Should this happen?

[Briony]

I see the ICC has launched an investigation into the Kanpur pitch.

 

[duffer]

I see the ICC has launched an investigation into the Kanpur pitch.

@ the ICC. What the **** are they going to do?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wasn't that curator sacked afterwards? (He may not have been, but a curator was sacked after a home test against the West Indies, so I'm just asking).

I reckon that would've been the following series, when there were cracks that big that Curtly got his bat stuck in one running between wickets, and Blewett was bowled by a grubber.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ah, I see my above post has already been covered, ah well.

I agree with what Voltman had to say earlier, in that I don't think that it's appropriate in this day and age for a player, let alone the captain, to be giving a monetary reward to the curator. Let the national cricket board take care of those things, maybe even instruct them to do so, but I just don't think it washes well having it come straight from the players.

 

[silentstriker]

This is what it comes down to, really. Other countries, like in Australia, will avoid preparing a pitch to deliberately suit their bowling needs or nullify the opposition's even if it costs them because the perception of this sort of practice is that it's dirty pool. Certainly it can be said that the Aussie curators have largely stuck to this and there are examples. One example; 1992/93 Test series against the WI, the final Test was in Perth and with the series tied at 1-1, the WACA curator went ahead and still produced a very quick pitch. The Aussies were duly wrecked by Ambrose and lost by plenty. Ambi was just coming into some serious form before that game and if the Aussies really wanted to win at all costs, they could have prepared a much flatter deck for example. That they didn't and lost the match and therefore series is one of a few examples which Aussie players/supporters/hangers on can draw upon to show everyone just how fair we Aussies are. That there are a few examples where curators in other countries produced pitches against the Aussies which completely suited the home side or, in the case of Pakistan around 1994, won the first Test then produced roads for the rest of the series, backs up the rather smug assertion that we're fair and you (i.e. other countries) are not.

It's just a perception thing, really. I have no problem with a curator preparing any sort of pitch they like as long as it isn't physically dangerous to play on. Payment, though, makes the whole affair seem just a little bit grubby when, considering the Indian team got what they publically asked for and the amount was bugger-all, it shouldn't be. They asked for a spinner, got what they wanted and won. Leave it at that. I don't think I'm missing any cultural issues in that, for example, the groundsman would have been offended had he not been given some token monetary gesture?

That said, any visiting team which does the above loses its rights to complain if the next pitch they face in Australia is a 'Gabba greentop.

Australia are a strong side most of the time at home (only two teams have ever won more than one series in Australia, and only three teams have won a series, ever), so it is less of a big deal.

As for preparing a seaming deck at the WACA with 1-1 and Curtly on the rampage, that's really just stupidity, not fairness. You should create tracks that suit you, and if you don't, that's just your fault if you lose the game. Now its up to each country to take that chance. Mickey Arthur said they would have prepared a raging green top, and if you remember, they were very disappointed last year when the series was 1-1 and a subcontinent pitch was prepared (they went on to win anyway though).

Australia not making full use of their home advantage is really not more 'fair', it's really just a choice that is usually meaningless (since they had Warne for spinners and McGrath for seamers) because they win most of the time. And the rare times it doesn't happen, it's really their own fault.

 

[Sanz]

Looks like a case of Much ado about Nothing. Ironically in India Dhoni is being critcised for giving such a small amount.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...rs-giving-money-to-ground-staff_10038147.html


“Ground staff at every venue waits eagerly for an international match. A Test match or a One-Day International is like their Holi or Diwali - an occasion when players give them money as appreciation,”

 

[Sanz]

It is boloney to claim that Australia dont prepare or doctor the pitch for their own advantage. In 2003 series they tampered with the pitch in the middle of a test match.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/126208.html

They were saved by the match Ref (Who else But Mr. Proctor) from being investigated.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1018282.htm

MARY GEARIN: Like every good script, there was one final twist in Melbourne.

The moon surface of a pitch was, against the rules, repaired before play this morning and it was the first time for decades anyone could remember cracks having to be put back in.

JAMES SUTHERLAND: As I understand it, the match referee has investigated the matter and just recently said that it was basically a non-issue.

MARY GEARIN: It didn't help the Indians.

The home side prevailed.

 

[Migara]

It happens behind the curtains. This one was done too open though

 

[Migara]

Bishan Bedi also has a history for it.

Source: Sunday Times

 

[GIMH]

Bloody England prepared a turning track at Trent Bridge when Murali and Sri Lanka were over here in 06

 

[Goughy]

Out of interest, what would the reaction have been if Smith had paid the groundsman if they had won?

If its ok for 1 team then it has to be ok for both.

Ive no particular issue either way. As Ive said, I think its clumsy and foolish but nothing evil or terrible.

