Home ground advantage can be a big thing when it comes to international Test cricket. The stadium, the home crowd, the weather conditions, and last but not least, the pitch.
Lets get it out of the way early, every international standard ground has a pitch with a character unique to it’s location. This is to be expected. The weather conditions, the soil, the grass, they all play a part in making a pitch what it is. Some naturally bounce more than others, some seam more than others and some spin more than others. They’ll change over the course of 5 day match, degrade, break up, crack. These are known, accepted facts, and part of what makes Test cricket unique. Things start to become a little murky and questionable however when home teams interfere with the preparation of pitches – pitch tampering, pitch doctoring, whatever you want to call it.
The 2021 England tour of India has really shone a light on the practice. This is not to say it hasn’t at times happened in other countries, but it would appear that in the England series, India have amped things up to 11.
The First Test
In all started with the first England vs India test at Chennai. The pitch held together for the first 3 or so days and appeared good for batting, going in to day 4 it started to crumble and as day 4 progressed and going in to day 5 it was, as you’d expect of a day 5 pitch, very challenging to bat on. England won the toss and batted for 2 days racking up 578 off the back of a Joe Root double century, also helped by a mammoth 45 extras. India replied with 337 in their first innings. England made 172 all out in their 2nd Innings with India then bowled out for 192. It is worth pointing out that 5 of the 10 wickets in India’s second innings fell to pace, suggesting there was enough in the pitch for everyone.
The first innings for both sides saw wickets fall to both pace and spin, and as the game progressed spin began to take over, which is to be expected in the sub-continent.
Was it a good toss to win? Definitely, but most are. In the first test the difference between the two teams was Joe Root. Take his 218 out of the equation and the first innings from both sides look very similar. Players from both teams getting starts, in to the 70s, 80s and 90s without capitalising and going on to make a big score. It was that one player that pushed on to make the most of the opportunity that ultimately made the difference. Had Root been dismissed early in his innings – and his first 30-40 balls weren’t faultless – or had an Indian batsmen gone on to make a big score themselves, the result of the first test may well have been different.
Reaction to the first Test loss at home since 2017
Now, here’s the thing. India do not lose at home often. From 2010 to 2019 they played 50 test matches, losing only 4. In the past decade they’ve dominated in home conditions. So losing the first test at home, the first loss since 2017, was bound to cause some reaction.
Following the loss Captain Virat Kohli was critical of both the pitch and the SG ball.
India continually attempted to get it changed as the seam split apart, and Kohli feels both the unresponsive pitch and quality of the ball made a major difference to the eventual outcome.
“The reality of the situation is that the pitch was very flat and slow,” he said, as India slumped to a fourth defeat in a row under his captaincy despite his fifth day 72.
“Virat Kohli complains about Chepauk pitch and SG ball as India lose veneer of invincibility“, Nick Howson, The Cricketer, 09/02/2021.
While there were question marks over the ball, it’s worth highlighting that India persevered with the 2nd new ball for 104 overs in the first innings, making you question if the ball was such an issue, why persist with it 24 overs longer than necessary?
With Kohli’s dissatisfaction with the 1st Test pitch noted it was perhaps not all that surprising to hear that there would be changes before the 2nd Test got under way, also at Chennai.
NEW DELHI: Following the defeat in the first Test in Chennai, the Indian cricket board has removed its curator who was to oversee the pitch preparation at the MA Chidambaram Stadium for the second Test, starting on Saturday. Now, the Indian team management is overseeing the pitch preparation along with chief local groundsman V Ramesh Kumar, who hadn’t prepared a pitch even for a first-class game before the first Test that India lost to England here on Tuesday. Now, Kumar has been assigned the crucial task of preparing the pitch, for which black soil will be used instead of red.
“2nd Test: BCCI curator sent off, India team management gets involved“, The Times of India, 11 February, 2021.
You read that right. After the result in the first Test, the Indian cricket board removed the curator in order for Indian team management to take over preparation of the pitch along with a local groundsman who had never even prepared a pitch for a first-class game before, let alone an international.
As a cricket fan, I had to laugh. I’d read this script before and I think most neutral cricket fans could predict exactly how the 2nd Test pitch would play.
