Should this happen?

[silentstriker]

And in this case, India lost the toss and had to bat last, on top of everything.....

If India were touring and you needed to win, you'd be an idiot if you didn't prepare something that would suit you. Once the game starts, if someone goes in and waters the pitch before a team's innings or something like that, then that's doctoring a pitch.

 

[dongunda]

I think the curator should get compansated more but this might seem like a "bribe," not saying it is because someone might see it has a money given to the curator for tampering with a pitch as the days went by. But i think good thing going for Captain Dhoni is that he did not hide it, he told everyobody and made BCCI aware that hey you guys are not taking care of some people who make a big contribution to how the game is played. And i also agree that it is a chump change, it's too little and it's not Dhoni, it should be the Indian Cricket Board that should be paying the guy by raising his salary or training him and stuff. I think Dhoni might've paid him from the goodness of his heart because i believe it was out of his pocket. But some may see it as a bribery or corruption. I think he did the right and ethical thing despite many allegations of it being somewhat like bribe but he didn't hide it, so it defeats the purpose of it being a bribe.

 

[Burgey]

What is 'doctoring a pitch'. Its within a team's rights to have the pitch play to their strengths?

Why he's giving out rewards though is pretty stupid, and I'd rather it not occur. I'm not comfortable, but I don't think its corruption, because they're not trying to cover up anything.

AWTA. My concern is that it just isn't a good look. Say Australia were playing a visiting team circa 2000, and they had Lee, McGrath, Gillespie and, say Fleming or Kaspa all at or near their best. If they rolled out a fast, green deck at the WACA, well and good, and no one could complain, just as you can't complain if a deck in India or anywhere else turns.

But I could see why a few eyebrows would be raised if the above happened, and S Waugh then came out and said he'd given a sling to the groundsman for preparing the wicket that way.

 

[Top_Cat]

And in this case, India lost the toss and had to bat last, on top of everything.....

If India were touring and you needed to win, you'd be an idiot if you didn't prepare something that would suit you. Once the game starts, if someone goes in and waters the pitch before a team's innings or something like that, then that's doctoring a pitch.

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.

 

[Smudge]

Quite simply, the money should not be coming from Dhoni. It's not a good look at all. I'd have no qualms with the BCCI giving the curator a reward for his efforts, but for money to come directly from a player just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[sirdj]

Well they had Kapil and Chetan Chauhan on the telly and they said apparently this used to be a done thing in the 80's and early 90's...........the players used to pass the hat around and collect a little tip for the curators(as they were not paid all that well).......so basically Dhoni has just revived this custom.

 

[Goughy]

Well they had Kapil and Chetan Chauhan on the telly and they said apparently this used to be a done thing in the 80's and early 90's...........the players used to pass the hat around and collect a little tip for the curators(as they were not paid all that well).......so basically Dhoni has just revived this custom.

Thats not the best reasoning. Lots of things were the 'done thing' in the 80s and 90s that are no longer appropriate.

 

[sirdj]

in essence the whole world knew the pitch was 'doctored' in any case.

In essence you don't know much about cricket!

 

[sirdj]

Thats not the best reasoning. Lots of things were the 'done thing' in the 80s and 90s that are no longer appropriate.

How can tipping someone who earns 2000 $ a year be inappropriate? It was an indian custom.........are you really in the best place to judge it?

 

[DaRick]

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.

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).

BTW, the rest of your post is spot on. I wonder whether we prepare relatively neutral pitches due to our own guilt with regards to our racist past (i.e - White Australia policy), insofar as we don't want to be seen as being racist?

IMO, there's nothing wrong with exploiting home advantage, so long as you don't do it to the extent where it nullifies the chance of a contest.

 

[pasag]

Or, more likely, because they want matches to last five days for maximum ticket sales.

 

[DaRick]

Or, more likely, because they want matches to last five days for maximum ticket sales.

Yeah, that is a good point. It's just that Australians, as a nation, are so used to being on the guilty side, historically speaking, of the racial debate. I suppose, too, weather does play a significant factor in pitch preparation.

That being said, though, I'm not sure how providing Curtly Ambrose (!) with a lightning fast wicket is meant to achieve your theorised aim.

 

[Top_Cat]

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 know the curator was sacked after the Perth Test of the next home series against the WI in 1996/97 but that was because the deck was cracking before play on day 1 so by the end of the match, it was awful. Anyone else remember Greg Blewett's grubber from Curtly that match? As for 1992/93, I don't recall the curator being sacked. It was a quick deck but nothing out of the ordinary in Perth.

BTW, the rest of your post is spot on. I wonder whether we prepare relatively neutral pitches due to our own guilt with regards to our racist past (i.e - White Australia policy), insofar as we don't want to be seen as being racist?

Possible. I think it's more to do with our English-influenced notions of fair play but who knows?

 

[DaRick]

I know the curator was sacked after the Perth Test of the next home series against the WI in 1996/97 but that was because the deck was cracking before play on day 1 so by the end of the match, it was awful. Anyone else remember Greg Blewett's grubber from Curtly that match? As for 1992/93, I don't recall the curator being sacked. It was a quick deck but nothing out of the ordinary in Perth.

I do. That was laughable. It shot through from short of a length and cannoned into his offstump...thus having the effect of a yorker.

Possible. I think it's more to do with our English-influenced notions of fair play but who knows?

Hmm...India should be bound by this, too, to a certain extent, given that they're a former British colony too.

EDIT: Hmm...I suppose they are...Nagpur 2004 comes to mind.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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).

BTW, the rest of your post is spot on. I wonder whether we prepare relatively neutral pitches due to our own guilt with regards to our racist past (i.e - White Australia policy), insofar as we don't want to be seen as being racist?
IMO, there's nothing wrong with exploiting home advantage, so long as you don't do it to the extent where it nullifies the chance of a contest.

Ahhhh, sorry.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm...India are a former British colony, as well. So I'm not sure about that 'English-influenced' part (not trying to suggest that Indians don't play fair, or anything, to the more PC out there).

Yeah but the native peoples of India are in the majority by a long way whereas most people in Aus are ex-pats if you go back far enough.

 

[DaRick]

Ahhhh, sorry.

Well, I have come across Indians who have brought this up whilst insulting Australians (on YouTube, mainly). I'm not saying that is the case, it's just a thought.

 

[DaRick]

Yeah but the native peoples of India are in the majority by a long way whereas most people in Aus are ex-pats if you go back far enough.

I actually edited my post, mate.

BTW, you're right, although the fact that many Australians hold a kind of 'friendly contempt' for our English cousins does negate this somewhat.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, I have come across Indians who have brought this up whilst insulting Australians (on YouTube, mainly). I'm not saying that is the case, it's just a thought.

Yeah, I just thought back to the 70's and 80's when we didn't seem to care so much. I doubt that has anything to do with it. Youtube is the arse end of the earth when it comes to credible statements by people you'd consider to be normal in my opinion. It's generally a ****fight of massive proportions. I think it's probably lack of water (at least in part), and the drop-in pitch in Melbourne isn't great.

 

[DaRick]

Yeah, I just thought back to the 70's and 80's when we didn't seem to care so much. I doubt that has anything to do with it. Youtube is the arse end of the earth when it comes to credible statements by people you'd consider to be normal in my opinion. It's generally a ****fight of massive proportions. I think it's probably lack of water (at least in part), and the drop-in pitch in Melbourne isn't great.

Oh yes...but YouTube does a great job of showing what some people's opinions really are on things...without the tact and 'dressed-up' language.

I can't personally comment on what Australia was like back in those days, as I wasn't actually born.