Survival Of Test Cricket Is More Important Than India’s Ego

There’s nothing like a strong opinion to wake people up on a Monday morning. Here’s guest writer Ren Soni with his personal take on that pitch …

After losing the toss and subsequently being drubbed by England in the first Test, it was inevitable that India would throw their toys out of the pram and produce rank turners for the following matches. Two wretched dust bowls where the ball turned from day one equalled two wins. Congratulations, India. You showed the cricketing world that you play spin better on spinning pitches at home than England. No shit, Sherlock. But what about the cricket? England turned up to play a cricket match and got a spin contest instead. Which, of course, was no contest. Great for India, but not so great for Test cricket as it ruined the series as a spectacle, since the outcome was so predictable that there was no point in watching.

But why did the team that had just beaten Australia in Australia need to resort to such extreme pitch conditions to beat England in India? Surely, if you are good enough to beat Australia in Australia, you are good enough to beat England in India without doctoring the pitches in your favour to such an extent that the competitiveness of the series is wrecked? Obviously, the loss of the first Test on a more benign pitch spooked the Indian team, because not only was a home series at stake, but the two teams were also playing off for a place in the inaugural World Test Championship final. India needed to win the series to qualify. Cue rank turners. How else to guarantee a series win for India? As India’s head coach, Ravi Shastri, told an interviewer during India’s last tour of England in 2018: “We know we will thrash teams at home and there is no chance for teams when they come to India if we prepare tracks that suit us…” A pitch in India that turns from the first ball is a win to India.

Whilst the Indian team’s ego may be assuaged by the two wins, the implications for Test cricket, particularly by the shortened third Test, could be very damaging. Cricket may be the national sport in India; it is not in England. In England, cricket also hides behind a pay wall. There has been no Test cricket on national free-to-air television in the UK since 2005. This Test series is the first time a generation will have gained widespread exposure to the Test format in 16 years. The day and night third Test was supposed to be the jewel in Channel 4’s broadcasting crown. Its viewer friendly start time of 9 am (unlike the distinctly unfriendly 4 am start of the other Tests) and lasting all day till 4 pm, was supposed to mean a full four to five days of prime daytime coverage for a sport so long deprived of a place in the national consciousness. The concluding days of the match were meant to be played at the weekend. Imagine, the whole of Saturday and Sunday devoted to Test cricket on national TV! What a boon it might have been for the Test format in England.

Instead, thanks to the Indian team’s egotistical desire to ensure that there was not even the slightest whiff of England being able to compete, let alone win, the match didn’t last beyond two days. Forget the weekend, we didn’t even get to Friday. Rather than delighting in cricketing excellence in action, the nation will have to suffer more endless repeats of old American sitcoms.

So what, India’s gloating supporters may well ask. We don’t owe you a benign pitch. The true test of cricketing ability is being able to adapt to different, difficult conditions away from home – which England so abjectly failed to do. Besides, you’ll do the same to us when we visit you in the summer.

They are quite right. The pernicious concept of ‘home advantage’ in Test cricket permeates the sport. Every Test playing home country doctors its pitches in its favour to create almost impossible conditions for the tourists, meaning the only way a touring team can win is if they are exceptional, or their opposition is dire. India’s opening batsman, Rohit Sharma, stated as much in his recent comments: “When we go out other countries don’t think about us, so why should we think about others. We should make pitches according to the preference of our team.” Interestingly, the losing captain, Joe Root, concurred: “Everyone deserves home advantage, I do believe that. Wherever you go in the world, it’s going to be difficult and I quite like that. It’s one of the intricacies of Test cricket and makes it such a beautiful game.”

Test cricket may, indeed, be a beautiful game, but tit-for-tat cricket is boring to watch. It renders even good teams uncompetitive. The odds of an away side winning in Test cricket are less than 30%, so if teams are not able to compete in extreme conditions, the outcome becomes predictable. It begs the question of why anyone should bother watching. Without jeopardy, even the most jingoistic fan will eventually get restless.

Yet, this antediluvian concept of ‘home advantage’ in Test cricket continues to be accepted, as evinced by the comments of its elite players. So why kick up a fuss now?

