Spinning tracks are good for cricket

Every time a pitch on the subcontinent spins a bit, it apparently devalues the integrity of cricket. It seems that "good" cricket should only ever be played on fast, bouncy, batsmen-friendly pitches that start to spin a little bit very late in the game. Anything other than that, if it's played in the subcontinent, is not really cricket. Apparently. Especially after Shane Warne retired.

Ricky Ponting's thinly-veiled swipe at the pitch at Premadasa Stadium in Colombo is the latest instalment in that line of reasoning. Likening it to "rolled mud" is another (polite?) way of saying that it was unfair or doctored or against the way cricket should be played. To be honest, I haven't watched a ball of the World Cup yet but after reading these comments, I took a good, hard look at the scorecard from the match and then watched the replay before I wrote this piece. From that limited perspective, I have these arguments to put forward to advocate for more pitches like this in world cricket.

Firstly, as Ponting himself admitted, the Sri Lankans "had a pretty good idea that it was going to be that slow and low and was going to spin a fair bit, hence the reason they played their spinners." Duh! So what's the problem with that Ricky? You could choose to play all of your spinners if you wanted to. You are allowed to nominate your team before the toss, you know. Oh that's right, you went into a World Cup campaign on the subcontinent with a predominantly fast bowling attack and a spinner (Krezja) who was chosen after all the other options had been exhausted. And that's somebody else's fault?

Apparently this pitch was going to be difficult to chase runs on. Can't recall any mention of "rolled mud" before the toss, can you? They spun the coin, Sri Lanka won the toss and all of a sudden, it becomes a problem. I thought that's why we toss the coin in the first place; to allow the winning captain to make a decision on what he'd like to do first. Is that totally unique to this World Cup on the subcontinent too? The captain who wins the toss has never had an advantage before in any game of cricket?

Apparently this pitch was going to be difficult to chase runs on. Can't recall any mention of "rolled mud" before the toss, can you? They spun the coin, Sri Lanka won the toss and all of a sudden, it becomes a problem. I thought that's why we toss the coin in the first place; to allow the winning captain to make a decision on what he'd like to do first. Is that totally unique to this World Cup on the subcontinent too? The captain who wins the toss has never had an advantage before in the game of cricket?

Let's look at the way the game itself panned out before it rained. Sri Lanka were 146 for after 33 overs with a batting Powerplay still up their sleeve and two batsmen well settled at the crease. It would not be inconceivable to surmise that they might have scored 250+. Not the sort of pitch that could be called a "shocker" then. Perhaps it might have been a shocker if you had poor spin bowlers or your batsmen were poor players of spin bowling but for a well balanced team (like the three-time World Champions surely are), 146/3 in the 33rd over with a Powerplay still to come is not quite the diabolical state of affairs that I envisaged when I first saw the "rolled mud" comments and rushed to check out the scorecard.

Of the three wickets that fell, the first (Dilshan) was an ambitious drive to second slip after a period when the 'red mist' had descended on the batsman and he was flaying at anything. Good bowling on Tait's part but hardly the sort of wicket that could be attributed to the pitch. The second dismissal (Tharanga) was a slashing cut shot off Lee brilliantly intercepted by Smith at point, again hardly something that could be blamed on the pitch. Jayawardene's run-out was due to another piece of Smith brilliance. Can't blame the pitch for this one either.

From this point on, Sangakkara and Samaraweera put on 71 in approx 17 overs (with no Powerplay) until the heavens opened up. The Australian spinners, Krezja and Smith, bowled 12 overs and were not able to get a single wicket. Sure, the ball turned appreciably and it was clearly a pitch that would have suited any decent spin bowler but the facts are that not one of the dismissals could reasonably be attributed to the pitch or to the spinners. Rolled mud? I was expecting to see a scorecard that had Sri Lanka at 130 for 7, perhaps with Krezja, Smith and Hussey running through the top order. Instead, it looked suspiciously like a total heading towards 250 and an engrossing evening's cricket with fine batsmen like Shane Watson, Ponting and Michael Clarke batting against high quality spinners like Muttiah Muralitharan and Ajantha Mendis. How is that not good cricket?

