The world of Test cricket is made up of 10 teams. This league of teams is characterised, by and large, by parity. Teams are generally more or less equally good at batting, bowling and fielding. The differences come through in the suitability of a given side to a given set of conditions. The form is for home teams to dominate. If a team is unable to dominate at home, then it could be considered to be worse than the average Test team.
In the 21st century, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and, to a large extent, West Indies have been consistently worse than the other seven teams. There have been many excellent teams that competed well overseas and dominated at home. There has been one outstanding, all-time-great team – Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting’s Australians of the Glenn McGrath-Shane Warne era. And there has been one team that was better than most other teams, but perhaps not quite as dominant as Waugh’s team – South Africa in the Dale Steyn era.
Given this general parity, conditions, and especially pitches are widely scrutinised in cricket. The host Board prepares the pitches. Naturally, this provides the opportunity for plenty of quasi-conspiracy-theories about “doctored” pitches. Pitches in the sub-continent tend to favour spin bowlers. Pitches in England, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa favour speed and seam. The most common type of pitch found in Test cricket is the good batting pitch.
The pitch for the first Test of Australia’s visit to India has helped spin bowlers. Australia’s varied attack and accurate finger spinners bowled India out for 105 on it. India’s spinners had Australia down to 205/9 on the first day. The pitch has allowed bowlers to create chances regularly. This has attracted plenty of comment about how this is not a good Test match.
Turning vs seaming
The “good” and “bad” Test match pitch is entirely an invention of cricket writers. It does not exist in the game. The law (Law 7 as prescribed by the MCC and adapted with modifications by ICC) describes only two types of pitches, and one of those is described only implicitly. “Dangerous” pitches are considered unsuitable for play. All other kinds of pitches are fine. The ICC does rate pitches, but this is driven by commercial considerations rather than cricketing ones. Pitches on which the game ends early are not as lucrative as pitches on which the game lasts the distance simply because the latter enables more advertising slots to exist.
Home teams can and do produce pitches to suit their side. In the 2015 Ashes, after England lost at Lord’s, captain Alastair Cook said he hoped for a “good old English wicket” for the next Test at Edgbaston. Interestingly, when Indian bowlers or captains express their desire for “turning tracks”, this is not received by writers and observers with anywhere close to the same equanimity with which an England captain’s desire for an English wicket or an Australian desire for a fast pitch is received.
This is partly due to the way pitches age. The “ideal” Test pitch, which favours fast bowlers at the start, batting in the middle, and spin towards the end is an illusion. Most Test matches are decided because one side has bowlers more suited to the given conditions than the other.
The other reason why turning tracks are received differently from seaming tracks is because India (and Pakistan and Sri Lanka) tend to suffer when they go overseas. But these troubles are generally not due to their batting in these conditions. It is because their bowlers cannot exploit those conditions as well as the home bowlers.
Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting’s Australian sides, in which the bowling attack was led by Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, were exceptional precisely because they had world-class bowling for any conditions. Since those two retired, no team in the world has had the bowling ability to transcend conditions in the same way. Consider the numbers since their retirement in early 2007 (10 years ago today).
In the last 10 years, Australia, South Africa, England or New Zealand have played 73 Tests against India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka in Asia. Of these, they have won 11 and lost 42. In the same period, India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka have played Australia, South Africa, England or New Zealand 86 times outside Asia. Of these, they have won 14 and lost 55 Tests.
Is it significantly harder to score runs in Asia than it is to do so outside Asia? The evidence says that it isn’t. The batting averages are comparable. If anything, the smaller number of draws outside Asia suggests that batting is more difficult outside Asia than it is in Asia. Further, batting in the fourth innings has been systematically more difficult outside Asia than it has been in Asia. Batting first has been worth 40 runs more than fielding first outside Asia.
Much of the commentary compares India touring England or South Africa as a “away” tour in the same way that England or Australia touring South Africa is an “away” tour. Since Warne and McGrath retired, the home team has not won a series (out of six) in Australia vs South Africa encounters. In the last 10 years, the home team has not won an England vs South Africa series either (out of four). This is because, while the wickets in England are probably not as quick as the ones in Australia or South Africa, the composition of English, Australian and South African bowling tends to be similar.
India have lost four Tests at home in the last 10 years, and won 33. They will probably lose a fifth in Pune. But their victories are not because of the type of pitches they prepare in India any more than their defeats in England and Australia are not because of the type of pitches they have to play on in those countries. The result in all these games is due to the relative quality of each bowling attack for the given set of conditions.
Having accurate finger spinners in India makes a team competitive. Competitive visiting teams to India have always had strong Test-quality finger spinners, from Ashley Mallett and Derek Underwood, to Iqbal Qasim and Tauseef Ahmed, to Saqlain Mushtaq, Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann. In each case, these spinners have been supported by at least one good fast bowler. Australia will be competitive in India this time because they appear to have accurate finger spinners and a genuinely quick bowler, especially if the pitches are turners like Pune.
The turning track is a huge disadvantage to a team which does not have accurate spinners when it is playing against a team with a couple of top-class ones. But it is an advantage to any team which has a couple of good spinners, because effectively reduces the quality gap between the honest, accurate spinner, and the world-class spinner who is not only accurate, but has also mastered many variations.
The Pune pitch is not a bad Test pitch from a cricketing point of view. It is merely a pitch which is significantly friendlier to spinners than to batsmen. It makes the toss important, but no more so than a green wicket makes the toss important. Given Australia’s bowling resources on this tour, a turning wicket is not systematically biased against them. But it does demand that cricket writers watch the Tests carefully, with an open mind.