Cos’ there’s another cricketing format in town. And it’s rather popular. Cos’ it’s kind of exciting. Shallow? Yes, absolutely. But still rather exciting. And crucially, it’s unpredictable. It’s called T20. So ask yourself why anybody would watch a format where they know the outcome of the match by the time the first ball is bowled when they could be be watching a format where they often don’t know the outcome of the match until the very last ball is bowled. It shouldn’t take much foresight to realise that they won’t.

Even though the English cricket team will most probably go on to lose the series, they will live to fight another day. But will Test cricket? The next live cricket beamed into UK living rooms by a national broadcaster, this time the BBC, will be of yet another new format called The Hundred. Think T20 on speed. Great for broadcasters. Ideal to fit into a 2-hour, prime time evening slot. No worries about making five days’ worth of scheduling space and then wondering how to fill it when the match only lasts less than half that time. Or whether the match will be competitive, because competitiveness is intrinsically guaranteed.

If The Hundred takes off, that will be the end of any prospect of Test cricket ever returning to national television in England. If kids in England grow up watching Hundred cricket, they will end up playing Hundred cricket. And then there won’t be an England Test cricket team for India to shaft, because as they say: ‘you can’t be what you can’t see.’

Of course, it is not India’s responsibility to save Test cricket. That responsibility lies with the governing body of the sport, the ICC. It is up to them to force home countries to produce good quality pitches to ensure Test matches are competitive and can last at least 4 days. Any failure to comply should result in docked points from the Test Championship. There is also a very good argument for doing away with the arbitrary advantage of winning the toss by allowing the visiting side to choose whether to bat or bowl.

The burgeoning popularity of cricket’s truncated T20 format and its emergent variations means it is imperative that the Test match format starts to offer both home and away teams an equal chance of winning, relative to their overall cricketing abilities, if it is to survive. If the ICC continues to bury its head in the sand over this issue, it will bury Test cricket with it.

Ren Soni

38 comments

  • It’s important to point out here that – as Ren mentions in his article – most home teams seem to do this in Test cricket. England are just as guilty.

    It’s extremely important to the ECB that, whilst they’re gradually beginning to prioritise white ball cricket by diminishing the county championship, the Test team obscures this fact by at least winning at home. And that means plenty of green seamers for Anderson and Broad.

    Having said that, I think there’s a lot of truth in what Renae says. There’s too much home advantage in Test cricket atm. This is definitely something that needs looking at.

    • I quite agree with the point your making, James, but there is surely a difference between producing a wicket which favours the home side and one which is palpably unfit for Test cricket. When a pitch barely lasts two days I think things have gone too far!

      • Yes. It wasn’t only the pitch. The whole wicket was unfit. By tea on day one the footholds had collapsed making it downright dangerous for the pace bowlers.

      • They probably tried to produce that favoured the home team but got it slightly wrong and went too far. I don’t think the intention was to create a complete disaster!

        • I daresay that’s true. I didn’t actually think the wicket was as bad as some people are making out. It was poor, sure, but the fact some balls kept skidding as much a function of the pink ball than the wicket. It looked like a 200-250 wicket to me but England in particular just didn’t have good enough technique. Also, the on-field umpires kept giving lbws, which accelerated the procession of wickets. I think 5 of the 18 top-6 wickets that fell were to lbws that were umpire’s call, i.e. borderline ones that wouldn’t have been out if not given on-field. But India shouldn’t escape sanction for the footholds, which fell apart in spite of Bumrah and Ishant only bowling about 10 overs. That was really dangerous.

        • I don’t think England could get away with a pitch like that without an official enquiry and disciplinary action. I know all nations try to give themselves an edge with conditions, this has always been the way, but deliberately underpreparing pitches will go a long way to killing test cricket. It has to be a contest of skill, not the lottery we saw last week, where Indian batsmen struggled in similar vein to us. They’ve had a week to put together a decent surface and anything less should be investigated.
          Come on James, they got it slightly wrong? Do me a favour.
          The way Kholi and crew celebrated was inappropriate and the way Pant, a keeper even worse than Buttler, laughed his socks off every time a wicket fell I hope we can rub their arrogant faces in the dirt this week, but I doubt it somehow.