A trip back in time to Ranchi
Australia’s 2017 Test Tour of India had a lot of similarities between the England Vs India contest. Australia arrived on the sub-continent with a handful of players with experience in sub-continental conditions thanks to previous tours and stints in the IPL, and there were no real illusions as to the type of pitches they’d be dished up. While it wasn’t the strongest Australian side that had toured India, there were high hopes of a tight contest. The series started in a similar way as well, with Australia taking victory in the first match.
The first test in Pune started the way many expected with plenty of spin. The ball spun sharply from the start of play, with it getting worse as the game progressed. Australia batted first and ground out 260 thanks to a patient 68 from Matthew Renshaw and a high risk/high reward 61 of 63 balls for Mitchell Starc. India were then rolled for 105, with all the wickets falling to spin. India backed it up in the 2nd Innings all out for 107. Steve O’Keefe was the unlikely destroyer taking 12 for 70 in the match. The game was over within 3 days. 40 wickets fell within 9 sessions.
“The great irony of the first Test in Pune is that India’s penchant for pitch doctoring has backfired, the hosts blown up by their own treacherous minefield.
Speculation is rife among the local media that the BCCI may have caught wind before the Test that the curator had failed to deliver the wicket that had been ordered, but by the time their own expert pitch doctor arrived it was too little, too late.
The pitch hadn’t been watered for days and it already resembled an “eighth-day” wicket, as Warne surmised.
“Australia v India Test series 2017: Pune minefield claims the wrong victim it was designed for“, Ben Horne, The Daily Telegraph, 25/02/2017.
When you consider that Indian authorities also have a penchant for throwing a spanner into the training and match day preparations of touring teams by providing practice conditions the complete opposite of what they’ll find on game day
Indian authorities served up a green pitch for Australia in Mumbai [for the practice match], and put them on green practice wickets before Pune.
It’s this common place treatment in the subcontinent that forced Australia to take the bulk of their preparation off shore to the UAE.
“Australia v India Test series 2017: Pune minefield claims the wrong victim it was designed for“, Ben Horne, The Daily Telegraph, 25/02/2017.
The 2nd test was more of the same, an extremely low scoring affair, with India winning the toss forcing Australia to bat last on a deck that turned and showed inconsistent bounce early. A number of players were caught on the pads with balls keeping low. Australia lost after managing to take the game in to a 4th day.
The Bangalore pitch for the second India vs Australia Test has been rated ‘below average’ by International Cricket Council (ICC). Before this, the Pune pitch for the first Test was rated ‘poor’.
‘India vs Australia: After Pune shame, Bangalore pitch rated ‘below average’, Sanjjeev K Samyal, Hindustan Times, 14/03/2017.
After the scathing assessment by the ICC of the first two test match pitches, a casual observer could be forgive for thinking that the pitch doctors might take the 3rd test off. Nope. If the first two were bad, the 3rd Test pitch set a new benchmark, exceeding most peoples wildest expectations.
AUSTRALIA’S worst fears for the third Test have been realised, with India rubber-stamping a pitch stitch-up for the ages in Ranchi.
Curator SB Singh banned Australian players from taking photographs of the wicket on Tuesday, but the latest conspiracy was as clear as rolled mud with Steve Smith’s bemused team now bracing themselves for the dodgiest deck of the series so far.
In Pune, the pitch was condemned as “poor” by the ICC and in Bangalore match referee Chris Broad reported the wicket as “below average”.
However, remarkable scenes in Ranchi on Tuesday indicated that pitch doctoring has now gone to another level and the reputation and integrity of Indian cricket is on the brink of complete embarrassment.
“Indian pitch doctors take their craft to a new low in Ranchi“, www.dailytelegraph.com.au, March 15, 2017
The Ranchi pitch was so bad it was reported as looking as though it had already been played on with signs of foot marks. As with the current England vs India series, Australia bowling strength was largely in it’s pace attack. Ranchi was clearly a reaction to that with the pitch prepared to negate any pace or bounce. As with the 2nd England vs India Test at Chennai, for the visitors to stand a chance winning the toss would be key.
Fortunately for Australia they won the toss, batted first and managed to post a respectable first innings total. India went out in their first innings determined to bat Australia out of the game spending over 200 overs at the crease piling on 603 runs. This arguably worked in Australia’s favour as enough time had been taken out of the game for Australia to hang on for – what what few had predicted before the start of play – an unlikely draw.
