Cooked wicket paranoia has gone too far - why should World Cup hosts lose a key privilege?

I'm sorry. I am not too familiar with the Aussie wickets and the politics surrounding it. Again, it basically boils down to what curators consider to be their idea of an ideal pitch and what the team requires in the face of any given opposition's strengths and weaknesses. Mind you, I do see your point in ensuring a test match drags out to five days but nowadays ICC's preoccupation is with ensuring there's a result, rather than a rash of stalemates. That must also be a factor in the mind of curators preparing pitches. Either way, all of that reinforces the importance of how curators have all the power to dictate the pace and tempo of any match, no matter what the format is. The other thing I've noticed over the years is how prominent smaller venues are becoming to accentuate the need for T20 matches that yield countless sixes. In a false economy, you now have batsmen who keep nudging the record for how few balls are required to rack up 50s and tons. It's not my idea of cricket at all but, it seems, T20s are there to cater for non-purists wanting to tank up to watch balls whizzing around the stadium.

Brett, your wickets have retained their characteristics because your players know no one will be more accustomed to its mannerisms better than the hosts. You just don’t have tourists whingeing about it. They’ll turn up, give it their best shot, and catch their flights home. India did something about it and walloped Aussies at home a couple of times. Let’s not go down the path of what curators do, mate. Curators always keep their trade secrets close to their chests. Ever seen a test under way while the curator and his groundsmen are sitting on the sidelines with their cuppas, grinning, exchanging words and, occasionally, laughing? It’s a pretty closeted culture. Not everyone is privy to it. I was extremely lucky to have a few good sources. The curators love to see their handiwork play out. You’re entitled to your opinions of what my views are. Good day!

Fair enough, Brett. When we co-hosted it in 2015, Australia and NZ both made the final where the hosts had prevailed with what had been the worst final I have ever seen. You see, we didn’t just make the final by some statistical permutations. with the sun, moon and stars coming into alignment. We had jetted teams between the two nations to unsettle any potential threats. NZ had procured strips that had taken out any spin threat. Bounce and carry it had been, including against England. At a media a scrum in NZ, Pakistan was livid with its treatment between the two hos nations and wickets. The side’s spokesmen had bitten their bottom lips but I had hung around to listen to their vernacular with Pakistani scribes. I knew enough Urdu to make out they got it off their chests. I had reported it. The rest of the English-speaking didn’t for obvious reasons by my publication’s sister and flagship banners didn;t go down that path at all. That’s mainstream media in a nutshell. There’s always more to it than meets the eye. Transparency is critical.

Point taken but 2/, as it reads, ICC is taking a hands-off approach on how hosting venues go about their business. Hats off to it despite suggestions from paranoid fans that the BCCI is in bed with the ICC. It goes with saying, Brett, if the ICC so much as burp, the national body is obligated to come down on its local venues to toe the line or else. That is the chain of command. To be frank, I can't see ICC interfering with that process. The semifinal pitch will never be a source of consternation for ICC. I concur. The wicket was so unlike an Indian one. I'm expecting a spin-hugger in the final. Let's see what transpires.

No team is ever happy to have to realign itself in the face of insurmounting tasks it isn;t accustomed to. It's bad enough to be on foreign soil. To be seen to be whingeing is like asking the rules of cricket to be changed. Maybe the solution would be to stage ICC World Cups in nations that fail to qualify. For example, West Indies using their scattered wickets over numerous islands would have been a spectacle of sorts. If one starts collating all the grizzles from nations over the decades, it should make for some compelling TV/online series. Monkeygate aside, Australia, like other nations, are fast learners. The game will live on.

You conveniently ignore my point 2/. Here it is for your benefit again: 2/. ICC has no requirement which states playoffs must be played on fresh pitches. The only caveat in its “Pitch and Outfield Monitoring Process” outlines: “It is expected that venues that are allocated the responsibility of hosting a match will present the best possible pitch and outfield conditions for that match.” Amen to specific guidelines. That's how much leeway the ICC gives any host nations' venues in pitch preps. Please don't split hairs. It speaks volumes. The ICC wants nothing. The home umbrella associations, BCCI, ECB, CA, etc, have every right to tell their affiliates what to do or not. And, invariably, they all do. That the BCCI and the host venue curators chose to "doctor" a wicket that had rendered spinners impotent is remarkable. It had penalised India's potent spin attack. That explains why the India team wasn't doing cartwheels on hearing of the change.