I wonder if everyone would have the same opinion if it was the SA captain doing the paying.

I dont want to hear "It was a home Test so India can pay him but SA cant". Its a game of cricket that both sides play and the groundsman is not employed by the Indian players. If he produced a track that benefited the visitors then that would be perfectly allowable and has been done before around the World on numerous occasions. Groundsmen can be quite independant and uninterested in favouring a home team. So if the track favoured the visitors there should be no difference if he recieved money from SA.?

 

[sirdj]

Out of interest, what would the reaction have been if Smith had paid the groundsman if they had won?

Probably the same........In India anything related to cricket is bigger news than anything else...........and there are plenty of stupid 24 hr "News" channels here which are as a 24hr Today Tonight channel.

Dhoni tipped the curator as he seems to be the type of captain who wants to revive certain customs. It is being made out or assumed that he tipped the curator only because India won, as per the custom Dhoni would have tipped him even if the match was drawn or lost as long as the pitch was prepared in the way Dhoni wanted it to be.

If its ok for 1 team then it has to be ok for both.

Ive no particular issue either way. As Ive said, I think its clumsy and foolish but nothing evil or terrible.

I wonder if everyone would have the same opinion if it was the SA captain doing the paying.

I guess it would is OK(at least with me) if Smith had tipped the curator(had SA won) as the chap hardly earns anything much. It would have been a bit strange and awkward (as the pitch was not made according to the touring captains wishes, so he is being rewarded for NOT doing his job properly) but still OK.

Groundsmen can be quite independant and uninterested in favouring a home team

Which is what happened in the 2nd test at Motera.
In India the BCCI pretty much takes care of administrative decisions and the cricket decisions are left to the board of selectors and the team. So the curator traditionally has to take instructions from the Indian captain.
The Ahmedabad curator, Dhiraj Prasanna being a former test player himself let his own ego come into the equation and didn't want to take instructions from Kumble and converted a pitch that usually is dryish and turns to a green top.
So I think the idiot is going to lose his job as a result of purposely disobeying Kumble's instructions.

 

[Top_Cat]

It is boloney to claim that Australia dont prepare or doctor the pitch for their own advantage. In 2003 series they tampered with the pitch in the middle of a test match.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/126208.html

They were saved by the match Ref (Who else But Mr. Proctor) from being investigated.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s1018282.htm

MARY GEARIN: Like every good script, there was one final twist in Melbourne.

The moon surface of a pitch was, against the rules, repaired before play this morning and it was the first time for decades anyone could remember cracks having to be put back in.

JAMES SUTHERLAND: As I understand it, the match referee has investigated the matter and just recently said that it was basically a non-issue.

MARY GEARIN: It didn't help the Indians.

The home side prevailed.

If you're going to doctor a pitch in the middle of a Test, there are slightly more clandestine ways of going about it. It was nothing more than a pitch repair, total non-issue. Two 50c pieces is about 5 cm across with the whole 'on a length to a left-hand batter' thing a bit of a non-sequitir, especially considering Tony Ware claims at the time he did it off his own back without CA's knowledge. Quite a bit different to deliberately preparing or altering a pitch with official sanction.

 

[shankar]

This is what it comes down to, really. Other countries, like in Australia, will avoid preparing a pitch to deliberately suit their bowling needs or nullify the opposition's even if it costs them because the perception of this sort of practice is that it's dirty pool. Certainly it can be said that the Aussie curators have largely stuck to this and there are examples. One example; 1992/93 Test series against the WI, the final Test was in Perth and with the series tied at 1-1, the WACA curator went ahead and still produced a very quick pitch. The Aussies were duly wrecked by Ambrose and lost by plenty. Ambi was just coming into some serious form before that game and if the Aussies really wanted to win at all costs, they could have prepared a much flatter deck for example. That they didn't and lost the match and therefore series is one of a few examples which Aussie players/supporters/hangers on can draw upon to show everyone just how fair we Aussies are. That there are a few examples where curators in other countries produced pitches against the Aussies which completely suited the home side or, in the case of Pakistan around 1994, won the first Test then produced roads for the rest of the series, backs up the rather smug assertion that we're fair and you (i.e. other countries) are not.

Preparing a flat track after you go up in the series to prevent a result can be seen as 'unsporting' and as not giving the opponent a fair chance. Preparing a result wicket which favours the home team greatly is a different thing altogether. Here a chance was provided for the opposing team to win, they just weren't good enough to take advantage of it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Preparing a flat track after you go up in the series to prevent a result can be seen as 'unsporting' and as not giving the opponent a fair chance. Preparing a result wicket which favours the home team greatly is a different thing altogether. Here a chance was provided for the opposing team to win, they just weren't good enough to take advantage of it.