In the end, the Ranchi pitch produced what next to no one had predicted – a 5 day match. Rather than devolve in to a mine field, the pitch held together for the most part. Was that intended or was it an accident? Who knows, but the Ranchi pitch was an example of one that ended up playing completely different to how it looked.
The issue with the Ranchi pitch was not the pitch itself, but the behaviour and involvement of the BCCI leading up to the game.
Singh prepared three wickets for India to choose from as reported by The Daily Telegraph last week, and he did nothing to cover up the level of pitch doctoring when he confirmed to Australian media yesterday that the BCCI is indeed responsible for making the final call.
If the decision was between well done, medium and rare – India have selected a surface off the menu as raw, dry and grassless as any pitch this Australian team has ever seen.
In Australia, the concept of choosing or ordering pitches is unheard of, with local curators the sole decision-makers.
“Indian pitch doctors take their craft to a new low in Ranchi“, www.dailytelegraph.com.au, March 15, 2017
Which takes us back to Chennai, 2021.
The Second Test
With the BCCI removing the Chennai curator leading in to the 2nd test to take over pitch preparations along with an inexperienced local curator I think most people knew where the 2nd Test was headed. Team India fired up an old Bunsen Burner for the visitors with the ball breaking through the surface in the first session on Day 1. This was not a pitch that had been delivered for India to lose on. In another case of ‘a good toss to win’ India batted first. I wouldn’t say the game was necessarily decided by the toss but it was fairly obvious that batting in the first session and a half was as easy as it was probably going to get.
Like Mitchell Starc in Pune in 2017, the high risk/high reward tactic seemed to be the way to go. Rohit Sharma got off to a cracking start with his play style the very definition of high risk/high reward. From the outset it was a pitch where, if the batters tried to just stick around defending, it was only a matter of time before they got a sharp turner with their name on it. Case in point was Virat Kohli being bowled for a duck by a ball from Moen Ali that made him look like Shane Warne.
Like the 1st Test, the 2nd was set up off the bat of one innings, that of Rohit Sharma. With India scoring 329 in the 1st Innings, Rohit Sharma contributed approx. half of that total. While his risk taking was indeed rewarded, it could so easily have gone the other way. Like Englands 1st innings in the first test, if that one batter had been dismissed cheaply, the two score cards were not that far apart.
With England rolled for 134, India held a 1st Innings lead of almost 200. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in saying at the time, that India had more than enough runs on the board to win at that stage. They could have gone out for a session of play and thrown the bat at everything and declared with a lead of 300-350 and still have a lot more than they’d need to play with. Instead, they went out to bat and dug in like they were trying to hang on for a draw.
Rohit Sharma abandoned the strategy he’d employed in the first innings to score just 26 off 70. Kohli survived 149 balls to make 62. Once again it was a single batsmen that stood out, this time Ravichandran Ashwin who scored 106. Ashwin, like Sharma in the first innings, opted for the high risk/high reward strategy, with his innings probably best summarised by the stroke that took him to his century, an attempted slog sweep that flew over the keeper/slips for a boundary.
People will point to Ashwin’s innings and say ‘look there was nothing wrong with the pitch’. I don’t think his century says anything about the pitch at all. Given the position India were in – in that they didn’t even need to bat a second time to win the match – he was a guy coming in later in the order with no pressure on him whatsoever, he wasn’t batting to win or save the match, he could swing, take risks without consequences, and it came off. This theory is supported by the analysis from CricViz.
“His century, in front of a bouncing Chennai crowd welcoming their hometown boy home, was an example of what else you can do on a surface like this – gamble, and try your luck. Ashwin is no tailender – this is now the third Test where he’s registered both a century and a five wicket haul – but there was a joyful abandon to the way he went about his business, charging towards a ton from the moment he came to the crease.
Of his previous four centuries, the highest false shot percentage he recorded in any of them was 15% – today, that figure was 22%. Yet that was a natural consequence of his intent, Ashwin playing an attacking stroke to 45% of the deliveries bowled. Of the 162 centuries we have seen in India in Tests since 2006, only five have seen a higher attacking shot percentage.”
“Ashwin, Kohli and the Chennai Pitch“, CricViz, Ben Jones, 15/02/2021
It was clearly not an innings that comes along often and one that you’d take the odds of not happening twice in a row.
