those blaming the pitch is that they should reconsider and give some weight to the pink ball’s behaviour.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I didn't say it was solely due to to the pitch, but the pitch was the primary factor. And if the seam movement was *that* variable for the whole game (which would have to be due to cracks or clumps of grass left on the wicket) then yes, it should be rated poor. Even the most daunting greentops in the UK tend to settle down a bit and become half-decent for batting at some point in the game. Pitches breaking up and offering significantly variable turn on day one tend to get worse as the match progresses, though. I want to be clear that I don't think the pitch heavily favoured India any more than an 'ordinary' turning wicket in Asia would. They earned their win. It just made for a poor spectacle - it was the other side of the coin to a dead wicket that leads to a boring draw. If you accept the fundamental principal that a wicket should, for an appreciable portion of a match, offer some sort of a contest between bat and ball, then this has to be considered a poor pitch.
Paul
Roar Guru
so based on what you've written, any pitch where the ball deviates sometimes and not others should be rated poor? I assume that applies to wickets where the ball seams? I'm also not sure there was wildly variable bounce in that pitch. If there was, none of the quicks managed to find it. If anything, the previous pitch at Chennai had issues with bounce, but I don't recall that being raised as an issue. I agree it was not a great Test pitch but was it solely to blame for a 2 day Test? I don't think so.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Paul, if a pitch is two-pace for the whole game, or has cracks on day 1 that get bigger, it's generally rated a poor pitch. Too much is being made of the fact that there was a lot of turn on offer. That's not why it was poor. It was poor because (a) the turn and bounce was wildly variable from day 1 and (b) the ball was breaking through the surface (which was presumably the culprit responsible for (a)). I want to see turning wickets in Asia that really test batsmen's concentration, footwork and judgement. That's how we get remarkable efforts like those of Smith in 2017. This wasn't just a turning wicket, though. It was underprepared.
RAdelaide
Roar Rookie
Excellent article this and agree completely. As a neutral, I loved watching the game. In fact, it felt like this was the pitch with the most consistent bounce and possibly pace. Ball wasn't turning square like the 2nd test. Batsmen just felt rushed as the pink ball skid on. Possibly down to limited experience playing with the pink ball on a sub-continent style pitch.
Hari
Roar Rookie
Oh, if only English could have won the toss and Anderson could have bowled under the lights!!!
Do you watch any NZ cricket Basil? They showed plenty of ticker in the last two series so not sure what you are questioning.....When the opposition are getting out for 20 off 40 balls and the NZ batsmen are batting thru the 20s off 50 balls but not getting out well thats showing the determination to get thru the difficult and be patient enough to get the benifits later in the innings....
Tanmoy K.
Guest
Main reason for collapse is the Pink-ball, that skidded so quickly (particularly the straight one) from the pitch, batsmen hardly got any time to block it. There should have been a little bit of grass in the pitch to counter this skidding effect.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
What percentage is batsmen playing badly and what percentage you giving it the pitch?
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
if Joe Root takes 5 for 8 you know the wicket is dodgy as. What a dodgy wicket also does is increase the luck factor, and heavily favour the side which has more experience playing on such wickets.
Basil Baborgnay
Roar Rookie
it would be very difficult, maybe impossible even for Aus to do what India did since teams don't usually play against themselves. If what you mean is to show a little resilience in the face of adversity then Aus did that on the recent Ashes when they lost that miracle test which would have secured them the series, but then went on to win the next game. I can't recall off hand when NZ did anything similar but maybe you do?
Gee
Roar Rookie
A two day test & Root took 5 for 8. The pitch was an embarrassment.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Amin to that Zossa. Couldn't agree more.
Tony
Roar Guru
Bring on the fourth test
Golden
Roar Rookie
My criticism is more to do with the cynical nature of the pitch than Axar. As for facts, well who needs those on an opinion site in a post-factual world. Lol. I admire Indian cricket immensely having travelled there to watch a lot of cricket and sadly I did watch every ball of that miserable test on tv... So let's test the good spirit of the BCCI. India only need a draw to make the WTC final. Now perhaps you'll admit some substance to my arguments if the curator dishes up a road, India bat first and declare over 700 and England reply with over 400 and even Sunil Gavaskar falls asleep on comms.
Tony
Roar Guru
Or Bairstow
England lost. Everyone's happy. What's the problem?
Tsat
Roar Guru
Ok, I respect your opinion.. However, you didn't get the facts right..I didn't see a ball jump up and another keep low..Also, you have absolutely no idea of how good Axar Patel is in Indian domestic circuit, specifically on turners..
Golden
Roar Rookie
This article reads as biased as a Kim Jong Il presser. Lol. For a neutral fan, that test match was incredibly disappointing. It just seemed like a very cynical, almost callow move by India to nullify England's seamers under lights. 36 all out and Anderson's performance in the 1st test explain everything you need to know about that wicket. India displayed a 'win at all costs' mentality that stepped all over the spirit of cricket (robbed me of 3 days of cricket watching!! sheesh). It's absolutely fair that criticism follows such a debacle and if you cheapen the spectacle with an absence of bravery, the win is discredited somewhat. Don't forget it was the shortest test match in decades. The bounce on that wicket was inconsistent - balls were both shooting and exploding through the surface. When Joe Root takes 5-8, when Axar Patel, who let's face it is a third rate spinner for India at best, are destroying line ups, objectively (which is a tough ask for some) you have to ask what's up? But above all, the most disappointing aspect is the failure to even admit it was perhaps, maybe, just a little bit dodgy. I mean how chauvinistic and one-eyed can you get? Yes, there are supporters like that from all nations (tons in Aus) but this sort of conduct shouldn't be rewarded. For a neutral, there's no spectacle in it.
Sgt Pepperoni
Roar Rookie
Three extra batsmen*
Tsat
Roar Guru
Totally agree..Moen 2014 exposed India'' myth of spin batting..