          • Something else that occurs to me and rarely seems to get a mention is the heat our players have to put up with on the subcontinent, which restricts players enough to be a major advantage for the home sides on its own. Playing in 40c is not something you can prepare for over here. It affects all aspects of the game and players need time to acclimatise. With shorter tours and fewer warm up games this is clearly not happening, so upsets are becoming rarer. This predictability will not increase the game’s popularity.

            • That’s an excellent point.

              I recall an interview with Kevin Pieterson, where he said he sweats so much he has to have air conditioning on in the winter!

              It makes his performances in India back in 2012 even more remarkable!

    • Was it the pitch that only lasted two days or the match though, John? My impression was that the pitch was more unusual when it was combined with that particular type of ball than very badly prepared–and that batsmen on both sides, but especially England, couldn’t cope with it.

      I suspect England making a pig’s ear of their reading of it also made it look worse–because it seemed less what they’d expected–than it was.

      • What is absent is reminding us of the gold standard of a cricket pitch – one that offers balance between bat and ball. I do not want to watch a match where bowlers dominate so completely that the batsmen have to get lucky to survive. It insane when unless you are an opening batsman your chances are close to nil to display your skills. What kind of game is it reduced to bare bones like this? Where is the glory of the battle and the batsmen employing the cover drive and the late cut etc to skilful advantage? This was Test cricket shorn of batsmen. Yes we did get the team wrong. And it’s the weakest batting team we’ve had for a while facing spin. But the pitch was never a Test match wicket. Time for all countries to prepare pitches to give good bowlers and good batsmen their chances to show all the depth of the game. This was a farce.

      • Fair point – England batted badly for sure, but, based on what I saw/heard on TV I would say it really wasn’t fit for Test cricket. As hunger pang points out, even the bowlers had problems. I think you’re right about the ball and, as you say, England just couldn’t handle the whole thing.

    • I am not sure England “doctor” pitches. The weather is much more of a factor than the pitch in England.

      • I agree. Overhead conditions are a huge factor in swing bowling. And although England clearly use their home advantage in pitch preparation you don’t see many test matches (between top sides) lasting less than 2 days in England. The ball shouldn’t turn square on day 1 of any match anywhere. Remember India only got 145!

      • Do you remember the colour of the Lord’s’ pitch England served up for India in 2014? The fact that England threw it away by bowling too short doesn’t alter what they were obviously trying to do. Or the Oval pitch in 2009 which Strauss admitted hadn’t been watered for over a week before the match?

        These are just two examples off the top of my head of England blatantly engaging in pitch doctoring (albeit not quite as crassly as India have done).

      • Of course England doctor pitches. Average ODI scores are higher in England than Test innings scores these days.

  • Very good article. England will have to learn to play spin better but seeing the groundstaff making running repairs to the pitch on day two is not a good sign.

  • Hi, I am the author of the article. The point isn’t whether the pitch was good or bad, or even whether England are any good at spin, but that it rendered the match uncompetitive.

    In an era where there are competing formats, it is imperative that the Test format is seen as fair and competitive to both sides in whichever country they are playing. Otherwise why bother watching?

    You are not going to attract new fans to the Test format (or continue to keep keep old ones) if Test matches don’t offer two good teams a fairly equal chance of winning (relative to their abilities).

  • Very much agree with the sentiments in the article. All I’d take issue with is that India don’t have any responsibility for the ECB’s disastrous policies re broadcasting rights and I don’t think the proposed solutions go anywhere near far enough.

    I find it interesting that England haven’t complained. Whether this is fear of India’s financial clout or leaving the door open to do the same is a moot point (probably a bit of both).

    The real turning point in all this was SA’s tour of India in 2015/16. India prepared two rank turners for that series and got away with it. That was the signal for the gloves to come off. Ironically, with SA’s decline and Steyn and Philander out injured, India would almost certainly have won the series easily anyway.

    • Hi Simon, thanks for your response. I have always been of the view that ultimate responsibility for any sport lies with those who govern it.

      Unfortunately if their governance is weak and they are in thrall to wealthy/powerful national bodies (BCCI anyone?) and self-interested lobbyists, then it is the sport that suffers.

      Regarding any solutions, what would you propose beyond what has been suggested? Something has to be done about this issue, otherwise it is difficult to see a future for the Test format.

      • Doing away with the toss is a good one I think. Points docked from the WTC is already happening, and quite possibly already having an effect: it may well make the difference between Australia qualifying for the final and not, even though they were only docked four points and they have over 300. (Of course if the WTC is abolished, then that one won’t make any difference!)

