Success on designer pitches offers the Indian team a false sense of security which can lead it down a slippery slope, writes Nirmal Shekar
IT is a pleasure to watch the Indian cricket team playing a Test match at home. And the pleasure is derived from the fact that you don’t have to watch it at all for the most part. For, you know the result five days ahead, especially when the Indian captain wins the toss.
Nothing in the established sporting world is designed quite as efficiently to suit the home players as the pitches in India. Spinners with average abilities suddenly begin to look like demons from outer space; batsmen who have been scratching for runs for a season or two, overnight turn into manic destroyers; the sports media, after relentlessly targeting a team that lost eight Test matches in a row overseas, once again find themselves dusting up from memory all the purple prose that we are bombarded with whenever the Indian team wins.
There is not a single side in international cricket that can hope to come anywhere near India when it comes to taking advantage of conditions at home. Many might see this as a great virtue; some might see it as pointless in a larger context where performing away from home matters more than picking the low hanging fruits gleefully in Ahmedabad or Mumbai.
Of course, home advantage is nothing new. But in no other sport, in no other country, is the home advantage as overwhelming as it is in Indian cricket.
Nature of pitches
Home advantage has several components — the weather, crowds vociferously cheering their heroes, and then the playing surface. But when a cricket team visits India, the first two can be easily discounted these days. For, the home advantage for the Indian cricket team is derived primarily from the nature of the pitches in this country.
Unfortunately, success on “designer” pitches offers the Indian team such a false sense of security and breeds complacency and can lead it down a slippery slope. It means the team is ill-prepared for the vastly different challenges it may face abroad.
You can argue that it would be boring if Test cricket were to be played on the same kind of pitches all over the world. This is very true, and the point that I am trying to make here is not one that advocates uniformity of playing surfaces. Every country has its own special flavour and a true cricket fan should love to savour it.
Yet, it is one thing to celebrate difference; quite another to turn desperation into a timely gift and prepare conspicuously bad pitches for Test cricket so that the home team might profit from it.
“You call that a Test wicket? You must be kidding,’’ said an angry Viv Richards after his team went down to the ‘guile’ of Narendra Hirwani at Chepauk in Madras in 1988. Hirwani picked up 16 wickets in that match and while at it, he might have looked like the greatest spin bowler this country has ever produced.
Richards was not the only captain to find himself in quicksand. There have been plenty of others; and from the looks of it, there will be a lot more to come.
After Dale Steyn, arguably the greatest active fast bowler playing international cricket, cleaned up India for 76 in the second Test at Ahmedabad to set up a superb victory for South Africa in 2008, the groundsman at Kanpur handed out a perfect pitch for the home team.
India had levelled the series. Such dubious victories do little to promote the cause of international cricket. It might make the home team, the advertisers on television networks and lay fans very happy, but essentially it proves nothing.
Whether you like to hear this or not, whether you believe it or not, the pitches at Lord’s or Melbourne or Johannesburg are seldom tampered with significantly to suit the home team. They are what they are because of the soil conditions and the climate.
Adding lustre
Variety is the spice of life and differences certainly add lustre to sport. But it is one thing to be proud of what is naturally different in our sporting environment and quite another to stretch the difference to unnatural limits so that visitors would find it impossible to adapt to the conditions.
Then again, Alastair Cook’s men may not have lasted beyond the third afternoon if they had been playing against Chandrasekhar, Bedi, Prasanna and Venkatraghavan on this Ahmedabad surface.
Ohja and Ashwin may be talented but they have a long, long way to go and it is not going to help their cause if curators turn them into giant terminators at home because they will have nobody to look up to when they play abroad. And fans in India, their expectations swollen from watching the pair at home, will begin to think that they might be world-beaters irrespective of the conditions.
Given its financial muscle, enviable infrastructure and the popularity that the game enjoys in this country, Indian cricket has the capacity to become what Brazil is to football. But this cannot be achieved if we continue to look for the easy way out, which is via dust bowls.