Which brings me back to my original point of what constitutes a good cricket pitch? Is it only Perth, Brisbane, The Oval and Johannesburg that qualify in this category? What happens when teams get bounced out on these sorts of decks, unable to cope with seam, steep bounce and a lack of skill to execute horizontal bat shots? Would it be true to say that this was a "cow paddock" or a "savannah" with too much grass on it? Would both teams not have the chance to choose their teams before the toss and then play according to the conditions? Have home teams never prepared pitches that suit their strengths? Or does that only happen in the subcontinent?

I recall way back in the 1980s when the West Indians were nigh on unbeatable and no one could match their pace attack. Australia prepared two turning tracks at the SCG in the 84/85 and 88/89 series and gave them a good hiding. Murray Bennett and Bob Holland, those legendary spinners, took 15 wickets in one of those matches whilst those other notable spin 'greats', Allan Border, Trevor Hohns and Peter Taylor took 18 of the 20 West Indian dismissals that fell in the 1989 fixture. The only wicket to a fast bowler went to Merv Hughes. As a young boy watching those Tests, I rejoiced, not only in Australia's victories but also at the sheer enjoyment of watching a different style of cricket to the usual fast bowling battery and the way batsmen had to adjust to different conditions. Ponting would only have been a mere lad then, more engrossed in rolling in the mud than worrying about "rolled mud".

I've lost count of the number of times we have skittled the Asian teams, sometimes even England and New Zealand (and recent West Indian teams) on pitches that were so suited to fast bowlers that the spinners never even warmed up (if in fact we even selected any spinners on such pitches). No complaints then that teams went into the match with more than two quicks! So what if a pitch is expected to spin and Sri Lanka selects three spinners? Does that somehow devalue the contest? As Tendulkar was once alleged to have said "if it spins, does that mean it is not Test cricket?"

What about the famous Mumbai Test Match in 2004 (Test #1720) when Australia collapsed chasing a modest 107 runs to be all out for 93? For 90% of that match, when they were on top and renowned spin bowlers like Nathan Hauritz and Michael Clarke were cutting swathes through the vaunted Indian batting line up, there was no talk of it being the "shocking pitch" that it was later described as. In the very next Test Australia played, they demolished NZ for 76 in Brisbane (Test #1721) and a few weeks later routed Pakistan for 73 in Perth (Test #1726). I don't recall either of the touring teams making disparaging comments about the pitch being a "goat track" or an unacceptable green top. They manfully accepted that they were playing away from home and were "touched up" by a far superior team who knew how to play those conditions much better than their techniques could handle. Isn't that just good cricket?

So for the rest of this World Cup, can we simply accept that it might just spin a little bit (surprise, surprise) and the winner of this tournament will be the team that reads the condition best, selects an appropriate XI for that match and can then execute skills to suit those conditions? Australia has the skill to win this event but let's just hope we do it with a bit of grace and an acceptance that the conditions may not necessarily be like what we're used to back home. Did we seriously not think the pitches might turn a bit in this World Cup? Is that why we went the high-risk strategy of selecting a squad with lots of fast bowlers and one specialist spinner? Did no one tell the selectors (or Ricky) that this World Cup was being played on the subcontinent and there was a rumour that it might favour spin bowlers? Was it that much of a shock that the Premadasa pitch was dry and suited the home team's strengths? Just think back to Sydney 1989, West Indies and Border's 11/96 before we whinge too much about home ground advantage.

Rolled mud indeed! When the opposition is 146 for 3 in the 33rd over and your spinners haven't been good enough to get a single wicket, it's not the ideal time to throw your toys out of the cradle Ricky. Or your protector at the TV set!