To be honest there's always been something about Clive Lloyd (as match referee, not player) which bugged me. This takes the cake though. I think the writer of that article makes a valid point though. If any pitch needs inspection, its ones like Antigua where West Indies and other teams can pile up the runs with ease, yet in previous tests with 'less friendlier wickets' struggle to get past 200-250. There's also the NZ pitches of India's tour in 2002/03, which to be perfectly honest I didn't mind that much (other than the fact India were losing). I like variety in cricket pitches. We need an even amount of flat tracks, green seaming wickets and dust bowls. Clive Lloyd seems to disagree.
I think the writers conclusion summed it up, the two Ind v SL tests made interesting test cricket where the ball got the better of the bat, but not due to the pitch alone. Rather due to awesome bowling performances from Murali, Kumble and Harbhajan. There's no surprise that those 3 spinners were the best bowlers in the series, because they are the best bowlers from their respective teams! Added to that, it wasn't so bowler friendly because Sachin and Laxman managed to get tons and hell Pathan came awfully close too.