Short-changing Test cricket

Cape Town: It would be riveting to be witness to the inner workings of match referee Chris Broad’s brain right now. 

He oversaw the second Test between India and South Africa in Cape Town, and 30 wickets were scalped in four sessions by Thursday. It was the second day of a five-day match.  

Broad has been stringent - fairly or otherwise - in his stint as the match referee, often rating pitches as ‘average’ or ‘below average’ numerous times. 

Coincidentally, the Englishman has been especially critical of pitches in the subcontinent, saying they are not fair to travelling teams. His assessments have always fallen only marginally short of insinuating that Asian teams have doctored pitches.

He, and Zimbabwean Andy Pycroft, weren’t particularly kind to pitches in India during the 50-over World Cup either. So, what of this pitch then, Mr Broad? Is this a fair surface? 

Granted, no one really got hurt for it to be called a ‘dangerous’ pitch, but then again it hardly hurts a batter - save for their egos - when the ball is turning sharply, does it?

Ashwell Prince, South Africa's batting consultant, insisted that the team didn’t ask for a particular kind of wicket. Instead, they entered the Newlands hoping that it would play as it historically has. 

Well, it didn’t play like that. At least, not how it was supposed on the opening day.

Twenty-three wickets were felled on the opening day, and another seven fell in the first two hours of play on the second day. In all, the game lasted 642 balls! 

Braam Mong, the curator, has been in charge of this venue for the last two years, but this is the first time he has prepared a Test pitch. It shows. This was hardly a good pitch for cricket. 

Besides the fact that it was lightning quick and the ball moved off the surface at unnatural angles, it was so uneven that it annoyed many a batter as they could never get their timing right. 

One could argue that Aiden Markram's century was a sign that others could have applied themselves and gotten runs themselves. Sure, there is a case to be made in that regard, but by and large, it’s a weak argument. 

Markram had nothing to lose, and after a point, he flung his hands at the ball because there was no point hanging around. He even admitted later to being lucky as his short-format shots came off. 

It was a fine century in the context of the game because only seven batters had gotten to double digits as of the third innings, but it was not emblematic of the pitch and its properties. 

What does Mr Broad do now? 

Whatever his assessment might be, it’s perhaps time for the International Cricket Council (ICC) to have a look at what’s going on and ring in some changes. 

Since the inception of the World Test Championship (WTC), probably with the exception of Australia, the quality of the pitches has become more host-friendly. It could seem like the quality has deteriorated, but that’s only because games are becoming more and more one-sided. That’s because the hosts want to put themselves in the best position to pick up as many WTC points as possible. In turn, cricket loses out. 

As of now, the ICC does not intervene in the pitch preparation until it comes down to the WTC Final. While all bilateral Test series do come under the ambit of the mother body, the tradition is to entrust the hosts to provide cricketing wickets. 

That’s not so when it comes to ICC’s white-ball events (they do oversee pitch preparations there) so maybe it’s time for them to look at the WTC as one such event too.

That might standardise pitches to a large degree, but the alternative issue is that it will drastically reduce the variables of Test cricket across the sub-continent, in England, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa.

Where’s the middle ground then? 

Here’s a direction offered by Indian skipper Rohit Sharma after the match. “Open your eyes, be neutral and assess pitches as they are,” he said addressing match referees. 

That could well be an answer because there cannot be room for biases in this day and age.