My advice — Aussies should invite Indian curators to help them prepare kitty litter. When they learn how to play on them, there won’t be any whingeing when on tour. Guess what? The Aussie spinners will be beaming from ear to ear. They’ll be considered with a lot more respect to form the spearhead of attacks not only to the subcontinent but at home. India has never had to “doctor” wickets (the very essence of my article). Its curators are adept at doing what they do best. I find it interesting that you can accept Australia’s qualities of pitches but struggle to recognise that India also know their wickets like the back of their hands and go down that avenue to prepare them as it suits them. I have seen wickets in Australia (Gabba for example) that seamed so much that Ashes matches were often demoted to mismatches. It’s a pointless exercise but no one moans. The poms just go back to try to do the same. Not that I rate the Ashes much. It’s just a two-nation series hype. Fans matter. You need to take off your blinkers. It’s just as easy to say Aussies invite ridicule because of their own acts. I trust I’ve made my points. Thanks for engaging.

Love your punchline, Brett. Australia "doctors", "cooks", "prepares" pitches like every part of the world. You just can't see the forest for the trees. Australia's guilt is on record. CA is involved in every facet of preparations for any events with the ICC overseeing it. BCCI is doing exactly the same and the ICC, as it did for the semifinal wicket, had given its blessings despite some "independent inspector from Essex" having a hissy fit about feeling left out. Note, the ICC said he had been included and, consequently, agreed the strip was fine. I suggest you read the ICC rules on preparing of pitches. The clauses enable the local body to do everything it wishes to ensure that quality of the strip isn't compromised. Feel free to read other aspects of the feedback on this article for your enlightenment.

Read all the other exchange of threads here, mate. It adds insight to your assertions and reveals others. That Australia uses "drop-in" pitches after AFL means those blocks are prepared in nursery-like laboratories. Have you ever seen one? If the opportunity arises, go have a nosey. The curators "doctor" , "create", "prepare" strips. I don't think they have all lost their characteristics. The Gabba still seams more than any other ones I had seen, albeit several years ago. The question you have to ask is why ICC insists on nations creating blocks, rather than relying on the home associations banking on their natural elements and curators' prowess? Who will benefit most from "level playing fields"? If what you say is right, then why do teams struggle on Aussie wickets. NZ collapses in a heap there. Ditto England. The point is other nations don't gang up on Australia. They do against India because they don't belong to the cricketing clique in this part of the world. Thus my reference to the political cricket divide.

Your naivety is what strikes me most here, DaveJ. Imagine had no one caught the sandpaper-gate scandal, no one would see Australia in a different, right? Just because a country isn't renowned for doing something, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. The term "cooked" and "doctored", etc, is what fans use to denote some of dodgy practice. In continuing to use such terms, I'm trying to desensitise it. As my article states, every nation "prepares" or "manufactures" (take your pick of terms out there) that will suit its players the best and make life hell for tourists. There's nothing sinister about it and, yes, it's been around since the game entered the realm of global significance. That other nations have not been "accused" of it but Australia "rarely" and "one country in particular" has come under intense scrutiny says more about everyone else. I saw the England ICC WC in 2019 and predicted after a couple of matches the curators would be the "men of the matches". Most WCs have prepared "good batting surfaces in a pretty even way", again, says more about your prejudices. That's not what I want at all, FYI. I want an even battle between bat and ball. I want a wicket that offers seamers some traction, offers medium pacers a stint, and starts breaking down in the final 2 days or so for tweakers. Now why have all the nations' curators failed to do that? Simple. Every country prepares pitches to their advantage. Use whatever emotional term suits you to denounce any other rival nation that threatens your team. It's a given to parochial fans.