Oh absolutely. I said it at the time the Aussies didn't deserve to win the series ultimately because, although the WI pace bowlers bowled well, the Aussies totally dropped their bundle. The WACA curator did absolutely nothing different to what he always did.

I've always been a big believer than if you play well enough, regardless of the pitch, you'll go a long way towards winning the match. The Aussies with Warne and McGrath made it an art to win on flat decks so it's possible. The pitch is rarely a decent excuse these days with the speed batsmen score at.

 

[Sanz]

If you're going to doctor a pitch in the middle of a Test, there are slightly more clandestine ways of going about it. It was nothing more than a pitch repair, total non-issue.

It is not as simple as you are trying to suggest. If at all they were going to repair it, they should have atleast informed the captains and the match Referee/Umpires about it.

Two 50c pieces is about 5 cm across with the whole 'on a length to a left-hand batter' thing a bit of a non-sequitir, especially considering Tony Ware claims at the time he did it off his own back without CA's knowledge. Quite a bit different to deliberately preparing or altering a pitch with official sanction.

No matter how you spin it, It was against the rules.

In the end the articles asks a ver interesting question :-

"..what the reaction might have been had such an incident occurred in India or Pakistan. Different shades of grey for different folk?"

 

[Burgey]

It is not as simple as you are trying to suggest. If at all they were going to repair it, they should have atleast informed the captains and the match Referee/Umpires about it.




No matter how you spin it, It was against the rules.

In the end the articles asks a ver interesting question :-

"..what the reaction might have been had such an incident occurred in India or Pakistan. Different shades of grey for different folk?"

You're right, it was against the rules. Relevantly though, in comparing it to this instance, the captain didn't know about it. Likewise, with the point you highlighted - imagine the outcry on these boards if Ponting slipped a sling to a groundsman here. The bloke looks sideways and gets crucified by some people (not saying you BTW).

It's not that Dhoni's bribed him, or that he's tried to alter the wicket. The problem is that people can, and will in some cases think he has done something untoward, and it's probably something he and the game could do without.

 

[Top_Cat]

It is not as simple as you are trying to suggest. If at all they were going to repair it, they should have atleast informed the captains and the match Referee/Umpires about it.

No matter how you spin it, It was against the rules.

In the end the articles asks a ver interesting question :-

"..what the reaction might have been had such an incident occurred in India or Pakistan. Different shades of grey for different folk?"

Irrelevant to this thread, even if it was against the rules. It probably did break some rules for a grounds-keeper to do a pitch repair without telling anyone but we're not talking about that. Your point, and I quote;

It is boloney to claim that Australia dont prepare or doctor the pitch for their own advantage. In 2003 series they tampered with the pitch in the middle of a test match.

That the groundsman did it without official sanction and without the knowledge of anyone in the Aussie team or CA negates your point. We're talking about deliberate and willful alteration of a pitch by a home team or home board which patently did not occur here.

 

[Sanz]

India's situation is little bit different from Australia. In the 90s India were not only confident about their spin attack at home but also made sure that they gave their spinners the best chance of winning test match by preparing pitches that assisted the spinners. It was part of the plan put up by then India coach Ajit Wadekar.

These days they are in a confused state, partly because of the emergence of the young fast bowlers and their recent success abroad and partly because Indians also want to show it to the world that they are preparing pitches that are helpful to fast bowlers as well, so that their home record is considered dubious or one achieved on tailor made pitches.

Whereas in Australia,SA and England, their cricket is much more evolved than that in the subcontient, their home strength is pretty much defined (i.e.seam, pace, bounce etc.) and also they are keen to maintain a tradition about the behaviour of their grounds and hence more often than not, you know what kind of pitch you are going to see at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, WACA, Durban etc.

In Subcontinent, NZ, WI, the traditions of the game (related to Cricket Grounds) are not defined and no one cares about setting up such a standard, hence we have this sort of inconsistency in the type of pitches in different seasons. Some season it will be a square turner, some times it will be a belter and some times it will be seaming wicket.

Not to forget the economics of the whole thing as well, Subcontinent boards risk loosing lot of fan interest and hence revenue if the home team isn't winning. Overall a very confused state of mind in Indian Board and often curators become the scapegoat.

 

[Sanz]

That the groundsman did it without official sanction and without the knowledge of anyone in the Aussie team or CA negates your point. We're talking about deliberate and willful alteration of a pitch by a home team or home board which patently did not occur here.

And who is to say that it was not a deliberate attempt or where does it say that CA had no hand in this alteration ? The motive is clearly there, Australia were down 0-1 in the series, Kumble who took 6 wickets in the 1st inning, would have been devastating on that track from that spot.