After shouting from the roof-tops at the start of every season about the need for sporting tracks, we always seem to end up with half-cooked pitches on which dwarfs suddenly metamorphose into Gullivers. Will India ever learn?



Nirmal Shekhar has got it all wrong! Cricket is a surface game and the key point is
being able to play and win on all surfaces like the mighty Windies or the great
team of Oz. That India are tigers at home and only at home is not just about the
surface, but also about the attitude. Our teams have historically shown no great
motivation in preparing seriously for tours abroad, and in digging in and adapting
to foreign conditions. We also have lost in Pakistan and Sri Lanka where the pitches
weren't very different or to New Zealand and England who boast the most
mediocre of attacks, when playing away. A similar problem affects all but a handful
of teams.
While it is correct to ask the Indian team to show more fight and professionalism
abroad, it is ridiculous to ask for English pitches in India.
Or do you think that we should also have grass courts at Roland Garros or clay at
Wimbledon, or horror or horrors, only hard courts everywhere?
This is absolutely ridiculous. Whenever Indian team goes abroad like
England or Australia, everyone shouting that Indian team can't play seem
bowling. The player like Sachin cannot play seem, pleaseeee. If others
can take advantage of their home conditions and pitches, than why not
us. This is the only thing that makes Dhoni Unique from the other
captains in the world.
Why is the technique to play on turning pitches not important? When people say that Indians can't play on bouncy and seaming tracks because they don't have those on the domestic matches, why do they forget to add that Australia, Eng and SA can't play on spinning tracks because they don't have the technique.
What the writer of the article does not seem to understand is that
Dhoni is not asking for tailor made spinning tracks, he is just asking
for restoration of our Original pitches which were spinning tracks and
playing on which required different kind of skill. There is nothing
wrong in giving support to our team in all the ways possible, the way
it happens in England and Australia where all quarters of people,
including sports writers, of those countries single mindedly help
their team succeed.Where as our sports writers take pride in criticizing our team more than any thing else.When it comes to
sporting spirit of Indians,i think our sportsman are one of the best
in that department. the whole world knows about the sporting spirit of
English and Aussies.The article looks totally biased.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with the views expressed by the
writer. That he is anti-cricket is well known and as is his wont, he
tries to detract from every Indian win(remember him doing so even when
India won in Perth 2008). Some points for him to consider:
1) this was far from a designer pitch, except for the odd ball which
spun and bounced. It was largely lifeless and credit to India's
bowlers who made the condtions look redundant. Look at the way the
Indian pacers bowled compared to the much vaunted Englishmen. Umesh
looked dangerous in just about every spell, while anderson and Broad
looked like trundlers
2) And how can he term someone who toils for 60 overs on a lifeless
pitch and who got a bagful of wickets, and foxed many batsmen,someone
with "average abilities"? Ojha has struggled to reach where he is
today(as has Ashwin), and dismissing him as average is cruel.
3) Its laughable that the writer only has problems when India prepares
favourable tracks, but not the west
True cricket fans should love the variety that it has on offer. However, can you be considered as a fan? I wonder as you confess that its a pleasure watching cricket played in India as one doesn't need to watch it fully. Doesn't that sound like someone who is bored of watching cricket?
As for your diatribe against designer pitches, it seems as if its (mis)guided by foreigners. Yesterday, Greg Chappell wrote in this very newspaper: "Don’t listen to those who want you to believe that wickets in Australia, England and South Africa are doctored to suit the home team. They are what they are, due to local soil and weather conditions." Today, you write: "Whether you like to hear this or not, whether you believe it or not, the pitches at Lord’s or Melbourne or Johannesburg are seldom tampered with significantly to suit the home team. They are what they are because of the soil conditions and the climate."
Well!! Well!! That seems awfully like parroting to me.
First, you have mistaken spinning pitches for bad pitches. Just because a pitch is spinning does not mean it is bad! Second, Dhoni's main issue is that the pitches are too benign. They need to be spiced up. And between a green top and a spinner friendly one, which would you prefer if you were Dhoni? Third, will these critics from abroad be comfortable if their pitches are spinner friendly?