        What more? If we’re talking test pitches, neutral head groundsmen, in the same way that the ICC appoints match officials, is the obvious one to me.

        If we’re talking saving test cricket–and this pitch is probably much less of a problem in that respect than Melbourne in 2017–then we need a test cricket fund so that everyone can afford to play matches. Until then, it will die. And that requires the ICC standing up to the BCCI by redistributing some of their income into that fund.

        • Doing away with the toss is an admission that countries can’t be trusted to prepare wickets giving a balance of bat and ball. This will kill test cricket as a contest on its own. I don’t see how the toss can change that. There have been plenty of incidents where pitches have been misread and the Ritchie Bennaud philosophy of winning the toss, thinking about putting the opposition in and batting seems no longer to be the mantra.
          What’s the point of having 5 day cricket if the pitches are unreliable on day 1. Might as well go back to 3 day tests on uncovered pitches with plenty of cheap wickets for bowlers.

  • I have just the one question then – what would a pitch “ideal for Test cricket” actually behave like? Considering it’s India and most pitches cannot support the concept of “something for everything” …

  • I’ll start this off:

    1) A pitch that doesn’t have pot holes so I am not hiding behind the sofa terrified that my team’s top pace bowlers will suffer career-ending, ankle ligament tearing, injuries.

    • Granted, no one wants potholes at landing zones.

      But really, are these pitches “dangerous” and make you cower behind your sofa? Are you ok with pitches what have significant bounce and seam, needing tailenders fending off balls at high pace, resulting in broken forearms, broken fingers and wrists? happened not too long ago…

      • Hi Har, I take your point. I don’t like to see any sports people get hurt, however batsmen are protected to a certain extent by protective equipment.

        A bowler running at 85mph into a pot hole, however, is a ripped ankle ligament waiting to happen. Jimmy Anderson did, in fact, twist his ankle slightly when he was bowling, which unfortunately, backs up my point. That, and Stuart Broad slipping over as he landed, were not pleasant to watch.

        • Hi ren.
          Absolutely.
          I wonder if it’s an outcome of being a recently laid wicket.
          The pitch itself was not breaking up, unlike Chennai second test.
          Let’s see how the 4th pans out – pitch wise
          Har

  • The analysis of Test cricket’s survival is nice. But the fact remains that whenever green top wickets is a nightmare for the visiting teams nobody bothers to question. When Broad takes 8 wickets on the Trent Bridge pitch on the first day morning and reduce Aussies with just 60 runs, no one questions. or in South africa Aussies were bundled for just 47 runs is another example. In fact they have all appreciated it’s seaming and all that. When the pitch spins so much hullah bullah . Why this kind hypocracy ? Now, Nathan Lyon Australia’s leading spinner posed this same question. Can u answer it ? I know it’s killing the spectators in the stadium and TV viewers. The ICC is a toothless body. They cannot prevail the respective Boards to prepare sporting pitches which last long 5 days. This will go on unquestionably.

    • Hi, thanks for your response. I would say that’s not entirely true. If you click the link in my article on Ravi Shastri’s quote, you will see that it’s taken from a Wisden article written after India’s last tour to England, which they lost in the same circumstances you describe. It made the point that I have about the damaging effect of home favoured pitches (this time favouring England) on Test cricket.

      It’s sad that 3 years later we are complaining about the same issue in reverse. A perfect example of the tit-for-tat cricket I mentioned in my article.

    • Actually that 47 all out was preceded by 96 all out. For some reason batsmen from both teams struggled massively for about two sessions in the game. But that 47 all out was followed by 236/2, with South Africa winning by 8 wickets. I think in the interviews afterwards, both sets of batsmen admitted that for some reason they got their timing wrong, which resulted in absolute carnage.

      All sides engage in pitch doctoring. England is no exception. If it weren’t, they would give 952/6d a real run for their money. Or you know, get green tops for ODI cricket, in which 220 all out may well be very competitive. For some reason, that is not exactly what is happening in England these days.

      I am no expert on the climate in India, but March in Ahmedabad is not exactly start of the season weather in England. And that too will have consequences for pitches and pitch preparation (it would be pretty much end of the season in India too – with the domestic tournaments ending about now, before the IPL starts). The groundsman got it wrong, but not as badly as some people here seem to suggest.