India’s second innings itself was an odd one, firstly because it was all but unnecessary in determining the outcome of the match but secondly in it’s application. Outside of Ashwin, the innings had the feel of a team that had dropped anchor. For a team so far ahead in the game this seemed odd. It was almost as if Team India could sense the pitch criticism coming and sent the lads out to bat again with the directive to survive as long as possible as if to show that there was nothing ‘wrong’ with the pitch.
“Without judgement, the pitch in Chennai has been extreme in its bias towards spin. 78% of the deliveries bowled in this second Test have been by spinners; the last time a Test in India saw more spin was also the second game of an India v England series, way back in 2012 when 83% of the bowling in Mumbai was done by spinners. That’s the only game this century where India has seen more spin bowled, as a proportion of the entire match; only 14 matches have seen a higher degree of spin anywhere in the world. On a straightforward level, the cricket this pitch has produced is at the extreme of what Test cricket can be.“
“Ashwin, Kohli and the Chennai Pitch“, CricViz, Ben Jones, 15/02/2021
If all you do is read the final scorecard and watch the highlights package then you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was just one team that had trouble on the surface. However, when you break down the 1st and 2nd innings from both sides there was really not a lot separating the two teams, outside of the standout innings from Sharma in the first innings (where to be fair he had the very best of the batting conditions to work with), and Ashwin, whose false shot percentage was so high that his innings could have easily ended not long after it started.
Ignoring all extras a total of 282 runs came from the bats of English batsmen. If you exclude Sharma and Ashwin, 289 runs came from the bats of the remaining Indian batsmen. If you remove the two highest run scorers from England then 189 runs came of the remaining English bats. It’s a false comparison in many ways but it does show that the majority of the Indian batsmen struggled in the conditions almost as much as England.
Had India not hung around for 85 overs in their second innings, the 2nd test could well have been done and dusted in 2 and a half days. For all intensive purposes the result was decided on the first day. Of the last 20 wickets, 19 fell to spin, there was 1 run out.
If nothing else, as a neutral viewer the second test was not compelling viewing.
The 3rd Test
With the 3rd test at Ahmedabad the first international Test match at the new showcase Narendra Modi Stadium there were a lot of unknowns going in to the 3rd Test. There were a few rumblings that the Ahmedabad pitch was looking quite green and that, along with the pink ball, must have given England high hopes of a win. Maybe that was the reason why England went in to the match with three pace bowlers and only one spinner. There was also the occasion, the first game at India’s new centrepiece stadium, you’d be forgiven for thinking a pitch would be produced to make sure that there was a cracking good game of cricket played over the better part of 5 days.
Wrong!
England won the toss, and to be fair, made a meal of their first innings. Yes, there was some bad batting, but there was also a pitch that, again, had the ball breaking through the surface from the first day. To compound matters there was also the pink ball.
That extra layer of coating to protect the pink ball is not needed for the dark red ball in a day Test. Layers of pigment are coated over the dull pink leather. It was Root who first said, “the plastic coating, the hardness of the seam compared to the red SG meant it gathered pace off the wicket when it was not hitting the seam.”
“Ball makers SG to conduct more trials after two day pink ball Test”, Rasesh Mandani, hindustantimes.com, 27/02/2021.
England were rolled in less than 50 overs for 112. Zac Crawley the only one to look remotely comfortable and not surprisingly the only one to really look to push the scoreboard along. Seven of the ten first innings wickets were either bowled or LBW. All but 1 falling to spin.
The timing of England’s collapse was perhaps a little unfortunate, as it provided India with just enough time to survey the pitch before the lights come on. Perhaps England persisted with pace a little too long in the hope that the pink ball would start swinging under lights, but it didn’t. Perhaps it was the much talked about ‘dew factor’ coming in to play. The night sessions on day 1 looked like the easiest time to bat. Perhaps this was a toss in hindsight England would have preferred to lose?
Of the Indian batsmen, Rohit Sharma was again the only one to look comfortable making a majority of hit runs against the pace attack, and under lights. Stumps on the 1st day, India were 3 for 99.
Then day 2 happened with a rush. India collapsed under daylight, looking every bit as inept as England did the day before, 7 wickets falling in 20 overs for 46 runs.
