Flat Pitch Fallacy

James Anderson stands at the top of his mark. He has a brand new shiny red Duke ball in his hands. At the other end of the pitch, a composed Murali Vijay takes his guard. The Trent Bridge Test match is about to begin.

Fast forward five paltry overs. Anderson’s figures are 3 – 0 – 25 – 0

The ball has stopped swinging. There is little movement off the pitch. The ball is not carrying through to the keeper.

The pitch is flat. The pitch is slow.

The pitch is dead.

Long live the pitch.

————————–

It is a well heard catch cry in world cricket at the moment that flat pitches are ruining cricket.

The argument goes that without the bowler having the ability to extract movement and bounce from a pitch, that the scales are weighted too far in the batsman’s advantage.

I used to accept this agonising groan from the commentary box as a truth. Flat pitches are cricket genocide. It is a practice that is driven by a ground’s need to make a game last five days. It is a practice driven by money.

The reality is that the state of the pitch is irrelevant.

———-

Cricket is a game of nuances. It requires degrees of difference in player attributes to ensure success. Apart from the West Indies in the 80’s, no team has ever had long lasting success relying on only one type of bowler.

The best attacks have seamers, someone who can swing it a little, a part time partnership breaker and the spinner.

All have their role to play.

———-

England have chosen to go into Trent Bridge with their fastest bowler under an injury cloud and unable to release the ball from his hand any faster than 140kph.

This is not the pitch’s fault.

Their swing bowler can’t keep it moving once the fifth over has expired. He is bowling at 133kph and not on a sustained good line or length. He does not build pressure or ask many questions of the batsman.

This is not the pitch’s fault.

Their third seamer has no speed, variation of pace or the ability to bowl in the right places consistently.

This is not the pitch’s fault.

No full time spinner is selected. The part timer is easily picked off by a batting team who were born with rubber wrists.

This is not the pitch’s fault.

—————-

Physics 101 teaches us that the speed of the ball from the bowlers hand, the line, length and amount of swing are all elements that the pitch has no part to play.

These basics of propelling the Duke towards the batsman are all in control of the bowler and him alone.

A so called flat pitch may reduce the surprise of bounce and seam off the wicket. However, a bowler who relies on the hope of a responsive wicket to add value to the team is not worthy of Test selection.

He must instead put the ball in the right places for sustained periods, he must be patient, he must work to a plan and he must have a captain who knows how to use his fielders to build pressure.

Bounce and movement off the wicket are bonuses, not a prerequisite.

If flat pitches were bad for cricket, the Adelaide Oval would not be one of the best Test venues in the world.

If flat pitches were bad for cricket, then sub continent spinners would not have a mystical place in history, nor would their batting style that is governed by the wrist and not the arms.

If flat pitches were bad for cricket, those medium pace partnership breakers who bowl full and at the stumps would have no place. Steve Waugh, Trott, Kallis and Shane Watson would not have been as valuable to their team’s successes.

———

Flat pitches are not killing Test cricket.

Bad selection policies are more likely to carry the blame. Playing a full time spinner should be a non negotiable.

Captains are also unwilling or unable to adjust their game to the situation. High bowling rotations, tight fields and patience are sometimes required.

The lack of genuine pace bowlers in world cricket is also a factor.

Apart from Steyn and Johnson, who else in world can scare batsmen on any type of pitch? They both just did it in the IPL, and Johnson did it in the Indian ODI series preceding that.

————

When you next get the temptation to blame a flat pitch for the lack of a result or cumbersome cricket, don’t.

Instead, look at the opportunities it creates, the imaginative captaincy it should foster and the roles that lesser lights can play.

Jimmy not swinging it, Ali not landing it in the right places consistently and no one releasing the ball at over 140 kph is not the fault of the pitch, irrespective of the state it is in.

———–

Day 5 is about to begin at Trent Bridge.

James Anderson is at the top of his mark.

India are at 3/167. They have a lead of 128 with one day remaining.

Anderson has the match figures of 47 – 14 – 144 – 3.

He has also made 81 with the bat. The Indian bowling troubled him little. Their imagination was lacking and their discipline was poor. Anderson doesn’t care. He is happy to get to his highest Test score, but he is tired from the effort.

Before this match, he averaged 17 with the ball at this ground.

However, he has yet to strike in the 2nd innings. The ball has stopped swinging. The bounce is low. There is little movement off the pitch.

In the 1st innings he took two wickets with the new ball. One from an outswinger, and one from a well set leg side trap.

The ball is now 48 overs old

What is James to do?

——————————

PROLOGUE

Day 5 played itself out. Anderson ended up with match figures of 59 – 18 – 170 – 4. He took one wicket on the last day when the match was over. It wasn’t a top 6 batsman.

However, to prove my points in the article above, this also happened on Day 5:

Alastair Cook now has a Test bowling average of 6.

PROLOGUE #2

ESPNCricinfo’s George Dobell tweeted this to me (read from bottom to top):

George, I give you this from your own website:

Maybe we can debate it on Can’t Bowl Cant Throw?

 Follow @denniscricket_