Indian team director Ravi Shastri, ever pugnacious, was bristling in the aftermath of his team’s hefty loss in the ODI series decider against South Africa at the Wankhede Stadium last week.
Watching AB de Villiers, Quinton de Kock and Faf du Plessis obliterate a middling Indian attack, and toying with them as if they were a bunch of disheveled amateurs was bad enough. Listening to the “AB…AB…AB” chants reverberating in the stadium would have exacerbated Shastri’s mood. Seeing India embarrassingly slump to their second worst ODI loss in terms of runs probably had him at breaking point.
Most of Shastri’s post-match wrath was allegedly directed at Wankhede curator Sudhir Naik, whom he is believed to have admonished with an expletive laced barb. Shastri denies that he used the expletive. The BCCI is investigating the incident.
Shastri, and the Indian camp, no doubt would have preferred a wicket that was slow, low and spinning. In theory, that type of pitch would have given them a better chance of winning.
It is true, Naik’s pitch was distinctly batting friendly. But isn’t that the case for the majority of matches in the shorter formats? Anyone watching the World Cup earlier this year would have identified batsmen have a notable advantage. Those tense 150 type run chases appear quite quaint these days because they virtually never happen any more.
That aside, Shastri’s petulance did shine a bright light on some unresolved endless arguments. Should pitches be doctored? Should home teams do what they can to have a distinct advantage over unsuspecting tourists? Are curators independent or merely an extension of their national team?
These questions provoke differing sentiments not just from fans, but also from players. England paceman James Anderson recently admitted England badgered groundsmen during the recent Ashes to produce wickets that would swing wickedly to expose Australia’s most obvious batting fragilities. In the series aftermath, retiring Australian captain Michael Clarke believed it should be left in the hands of the curator as they deem fit.
Personally, wickets should remain true to its innate characteristics; it’s why for instance the WACA in Perth is such a beloved ground worldwide. The WACA is fast and furious, and while Australia has enjoyed great success there in recent years, the West Indies in their pomp used to, quite literally, brutalise them.
But if the WACA became flat and slow merely to benefit the home team, then that should be a red flag. Simply, meddling with a ground’s uniqueness is just plain wrong. Touring teams should expect to toil and combat something distinctly uncomfortable when they venture abroad. But they shouldn’t be blindsided.
Some of the tests during the Ashes became almost farcical due to the conditions. Sure, Australia’s inconsistent batting deserved a share of the blame but wickets producing matches lasting barely more than two days is unacceptable. Fans, particularly those venturing from the other side of the world, deserve far better.
And now we are seeing Saurashtra’s home pitches absurdly producing two-day results during the Ranji season. Ravindra Jadeja, the temperamental all-rounder, is suddenly evoking Bishan Bedi.
This isn’t the essence of cricket. When wickets are doctored and toyed with to such an extent, a cheap knock off inevitably transpires.
It’s unthinkable to imagine the squabbling cricket fraternity uniting over common ground on this subject.
Which means more of these petty Shastri-type incidents are bound to unfortunately arise.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)