Introduction
I began to work on this blogpost just days after India won the cricket Test against South Africa at Cape Town by 7 wickets on 4th Jan. 2024. Instead of commenting on how a 5-day match folded up in under 2 days setting dubious records on the way or on stellar individual performances (mostly bowling), I propose to raise some issues about the quality (or lack thereof) of the Newlands pitch that made the contest so lopsided.
Preparation of Pitches – Broad Regulatory Framework
By convention, preparation of pitches is the prerogative of the home country where the matches are being played. Having said that, it appears that cricketing countries have their own rules for pitch preparation. The oldest among these are The Laws of Cricket of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). The extant version is the 2017 Code. The BCCI website contains the following unequivocal affirmation:
“The BCCI upholds the MCC Laws of Cricket, which are the bedrock of the sport. These Laws ensure fair play, sportsmanship, and competitiveness. We encourage all players, officials, and stakeholders to familiarize themselves with these principles, as they define the integrity of every match under the BCCI’s purview. By adhering to the MCC Laws, we preserve cricket’s spirit, heritage, and timeless values, inspiring fans and players alike.”
In the 2017 Code, the following Laws are relevant.
LAW 6 The Pitch
There are 5 parts to this Law of which the following 3 are pertinent to our discussion.
“6.2 Fitness of pitch for play
The umpires shall be the sole judges of the fitness of the pitch for play.
6.3 Selection and preparation
Before the match, the Ground Authority shall be responsible for the selection and preparation of the pitch. During the match, the umpires shall control its use and maintenance.
6.4 Changing the pitch
The pitch shall not be changed during the match unless the umpires decide that it is dangerous or unreasonable for play to continue on it and then only with the consent of both captains.”
The related Laws are the following.
Law 2 The Umpires
“2.7 Fitness for play
2.7.1 It is solely for the umpires together to decide whether either conditions of ground, weather or light or exceptional circumstances mean that it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place. Conditions shall not be regarded as either dangerous or unreasonable merely because they are not ideal. The fact that the grass and the ball are wet does not warrant the ground conditions being regarded as unreasonable or dangerous.
2.7.2 Conditions shall be regarded as dangerous if there is actual and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire.
2.7.3 Conditions shall be regarded as unreasonable if, although posing no risk to safety, it would not be sensible for play to proceed.
2.7.4 If the umpires consider the ground is so wet or slippery as to deprive the bowler of a reasonable foothold, the fielders of the power of free movement, or the batsmen of the ability to play their strokes or to run between the wickets, then these conditions shall be regarded as so bad that it would be dangerous and unreasonable for play to take place.
2.8 Suspension of play in dangerous or unreasonable circumstances
2.8.1 All references to ground include the pitch.
2.8.2 The Umpires shall immediately suspend play, or not allow play to start or to recommence, if either umpire considers that the conditions of ground, weather or light, or any other circumstances are either dangerous or unreasonable.
2.8.3 When there is a suspension of play it is the responsibility of the umpires to monitor conditions. They shall make inspections as often as appropriate, unaccompanied by any players or officials. Immediately the umpires together agree that the conditions are no longer dangerous or unreasonable they shall call upon the players to resume play.”
ICC – Pitch and Outfield Ratings
ICC launched its system to monitor pitches and outfields in 2006 and updated it in Jan. 2018 to reflect the diversity of playing conditions globally and make member boards more accountable for the pitches they prepare, as also to introduce greater transparency in the rating of pitches. Six potential ratings apply to the pitch as well as the outfield: very good, good, average, below average, poor and unfit. Bottom three ratings incur 1, 3 and 5 demerit points for the pitch and 0, 2 and 5 for the outfield.
A pitch is deemed to be ‘below average’ if there is “either very little carry and/or bounce and/or more than occasional seam movement, or occasional variable (but not excessive or dangerous) bounce and/or occasional variable carry”.
A pitch is deemed ‘poor’ if it “does not allow an even contest between bat and ball” irrespective of whether that favours batsmen or bowlers. The guidelines also invoke “excessive seam movement/uneven bounce/assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match” and “little or no seam movement or turn at any stage in the match together with no significant bounce or carry” as well as “excessive dryness” and “excessive moistness”.
With this overview, I will examine the efficacy of the legal provisions to deal with specific situations like that of the recent Newlands pitch.