Has the desk at the Hindu stopped subbing articles? How is it that Mr. Chappell and Mr. Shekhar use almost identical words to make the identical case in two separate articles, comparing the "natural" differences in Western pitches with the "artificial" advantages in India.
Does logic as well as cricketing sense completely escapes our commentators. I know that Mr. Chappell has an axe to grind given his dubious record and well-deserved exit from the top job in Indian cricket. But why does Mr. Shekhar, a well respected columnist toe the ridiculous line about "designer" pitches to denigrate the hard work put in by Indian bowlers in what was a newly-laid and very non-designer pitch in Ahmedabad? If Ojha and Ashwin are "spinners with average abilities" then what about Swann, rated as one of the best offspinners around? Why was he not able run through the Indian side? Could it simply be that our bowlers know how to better use Indian conditions, as Anderson and Co know their own?
An article from a man who in all probability not even seen the last test. I don't know what 'pleasure' the writer draws from a pitch which is slow and low, not allowing batsmen their runs, the bowlers the value for their efforts. Did Mr. Shekhar knows the lineup of opposition has the best fast bowlers and the best spinner and the test can be mouth watering if toss is rendered unimportant? Besides, why does he want a green top in India! Isn't the natural Indian wicket offers turn. Like many journalists, this one is too is a rabid Dhoni hater. But in all your prejudice Mr. Shekhar at least offer a valid argument. For it feels bad enough to have an average current XI playing for India. But for all the popularity of the sport, to have abysmal writers like you commentating, just breaks the fan's love.
I do not agree with this article at all.
"For, you know the result five days ahead, especially when the Indian captain wins the toss." Totally false. For eg., what if England had put up a better show in the first innings?
"Spinners with average abilities suddenly begin to look like demons from outer space." You are kidding, right? Ashwin and Ojha - Average? What about Swann? Oh, yeah, he is an extraordinary spinner who cannot take more wickets than "average" spinners on "designer pitches" in India.
"But in no other sport, in no other country, is the home advantage as overwhelming as it is in Indian cricket". This is a very strong statement. Are you pretty sure? I wonder why Australia and South Africa do not prepare turners for India when we visit them. Are you sure about other sports?
I think you fail to understand that spin bowling is in no way inferior to pace bowling. May be you should write similar article when pace bowlers destroy Indian batting overseas on "Test wickets".
I came here via a link on google news. I am not sure of the
credibility of the author and to me it looks like a correct conclusion
without a proper reasoning.
i) Is the author criticizing the Ahmadabad pitch? There were hardly
any demons in the pitch.
ii) I would rather watch a test match that ends in 3 days than one
which ends in a draw with multiple double tons.
iii) "India had levelled the series. Such dubious victories do little
to promote the cause of international cricket." Really, what do you
mean by this? The toss is not decided by BCCI's muscle (such a
hopelessly popular phrase these days). BCCI does not hold home series
on 2 strips in the same match.
A fair game is all we care about. The game is not a 100m sprint where
everyone starts equal. In chess white has advantage and in F1 the pole
position often has advantage. Winning toss and making the right
decision gives an advantage and it is intrinsic to the game of
cricket. BCCI and home advantage do not apply here.
well the author is a little confused i guess...he says the pitches are
based on climate & soil..so whats wrong when indian pitches spin, dats
climate & soil. we under rate indian spinners because they do well on
favourable tracks & what about the fast bowlers from engalnd & australia
who cannot bowl in sub continent?
What the author fails to understand - even though the pitch is a dust
bowl, our batsmen still have to play and score runs and our bowlers take
20 wickets. What matters in the end is the win to loss percentage and no
one cares where you win.
Infact indian seamers took more wickets than the poms in the first
match.
Also conditions to India are alien in lords or wanderers or Perth, so
what is the big deal if we play to our strengths?
Please Email the Editor