Are we too meek?
Here is an interesting article by Prem Panicker that he had recently linked to off his own blog. This is a fairly old piece but I guess much of it is still true. Most of us have often questioned about the apparent racism in the fines/suspensions handed out to Indian cricketers, though the Aussies and South Africans seem to get away with similar if not worse transgressions on the field. But, the above article brings into focus another point that I have often wondered about. Teams visiting India invariably crib about the dust bowls that we serve them. A tour to India is not complete without the visiting captain claiming at some point that "This is the worst pitch I have played on!". But, all that India is doing is playing to its strength (questionable if that still holds!) in the spin department. When we in turn go to Australia or South Africa, we never crib about having to play at Perth or Durban. Why is a pitch that helps spin any worse than a pitch that aids pace and bounce? When our batting order crumbles on those hard greentops, we complain about their techniques. When the Aussie lineup falls like ninepins facing Kumble et al., they crib about the pitch! Has anyone from the Indian team ever responded with a statement that the opposition should learn to play spin better rather than comment about the pitch? I don't recollect any such instance. Please do point me to it if this has ever occurred.
Anyway, I don't really have much time on my hands right now to write a longer post on this. Maybe I'll add on to this post later. Till then, hope to hear comments from some of you on this.
Cheers,
Harsha
posted by Harsha V. Madhyastha @ 8:25 AM
4 Comments:
Nice article. I probably disagree on the issue of pitches though.
Visitors don't complain (openly) when they lose on pitches that turn. They might say that Indians can't win on a pacy pitch or whatever, but they won't specifically say that the pitch was bad unless the pitch isn't firm with lots of rough areas and soil coming off the pitch (from the 1st/2nd day itself).
Traditionally, pace has been give more importance than spin, thus I can imagine that a team like England (who always whine when they lose) would think that they have been beaten unfairly in the subcontinent.
I can also remember that when India lost to NZ in 2002-03, they did criticize the quality of the pitches.
One more factor to consider when discussing pace vs spin is that if you are a good spin bowler then you can trouble batsmen on any pitch. A spinning pitch would basically kill the opposition. IMO, the same doesn't hold for pace. On a batting pitch, apart from the first few overs, the pace bowler becomes ineffective.
Thus, the ideal pitch would be one which is fast and bouncy (not too much of lateral movement) but which crumbles on the last few days to provide spin and reverse swing.
Oh, yeah, our last tour to NZ was certainly one instance when the Indians criticized the pitches. But, in that case, they were so bad that if I remember right, even the home team admitted the pitches were pathetic! :)
I however disagree with your analysis of the difference between pace and spin. Like how a good spin bowler can trouble a batsman on any pitch, I believe a pace bowler with sufficient pace, consistency and variety can trouble batsmen on any pitch too. I think the reason for the popular conception that pace bowlers are ineffective after the first few overs is because we have so few good bowlers around right now. Someone with genuine pace and sufficient consistency like Bond (which I believe Akhtar and Lee lack), can trouble batsmen on any pitch during any period of play.
I agree Bond can be destructive anywhere (On a side note, let's not overhype Bond the way Harmison was).
I think my discussion on spin vs pace was a bit prejudiced. But, somehow winning with spin on a crumbling wicket doesn't seem that appealing to me.
i guess we tend to be more diplomatic....meek wouldnt be the right word i think...
First and foremost, the use of the word "dustbowls" in itself smacks of the view we have of spin-favouring pitches.
I also have a very crazy viewpoint which is as follows:
I think this not so favoured view of spin-favouring pitches is also based on the commentary we hear on TV. Most of the commentary teams are full of batsmen who have never liked/enjoyed the sight of spin.
So, when a ball turns viciously, we are shown and told how the pitch broke up up at the point the ball pitched rather than the fact that the bowler chose to put the ball there!
If the bowler knew that patch on the pitch was such, shouldnt a batsman also be observant enough to know it and also be skilled to know how to overcome it?
If you notice when a person who played spin comfortably commentates, he talks of how the batsman should have come down the pitch to smother the spin etc etc...implying that the dust is nothing but a distraction...
But when the spin-hating demon :-) :-) speaks, he would keep talking of the dust...the cracks ... and all that crap....so easily transferring blame for any wicket to the pitch.
And the viewer gets brainwashed into believing the pitch is a danger to the "spirit of the game" !
Ever wondered why a spin-favouring wicket has names like dustbowl, minefield etc while a fast overly bouncy or swing-favouring pitch is called nothing but a pitch on which "the ball comes on the bat nicely"?
shucks....i tell you until the visiting team has a bowler who can outfox the average indian batsman, they will keep complaining!
And our diplomatic board will keep making pitches faster until the world fast bowler association felicitate the BCCI for such hospitable conditions!
And thus ends my rambling....peace!
Post a Comment
<< Home