Standards First, Ratings Later
It is commonsense as also a legal truism that something cannot be punished as sub-standard unless the standard has been formally (preferably objectively) defined. And yet, this is what the following ICC stance amounts to:
“In addition, if a pitch or outfield is marked as sub-standard, the relevant Home Board and the venue are required to explain why the pitch and/or outfield performed below the required standard.” (emphasis added)
What standard, as ICC does not have one? That of Cricket South Africa (CSA) in the case of the Newlands pitch? In 2002, the United Cricket Board (UCB) of South Africa (one of two predecessors to CSA) had published the book “Principles and Practice of Pitch Preparation” authored by 6 experts from the University of Natal and Potchefstroom University. The book sets out clear expectations and lays down detailed guidelines spread over 13 chapters. One presumes that CSA is still following this book or its updated versions. Chapter 2 of the book titled “What do we see as being a good pitch” states:
“We define an ideal pitch as follows:
Day 1:
The pitch should be quite moist, with some green grass on the surface (not all will agree with this, as in the Australian examples which will be discussed later). A green surface will allow the ball to seam around a bit (later we will explain why greenness promotes this movement). The pitch should have consistent pace and bounce.
Days 2 & 3:
The pitch will have dried out and should become more bouncy and it should quicken up (provided it does not crack badly by becoming too dry too quickly). It will have lost its greenness and so should not seam around much. The ball should come nicely onto the bat and the pitch should now be ideal for batting.
Day 4:
The surface should start to powder and the cracks will start to open up. This will slow the pitch down. It will become less bouncy, the bounce will become more inconsistent and it will start to take spin.
Day 5:
The above pattern will be accentuated as the pitch wears further.”
Chapter 3 identifies the nature of the black soil used, the way the pitch is prepared and water content in the soil is controlled and the type of turf used as the main elements to a good pitch. Details, including general management factors, are discussed in the subsequent chapters.
Can CSA claim with any credibility that Newlands was a good pitch adhering to the guidelines laid by their own experts?
The Untenability of the Umpires’ Position
Taken together, ICC and MCC Laws place umpires in an untenable position. On the one hand, they are the “sole judges of the fitness of the pitch for play”. On the other hand, the onus of deciding whether “it would be dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place” is cast on them acting jointly. More strangely, two riders are imposed to curb their ability to discharge their responsibility objectively. One is that wetness of the grass/ball may be ignored in coming to their decision. The other is that “Conditions shall not be regarded as either dangerous or unreasonable merely because they are not ideal.” These caveats nullify the formal responsibility cast on the umpires and makes their role perfunctory. (Emphasis added)
Pitch Inspection
All Test matches are preceded by an inspection of the pitch by the umpires with the two captains and the match referee accompanying them. Typically, pitches are prepared by professional curators under the supervision of the home board. It is not clear if they give any report to the umpires ahead of the pitch inspection. In the absence of any such input, it is not clear on what basis the umpires come to the conclusion that the pitch is fit for the Test. Coming specifically to the Cape Town test, could the umpires, following their inspection, have anticipated the variable bounce and lateral movement of the ball that was on display within the first hour of the game?
Suspension of Play
As envisaged in Law 2.8, could the umpires have suspended play at some stage and requested CSA to redo the pitch before resuming the match? The tests laid down for this determination are the pitch must be “dangerous or unreasonable for play to take place.” With the commentators freely saying the pitch was ‘treacherous’ were these conditions not met? (Emphasis added)
The Spirit of Cricket
The Preamble to the 2017 Code of MCC referred to earlier opens with the following sentence:
“Cricket owes much of its appeal and enjoyment to the fact that it should be played not only according to the Laws, but also within the Spirit of Cricket.”
The preface to the same Code reads as follows:
“The game of Cricket has been governed by a series of Codes of Laws for over 270 years. These Codes have been subject to additions and alterations recommended by the governing authorities of the time. Since its formation in 1787, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has been recognised as the sole authority for drawing up the Code and for all subsequent amendments. The Club also holds the World copyright. The basic Laws of Cricket have stood remarkably well the test of time. It is thought the real reason for this is that cricketers have traditionally been prepared to play in the Spirit of the Game, recognised in the Preamble since 2000, as well as in accordance with the Laws. The changes made in this 2017 Code reflect views following a global consultation with players, umpires and administrators at all levels of the game, including the International Cricket Council, the sport’s global governing body. The game has evolved quickly, requiring six Editions of the 2000 Code to be published in only fifteen years. A new Code was necessary to rationalise these amendments and to list the Laws in a more logical format and order. The guiding objectives behind the changes, evidenced from the consultation, have been to maintain a fair balance between bat and ball, to make the Laws easier to understand, to safeguard players’ welfare, and to give umpires more mechanisms to address instances of poor behaviour by players.”
Even from the point of view of the spirit of the game and from the perspective of maintaining the balance between bat and ball, the Newlands pitch left a lot to be desired. More disappointingly, the umpires failed to use their authority to suspend the match and have the pitch rectified even after session after session on the first day of play revealed the poor quality of the pitch.
Cricket is the Loser
In all the hullabaloo following the Cape Town test, one must not lose sight of the fact thata match that was to last 15 sessions spread over 5 days was over in 5 sessions in less than 2 days. The match lasted a mere 107 overs as against the maximum 450 overs possible. Test cricket is followed by serious lovers of the game and not by those seeking entertainment value in its shorter formats. The Cape Town test being played in the first week of the new year was expected to attract good crowds on all the five days. Should not the concerns of spectators be factored into any future Code and strictly enforced?
