Doctoring the pitches engineering the results of Test matches

Doctoring the pitches engineering the results of Test matches: “You want a balance between bat and ball. You don’t want a one-sided game where batsmen really struggle to score runs and spinners from ball one have got the purchase off the surface”-Anil Kumble

The doctoring of the pitches might muster support from some cricket pundits and also from some fans who are so overwhelmed with the excitement of the shorter version that a five-day slugfest does not turn out be a real crowd puller. But just as the dream of an aspiring cricketer is to leave an imprint in the longer version of the game, in the same way for all the true lovers of the sport a five day, no result match is more satisfying than a three-day win.

With full respect to Indian captain Virat Kohli’s view that winning is what ultimately matters, it should never come at the cost of the unwritten spirit of the game. Rules may not prescribe doctoring of the pitches, but a perceptive line between the unethical and the illegal needs to be drawn.

In order for an introspection in this aspect, a brief run into the memory lane of some famous matches which have been drawn in the controversial light because of the doctoring of pitches might shed some light on this ever so persistent issue in the game of cricket.

• In 1956, Jim Laker’s record of 19/90 at Old Trafford, although won him appreciation from the fans and adornments in the form of world records, at the same time he was also the victim of criticism by the Aussies who accused the hosts of tailor-made pitches to suit their left arm tweaker.
• In 1972 eyebrows were again raised at England’s supposed attempts of doctoring the pitches which were fairly evident when the outfield at Leeds was lush green but the wicket was bare for which a brief explanation was given of the pitch being infected by a sudden outbreak of a fungus called fusarium which just as serendipitously helped their spinner Derek Underwood to give a commendable performance.

If we fast-forward the memory lane, the cricket matches over the past few years have time and again come under the scrutiny of this issue.

For example, in 2009 England prepared a sub-continental pitch to ensure that the efficacy of the Australian pace attack was kept at bay and the lack of an experienced spinner proved deleterious for the visiting side. But the hue and cry over pitches is just a media gaffe at times because after the match is over, it is really the winning team who writes records although the losing team may cry foul innumerable times in vain.

England continued with this tactic even in the 2013 and 2015 Ashes series, where a severe slack from Clarke, Lehmann and the Aussie support staff had been given a nonchalant repartee by the likes of James Anderson and company justifying that tailoring the pitch according to home advantage was a legitimate move. But this might at times stretch the strategy of playing the odds rather than the man a bit too far.

In 2014 when the fiery speedster Mitchell Johnson decimated the South African side at Centurion there was a lot of speculation and talk over the tailoring of the pitch by the Proteas in the second Test at St. George Park with Russell Domingo the curator of the pitch being in media attention. This might have been a desperate attempt by the hosts to save the series which could have been their first series loss since 2009. The home advantage did pay off with the Proteas winning the match by 231 runs and Johnson was humbled as the purple patch of his bowling didn’t blend with the absence of green a green patch on the pitch.

Although India is not the latest entrant in the aspect of pitch doctoring, it is a perfect entertainer for such controversies. In other countries, the tailoring of the pitch is done with the consonance of the curator and the team management to aid the winning efforts of the hosts. But in India, it is more of a contest between the team management and the curator, with the latter trying to establish the ethical superiority by not complying with the requests. Be it the Kolkata curator, Prabir Mukherjee who labelled Dhoni as ‘immoral’ for asking a turning track while the most memorable and detrimental example of such non-agreement was the preparation of the pitch in Nagpur in 2004, for a match against the Kangaroos which was a complete opposite of the recent Nagpur pitch against South Africa.

The curator prepared lush green top to the likes of the visitors which gave them a 342-run win and the hosts a series loss. Although the scenario did depict our age-old tradition of treating the guests as god, it was such a ridiculous situation that even Matthew Hayden penned down in his autobiography, Standing My Ground,about the match stating-: “The curator, a famously single-minded character with no love of the Indian hierarchy, ignored pleas to shave the deck and left a healthy covering of grass.”

Shortly after in 2008, the incident was repeated at Ahmedabad against the South- Africans which saw India being bundled up for 76 in 20 overs. To top all this incidences, the recent Sudhir Naik and Ravi Shastri controversy has again flared up doubts as to whether the pitch should be singled out as the evil when cricket as a game is dependent upon multiple variables.

As Lance Armstrong said- “If everyone does it, it is not cheating.” Recently Australia, a country who has always steered clear of this sporting fad of tailoring pitches has just joined the infamous league of doctoring pitches, but maybe for an acceptable reason. The Adelaide turf had been micromanaged this time for the first Test match with the pink ball against the New Zealand. The reason given was the lack of durability of the pink ball which would be helped by some extra grass to aid the movement of the ball.

Definitely, cricket has come a long way with the shorter formats taking a major chunk of the cricketing calendar. Thus, it’s time that the grit, dedication, perseverance, commitment and in the end, the pure bliss for which Test cricket is revered returns back. Although the point of preparing the pitch according to home advantage might vindicate the doctoring of the pitches, the real question to ask is, whether cricketing talent in any country should be honed to surpass the variable climatic and on-ground conditions or should it be so shallow so as to be at the mercy of the preparation of 22 yards, who instead of being the God for the players, is being turned into an evil manipulator.

Talent is best cherished when it surpasses boundaries with ease. Rafael Nadal might be the King of Clay, but his Wimbledon win has shown that skill and finesse are not inhibited by varying conditions. Thus, it is time that pitches are allowed to retain their natural character and prepared to support a good game of cricket rather than a one-sided contest because cricket like any other sport is too precious a game to be left the at the mercy of one variable that is the pitch. Instead, all the factors that make the game, combining the determined performance of the players and the relentless support of the fans should be strewn together to give us a contest that ensures that the spirit of the game is preserved.