India hit the right 'pitch'

Bengaluru: Contrary to expectations, the first three Tests of the ongoing India-England Test series were played on surfaces that were far from being called rank turners, dust bowls or whatever the visiting teams would love to describe them as. Even the Ranchi pitch for the fourth Test, perhaps with the most in it for spinners and which saw England recover to post 353, doesn't fall into those categories. While there's no clear definition of a Test-match pitch, Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam and Rajkot rolled out decks that ensured engrossing contests where every participant had a role to play -- the batters, the pacers and the spinners. The thing with pitches that heavily favour one craft of the game -- whether it's excessive seam movement and bounce or square turn or sleeping beauties -- is that they leave the practitioners of other skills redundant.

The last two Test series that India have played in different countries – at home and in South Africa -- make for interesting case studies. The second Test in Cape Town lasted less than five sessions, with India winning and levelling the series. It was the shortest Test ever played with a result. It had an alarmingly quick and awkward bounce, making batting not just a difficult but dangerous proposition. It was a pitch that should have logically favoured South Africa more than India, but the conditions were so skewed towards the pacers that it became more a game of luck than skills. 

"I don't know what people want me to say," Shukri Conard, South Africa’s Test team coach, had said in his post-match comments. "You only need to look at the scores. One-and-a-half-day Test match! You need to look at how they (India) chased 80 (79). Sad state when you need more luck than skill. All the ethics and values of Test cricket goes out the window," Conrad lamented.   

After three well-contested Tests (with the fourth progressing along the same lines) between India and England, Dinesh Karthik made a pertinent point about preparing pitches which don't glorify ordinary cricketers. When a pitch does too much, turn in India's case, you don't necessarily have to be an Ashwin or a Jadeja to take wickets by the bucket. That legends like Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan average more runs per wicket in India, the acknowledged home of spin, than some of the modest visiting spinners, says a lot about the role of the pitch.

Look at the spread of wickets in this series (fourth Test excluded) and it shows how fair the surfaces have been to both sides. Pacer Jasprit Bumrah is the highest wicket-taker with 17 scalps while the pacers from both sides combined have accounted for 32 wickets in three Tests. England left-armer Tom Hartley tops the spinners' chart with 16 scalps while slow bowlers from either side put together have claimed 63 wickets. There have been eight centuries, including a double, and 11 half-centuries. That's more than acceptable in these conditions. The Indian team management has often been criticised for allegedly demanding rank turners. So, it's only fair that the Rahul Dravid-Rohit Sharma combine is commended for letting the curators work without any interference.    

Not since the four-Test series against Australia in 2017 has a series been more absorbing in India, facilitated in no less amount by the daredevilry of England's batting style and India's belief in their own skills to blunt the tourists' edge even on good pitches. It's also interesting to note that, in 2017, the Pune pitch was an absolute "Bunsen burner" for the first Test, which India lost heavily, but eventually clinched the series 2-1 playing on much better pitches. Even against England in 2016, India won the series 4-0 on fair pitches.  

This, however, is not to suggest that the pitches have to be standardised so that they behave in a similar fashion across the globe. We have white-ball cricket to ensure uniformity, but the nature of Test pitches must necessarily vary based on soil, weather patterns, skill sets of players influenced, and therefore cultivated, by conditions peculiar to a particular region. That's the beauty of red-ball cricket, which takes you out of your comfort zone and challenges you to conquer the conditions and skills you aren't too familiar with.

A Joe Root century (in Ranchi) against the most experienced spin attack is as enjoyable as a KL Rahul hundred in Centurion against one of the best pace attacks in those conditions. A win in Hyderabad for England is as exciting as a win at The Oval for India. That's why winning  a series in India for teams from England or Australia is so difficult and rewarding. That's the reason why India attach more importance to wins in Australia and England than at home, where even a draw is considered a defeat for the hosts.

That said, one of the primary reasons why Test pitches are becoming increasingly difficult to bat is because of the teams' eagerness to win as many matches as possible to accrue maximum World Test Championship (WTC) points from home games. Consequently, we are witnessing more and more shorter Tests that are devoid of any drama that the longer format surrenders itself to as the vagaries of the pitch gradually unravel and fortunes swing back and forth. It's a pity that a championship that was introduced to restore the primacy of the traditional format should defeat its own purpose. Credit to India, though, for shunning that approach and making Test cricket more enjoyable.