      Likewise in the Chepauk, 60% of domestic overs are bowled by spinners, DESPITE Indian batsmen supposedly being better against spin. So if you get an incompetent bunch, don’t be surprised that the percentages will shoot up. It would be a very strange pitch for the Chepauk if the pacers dominate, but apparently to some people pacers dominating at the Chepauk is ‘fair’.

      Besides, since Kohli has lost 11 tosses and won just two against England in Test cricket, it is one way to mitigate the inevitable loss of the toss ;). Doing away with the toss altogether and letting the visiting side decide what to do, might be the way forward.

      • Make that 12 to 2. With this series being the best performance by Kohli, winning one out of four tosses. I suspect India would be more competitive in England, if they actually won a few tosses there as well.

  • I posted it on another thread, but maybe a bit too long after the initial article was written. I feel pronouncements on pitch are all too frantic. The third test was only the second pink ball test in India.
    The only established pink ball venue globally is Adelaide and they have experimented over years to tune the grass height etc. Until now, there has been no pink ball test that has favored spinners. I feel there will be a lot more of such results that will be lop sided before curators work out the best way to lay out a track.

    Consider these stats – these are the lowest innings scores in Pink Ball Tests:
    Feb ’21 (Motera): 81 all out
    Dec ’20 (Adelaide): 36 All out
    Dec ’19 (Perth): 166 all out
    Nov ’19 (Gabba): 240 all out
    Nov ’19 (Kolkata): 106 all out
    Jan ’19 (Adelaide): 139 all out
    June ’18 (Bridgetown): 93 all out
    March ’18 (Auckland): 58 all out
    Dec ’17 (Port Elizabeth): 68 all out
    Dec ’17 (Adelaide): 138 all out
    Oct ’17 (Dubai): 96 all out
    Aug ’17 (Edgbaston): 137 all out
    Dec ’16 (Adelaide): 142 all out
    Nov ’16 (Adelaide): 250 all out
    Oct ’16 (Dubai): 123 all out
    Nov ’15 (Adelaide): 202 all out

    Home curators will look to prepare pitches that reflect home realities and suit home teams. This is only fair. However, they will get it wrong from time to time. Its the price of change.

    • Further, I feel the pitch in second test was worse than the pitch in the third test. It was a one more sided test than the third test- showing the gulf in the skills. The main fault I see with the pitch in the third test is not the pitch itself but the overall wicket – landing zone imploding did not make for good watching at all.

      As per the author, he wants “competitive” cricket…. Sure, as spectators, we all want that. So what are we going to do if one team does not have the skill to face the conditions? Make conditions bland? That makes no sense. Its up to the teams to develop the skills.

    • Don’t think anyone was complaining about the Adelaide pitch, despite setting a string of records. Probably because it was India losing, rather than Australia (it would have been fun to watch that in the media though!). The Auckland 58 by England did not happen under the lights either. Just England starting a tour in excellent fashion. And of course, when Jimmy Anderson finally took a five wicket haul in Australia (took him about 30 innings, and then had to have the help of the lights), it was Anderson’s brilliance rather than the pitch, Aussie batsmen incompetence, or the ball. Of course. Because it suited the narrative.

      Also note that in your list 6 Tests have sub-100 scores, and only 3 Tests top 200, with the highest being just 250. Test cricket with the pink ball appears to be positing challenges for groundsmen and players alike. It will take time for both players and groundsmen to work out how to go about things.

      As for competitive cricket, I fail to see how the recently concluded Test was less competitive than some of the Toss cricket we had in England in the last few years (eg. Stuart Broad’s 8-15, on a won toss), and a few other places for that matter. At least England won the toss here, to give themselves a chance. That they could not capitalise is due to incompetence, more than anything else.

  • The one thing about match fixing, which is what underpreparing wickets is, that cannot be influenced by groundsmen are the overhead conditions, which allow the ball to swing. This is a totally random issue primarily dominant in England, where swing takes as many wickets as seam. Most of Anderson’s successes in this country illustrate that. Reverse swing is a major influence with the old ball. Even Broad can swing it over here. So not all test victories in England are due to orchestrated conditions.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting