'Dustbowls'

Back in the nineties, matches involving India were very predictable. If the contest was taking place in India, more often than not the match would be played on surfaces known as 'dustbowls'. Indian batsman, used to playing on such wickets, would pile on the runs. When the opposition batted, it would normally be a completely different story. The ball would turn spitefully, the bounce would be extremely unpredictable and India generally used to emerge victorious.

When India played away from the comforts of home, the situation was the exact opposite. Wickets would normally have a fair covering of grass and even half decent fast bowlers would fancy their chances against batsman who looked all at sea against the moving / bouncing ball. 

What used to amaze me even back then though was that there was one rule for wickets in the subcontinent and one rule for wickets away. If visiting sides got out for a low score in India, it was due to the 'dustbowls' and it would be conveniently forgotten that India made runs on the same wicket. But when India lost badly away from home, it was always because the Indian batsman lacked the technique to perform well in seaming conditions.

A lot has changed since then but the unfair criticism 'dustbowls' get remains the same. India run world cricket today. The pros and cons of this can be debated but facts are facts. No decision can be approved without India's say-so and this is precisely why I think India need to back Sri Lanka and ensure that the ICC do not penalize the Lankans for the wicket prepared at Galle. 

Wicket conditions are very different today then what they were a decade or so ago. It's not only wickets in the subcontinent that have changed, but even surfaces in Australia & the West Indies seem to have become a touch different. Even in this T-20 age, test cricket's biggest problem is not cricket's brash new format but test cricket itself. Test cricket is at its best when it is played between evenly matched sides on a surface that encourages an even contest. Unfortunately, too many matches are today played on dead surfaces with almost no chance of a result. This problem is especially true of the subcontinent where dead tracks have become the norm rather than the exception. This is why the track at Galle was great to see.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a minute suggesting that the only way forward is to prepare minefields. Certainly not. However, unless a pitch is so poor that it endangers the safety of the cricketers, I don't see why there should be a problem. According to the ICC, a pitch that is dead from ball one and remains exactly the same 5 days later is deemed a 'good wicket'. But a pitch that tests the batsman from ball one and more often than not results on riveting test cricket is condemned. Cricket's administrators need to understand that cricket is not just about 500 + scores and big hundreds. After all this is supposedly a game between bat and ball, not bat and bat. Any wicket that gives the bowlers plenty to work with needs to be encouraged. Very often these dust bowls separate the men from the boys. 

Test cricket's most endearing feature is it's diversity. You expect the ball to zip around in England, you expect it to bounce in Australia and similarly you should expect it to spin in the subcontinent. I can't see what the fuss is about.