England then went in to bat, again in the daylight, and the results were the same, all out for 81 in 30 overs. With India needing 40 odd to win, England took the field looking as though they’d already mentally checked out and were headed back to the hotel. It was the over quickly. A test match that had lasted a touch over 5 sessions and the shortest Test Match in the post-World War 2 era.
All else aside, the reality was that England were 2 for 73 after winning the toss, you could argue if they’d continued with the positive intent that Crawley had shown early they may well have scrambled to 200, which could well have been a match winning score.
So, to the pitch. In my opinion it wasn’t as bad as the pitch used in the 2nd Test. That’s not to say it was good, it was far from good, but visually it didn’t look quite as bad as Chennai. It was a pitch that did plenty, and combine that with the extra lacquer on the ball – that many theorise caused the ball to skid through quicker when it didn’t hit the seam – it was a recipe for mayhem.
One statistic that people throw around in defence of the Ahmedabad pitch is that 21 of the 30 wickets fell to straight deliveries. This may well be true, but it’s only telling half the story. To try and dismiss criticisms of the pitch with the ‘straight ones’ argument fails to consider the deliveries that came before. To suggest that the ball was turning from ball one and that there wasn’t inconsistent bounce would not be an accurate reflection on conditions.
The YouTube analysis below from Jarrod Kimber does a good analysis of the pitch. As he points out, it wasn’t just the English that got out to straight ones, Sharma, Pujara, Kohli and Rahane all fell to straight balls in India’s first innings.
It’s perhaps much easier to understand why batters were falling to straight balls which you start looking at what the ball was doing off the pitch. As this hawkeye of Ashwin to Root in the 8th over of Englands second innings shows, the ball was doing plenty.
These six balls all pitch in approximately the same area, but as you can see they ended up in wildly different directions. The red and the green balls both went relatively straight, however the red balls trajectory stayed low as the ball skidded through (perhaps due to the lacquer). The yellow and blue balls spun sharply but with fairly even bounce while the orange and white balls kicked up off the pitch – a lot.
If batters are facing an over of that, then you can’t be too critical when they miss a straight ball that skids through. To say that the ball did nothing off the pitch is, again, simply not true.
“”It was not an ideal pitch for a Test match and even India collapsed…,” former India batting stalwart Laxman said.”
“‘Give the teams 3 innings!’: Cricketers react to Ahmedabad’s 3rd Test pitch after India demolish England in 2 days“, Deccan Herald, 26/02/2021.
The 4th Test
With the 4th test fast approaching and given the huge amount of fall out after the last two pitches, it will be interesting to see what the BCCI prepare for the 4th. Given that India need to win to secure their spot in the World Test Championship, and how the past two matches have gone, I think it’s safe to assume that England can expect another ball one turner.
Jasprit Bumrah was released from the Test squad ahead of the 4th test. Not sure if it was due to injury, bubble fatigue or something else, but it’s a shame that one of the best fast bowlers in the world has hardly played a role in the series. In preparing pitches in the manner they have done, India are basically deleting one whole aspect – fast bowling – from the game.
Update: The 4th Test pitch looked like a vast improvement on day 1 compared to the previous 2 matches. England won the toss and squandered a perfect opportunity to post a commanding score. Spin and pace bowlers were used throughout the day. It will be interesting to see if England regret the decision to play only 3 specialist bowlers as it looks as though their selection was based on the assumption that the 4th pitch would be more of the same.
Thoughts
There is no doubting that what we’ve seen in the England vs India series is India pushing the home ground advantage as far as they can to the point where they are testing the boundaries of what is acceptable. After the result in the first test the reaction was swift.
A couple of final thoughts:
- it is possible for a pitch to be bad, and for a team to bat badly. Both those things can be true – they are not mutually exclusive.
- India don’t need to resort to these sort of cheap tactics to win games at home. They are a strong team with huge depth and now have a world class pace attack to go along with their spinners. Sub-continent pitches will usually turn more naturally anyway without having to call in the good ol’ pitch doctor.
- For me I’m caught wondering about the ethics of the whole thing. Creating a surface that rams home the advantage of one team to expose the weakness of another. Maybe it is within the rules, but is that right? Ball tampering – roughing up one side of the ball so that it will swing – is undoubtedly cheating. Why then, when a home team creates a pitch to spin dramatically from ball one is that not viewed the same way?