Talking Cricket: Making a better pitch for developing young players (28 July 1999)
If we are to produce better cricketers in this country we must produce better pitches
28-Jul-1999
28 July 1999
Talking Cricket: Making a better pitch for developing young players
Dickie Bird
If we are to produce better cricketers in this country we must
produce better pitches. The ideal scenario for the development of
young players is four-day cricket played on good, fast pitches with
even bounce, which start to take spin late in the afternoon of the
third day and into the fourth. Such conditions provide the necessary
encouragement for batsmen, fast bowlers, seamers and spinners to hone
their skills.
It is, however, easier said than done, as the England and Wales
Cricket Board are finding out. Having done the right thing by
introducing four-day matches, they have been frustrated beyond belief
to find far too many of them all over in two days. There is a growing
feeling that the standard of pitches is to blame. They are far from
the ideal I have outlined.
If matches are over in two days, the spinners are never going to have
the opportunity to develop and improve their skills in conditions
which suit them, and batsmen are never going to learn how to play
top-quality spinners on a turning pitch. Far too often the journeymen
seam bowlers are used to bowl sides out.
I am a big believer in the school of thought that says cricketers
learn their trade on good pitches. That is what happens in Australia
and South Africa, where the pitches are simply magnificent.
So, where are we going wrong? Why cannot we provide such pitches on
which it is possible to have four-day matches which regularly go the
distance? One of the problems is the wear and-tear on pitches
throughout the country. They have taken such a hammering over the
years that it is difficult for the groundsmen to produce the tracks
the England and Wales Cricket Board are requesting.
Is there anything we can do about that?
The tendency these days is for counties to concentrate their fixtures
at one particular ground and this may be adding to the problem. If
matches were played at several grounds around the various counties it
would give the squares more time to recover. The wear and tear would
be reduced considerably and the groundsmen would have more time to
work on them.
Compare Essex, who play on several venues and have an excellent pitch
at their headquarters at Chelmsford, to Yorkshire, who play nearly
every home match at Headingley where the pitch is taking a lot of
stick. It does not help that it is not a very big square.
It could also be beneficial if wheel-on covers were used to cover a
pitch days before a match instead of the plastic sheets which are
usually used. Wheel-on covers allow the air to circulate instead of
trapping moisture, like the plastic sheets.
Some have also advocated eliminating the toss and allowing the away
team to have the choice of whether to bat or field. That, it is
argued, would counter accusations of pitches being doctored to suit
the home attacks. It used to be done that way, so it is not such a
radical suggestion.
Yet we could be on the wrong track, as it were. The pitches may not
be responsible for the early conclusion to so many matches. It could
be down to a lack of technique on behalf of the players. Are the
batsmen knocked over too easily because they have not acquired the
necessary skills?
Another suggestion is that pitches should be left uncovered, at the
mercy of the elements, to try to improve techniques.
There is a case to be made for that but if you leave a pitch
uncovered and there is overnight rain, you could lose a day's play
because of a saturated pitch. I fear that, with the summers we have
in England, far too much play would be lost. For that reason alone
the idea is a non-starter.
You have to think about the paying customers, particularly the
members. They fork out a lot of money to watch their cricket and play
a big part in keeping the game alive. So it would not be fair to rob
them of more days of play than absolutely necessary.
In any case, the only way we are going to improve English cricket is
by providing good pitches, whether covered or not, and we have to
find a way to make that possible.
No doubt, however, even if we did produce the perfect pitch there
would still be complaints from some batsmen or bowlers.
I remember Freddie Trueman once opening the Yorkshire attack and
sending three express deliveries so far down the leg side that the
batsman could hardly have reached them even if he so desired.
Of course, it could not possibly be Fred's fault. So he turned to the
umpire, Dusty Rhodes, and growled: "This bloody pitch isn't straight.
The stumps aren't in line. Any fool can see that."
He refused to carry on bowling until everything was thoroughly
checked. So out trotted the groundsman with his chain and stretched
it, with meticulous care, between the two middle stumps. Perfect. The
creases were checked. Nothing wrong there, either. Everything was in
apple-pie order.
Still by no means convinced, Fred snatched the ball, polished it more
furiously than ever on his ample backside and began the long walk
back to his mark.
As he passed the non-striker, who was gallantly trying to keep a
straight face throughout all the palaver, Fred muttered: "I'll bet
thee a fiver there's summat wrong wi' that theer chain."
Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)