ICC’s Pitch Rating System
Following the early end to the Cape Town test, there has been a call for a review of the ICC’s rating system by players and other personalities on both sides. This seems to be driven by a concern for the rating the Newlands pitch. Obviously, South Africa does not want a repeat of the situation that the Wanderers pitch faced in 2018 when it was rated “poor’ and received 3 demerit points. India feels that the ICC system is unfair because match referees do not treat seaming and spinning pitches on par. This is not a very productive dialogue. A harsh decision about one type of pitch does not automatically justify a similar one on the other. What is required is a complete overhaul leading to a system that is robust and objective.
This is not about the Cape Town/Newlands Pitch Alone
The issue about quality of pitches and their post-match rating is not new and has come up earlier too. The pitch at the Chinnaswamy Stadium which hosted a pink ball test between India and Sri Lanka in March 2022 was rated ‘below average’ as it offered a lot of turn from day 1 and made contest between bat and ball unequal. Prior to that, the VCA Stadium at Nagpur, that hosted the India – South Africa Test in Nov. 2015, was given a ‘poor’ rating as the pitch massively favoured the bowlers. The pitch at the Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium earned a ‘below average’ rating in 2022 as it resulted in a high-scoring contest between Pakistan and Australia with little help to the bowlers. In Dec. 2023, the Mirpur pitch for the second Test between New Zealand and Bangladesh where 30 out of 36 wickets fell to spinners was rated ‘unsatisfactory’ and received one demerit point. Earlier, the pitch at Ahmedabad which hosted the ICC World Cup 2023 final between India and Australia was rated ‘average’.
The Way Forward
Cricket at all levels is a game of skill and not of chance. Or guess work. The uncertainty brought in by the pitch, it’s preparation and anticipated behaviour during the course of a match must be minimised by tweaking the regulatory framework, making it more objective and strengthening enforcement. My suggestions towards this end are spelt out below. They are made in the context of Test matches and can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the shorter versions of the game.
- ICC must issue a new and strengthened global version of the Laws of Cricket that will be adopted and made applicable to all countries. The 2017 Code of MCC can be a prototype for this exercise after member countries are duly consulted.
- The new Laws will make the duties/responsibilities of the umpires more explicit and formal and strengthen their ability to discharge them. Lines of communication among the pitch curator, home board and umpires will be clearly spelt out.
- Umpires will be empowered to take corrective action to salvage a match from deteriorating into an unequal contest because of the vagaries of the pitch.
- ICC must also come out with a global Manual on pitch preparation. The 2002 book of UCB can be the starting point for the exercise. The Manual will leave details of the soil used, etc. to the home board but specify the acceptable standards of pitches in all countries and all playing conditions.
- Pitch inspection on the eve of the match must be more rigorous. Before they go out for pitch inspection on the opening day, umpires will have received/gone through reports from the curator/home board on the quality and reliability of the pitch for the duration of the Test.
- Together, the proposed ICC Laws/Manual will ensure that ‘fitness for play’ and ‘suspension of play in dangerous or unreasonable circumstances’ do not remain vague objectives but become clear mandates for umpires to act on.
Conclusion
The Data Point column of the Hindu dated Jan. 8, 2024 analyses the pitch ratings of Men’s Test matches from May 2019 to Dec., 2023 and points out:
- None of the pitches in New Zealand, South Africa, England and West Indies were ‘below average’ or ‘poor’ whereas more than 10% of the Tests played in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka were on ‘below average’/ ‘poor’ pitches;
- In the first group of countries, less than 25% of the wickets were taken by spinners whereas in the other group, more than 50% the wickets were claimed by spinners, showing that in general, spin-friendly pitches are rated poorly; and
- Similar pitches on which Tests were completed in fewer number of balls were rated differently based on the type of bowling that dominated. Inferior ratings were reserved for spinning tracks.
One hopes that following the pitch episodes in the 2023 World Cup finals at Ahmedabad and the recent one in Cape Town, BCCI leads the initiative to clean up system of pitch preparation and rating. It is clearly not a problem faced only by India but at least by the ‘Asian’ (if not the ‘Global’) South. Later this month, England is in India for a 5-match Test series. One of their players has already let out an ‘anticipatory wail’ that India may may produce ‘turners’. There is no reason for India to live with such insinuations, certainly with a world-class pace attack rearing to go even on our relatively placid pitches.
Let me conclude with this ‘punch’ dialogue delivered by the cop Ajay Devgan to his DGP and police colleagues in his blockbuster movie Singham.
Galat kya hai, yeh jaanne se koi farak nahi padta
Galat ko sahi karne se farak padta hai
S. Krishna Kumar
Bengaluru
8th January, 2024
Blog # 87
Talk the Walk 