Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar questioned the apparent double standards in the way Test pitches are assessed after Australia’s clash against Bangladesh in Mackay ended inside two days. The Pat Cummins-led side stormed back in the two-Test match series after winning by an innings and 51 runs. The hosts didn't let the visitors surpass the 100-run mark even once in the contest, and in the end, the series ended at 1-1.
Writing in his Sportstar column, Gavaskar pointed out that four Tests in Australia have now finished within two days in recent years, yet the pitches involved have not attracted the same criticism often directed at Indian surfaces when matches end early. Last year, two Tests in the Ashes also ended in two days, at Perth and Melbourne.
Gavaskar questioned the familiar argument that batters simply lacked the technique to handle extreme pace and bounce. If both teams struggle to produce substantial partnerships, he argued, the pitch cannot be completely absolved of responsibility.
"So, another Test match in Australia has finished within two days. This has happened four times there in the last few years. And we are yet to hear any criticism of the trampoline-bounce pitches that produce such results. The excuses will come thick and fast. ‘Oh, the groundsman, sorry, turf executive, got it wrong. He went by the weather forecast, which predicted some hot weather, so he left a little more grass, and that led to the excessive bounce.’ Or the other cricketing excuse that the batters didn’t have the technique to cope with the bounce, and it wasn’t the fault of the pitch. This last excuse could be faintly accepted if the home team batters had batted well, but when even the home batters can’t stitch a run or a decent partnership together, then what does it tell you about the pitch?" Gavaskar wrote.
{{/usCountry}}"So, another Test match in Australia has finished within two days. This has happened four times there in the last few years. And we are yet to hear any criticism of the trampoline-bounce pitches that produce such results. The excuses will come thick and fast. ‘Oh, the groundsman, sorry, turf executive, got it wrong. He went by the weather forecast, which predicted some hot weather, so he left a little more grass, and that led to the excessive bounce.’ Or the other cricketing excuse that the batters didn’t have the technique to cope with the bounce, and it wasn’t the fault of the pitch. This last excuse could be faintly accepted if the home team batters had batted well, but when even the home batters can’t stitch a run or a decent partnership together, then what does it tell you about the pitch?" Gavaskar wrote.
{{/usCountry}}The 1983 World Cup winner also said that it wasn't surprising to see Australia resorting to a pacy pitch after losing the series opener. He also said it ended the myth that the SENA countries did not prepare pitches according to their strengths.
"The pitch in Mackay was no surprise. After the Aussies were humiliated by the Bangladeshis in the first Test, they were going to prepare a pitch that would be fast and bouncy. And, of course, claim that the groundsman had done it on his own and there were zero instructions from the team management. We all know what really happens. It’s just that the Indian management is open about wanting pitches to suit its bowling strength, while those from the old powers will do the little whispering and nudging and get a surface that they need," said Gavaskar.
What more did Gavaskar say?
The former opener also took aim at the different standards applied to pace and spin. He argued that batting against quality spin is an equally demanding examination, requiring precise footwork, balance and soft hands. Gavaskar further questioned why fast bowlers who struggle for wickets on slower Indian pitches are not subjected to the same scrutiny as batters who fail on Australian-style surfaces.
"Even today, that brainwashed thinking that a batter has to be judged by how he bats on fast, bouncy pitches prevails, while nobody even asks why lack of footwork, which is such an essential skill requirement to play spin bowling, is not considered a negative and all blame for lack of runs is put on the surface. Playing spin is a real test of batting skill, as it requires deft footwork and soft hands, while playing fast bowling basically has just two movements, either front foot or back foot," wrote Gavaskar.
"Yet lots of players with ordinary records in the subcontinent are called great by those from the old powers. Amazingly, their fast bowlers are never judged by their failure to take wickets on the so-called slow surfaces of the subcontinent. Batters not scoring runs on fast pitches are not rated, but their fast bowlers not getting wickets on slow surfaces still are called great," he added.
His concerns come amid reports that the Mackay pitch was set to receive a “very good” rating, despite the Test lasting only two days. That is the highest rating in the four-tier grading system.
"It will be interesting to see the report and rating for the Mackay pitch by the match referee. There’s generally been a desire among the referees to get brownie points from the media of the old powers, so it won’t be a surprise if there’s no adverse rating for the Mackay pitch just as we have seen for similar two-day finishes in recent years. But lo and behold, if a game finishes in three days in India, there will be all kinds of derogatory reports and insinuations made about the pitches, BCCI and Indian cricket. The hypocrisy is so brazen that it is simply mind-boggling. The usual excuse of ineptitude against fast bowling will be brought out. Nobody says the same when the overseas batters can’t play the spinning ball. Then there’s no lack of ability but hidden devils in the pitch," wrote Gavaskar.
"Like I said earlier, the double standards are simply staggering. Let’s see what rating the match referee gives the Mackay pitch. But Indian fans, don’t hold your breath. The Aussies are breathing comfortably already, knowing there’s absolutely nothing for them to worry about," he added.