Pitching it up: A commentary

Matthew Wood investigates how much the pitch actually makes a difference.

As play during the Third Test match at the WACA ground showed, the character and life of a pitch is essential to the type of cricket that it produces. Long renowned as one of the fastest and bounciest pitches in the world, over the past decade or so the strip in Perth lost a lot of the speed that made it famous. Changes in the type of grass and the drainage system employed meant that suddenly the vicious fast-bowling paradise of yesteryear became an easier proposition for batsmen to take on and score runs.

In similar circumstances, Sydney's strip still holds it's name as a "turner" yet in recent Tests has become more bland as batsmen have increasingly controlled proceedings. The ground still "takes spin", but not to the same extent as during the 1980s where fair-to-middling spinners Bob Holland, Peter Taylor, Peter Sleep and, famously, Allan Border were able to bowl Australia to victory.

First under Dennis Lillee's control and now under fellow Test player Graeme Wood, the WACA has recently sought to rediscover its own pacy nature, sometimes at the expense of a full five days of cricket. The Third Ashes Test ended inside four days, meaning that the WACA itself was deprived of at least one day's attendance money, a sacrifice they seem prepared to make to ensure that the Perth strip maintains its reputation as a pitch that bowlers would like to carry around with them.

But the Perth Test's pacy strip didn't preclude performances; it's just that both batsmen and bowlers had to play well to get results. Hussey's technique was exemplary during his two innings and there's no coincidence that the guy with (probably) England's best technique, Ian Bell, was the pick of their batsmen. The bowlers who got rewards bowled to wont of the pitch and not to how they thought they should bowl.

As cricket increasingly becomes a business and revenue is all-important, making a Test match carry on for the full five days has become paramount to filling the pockets of state cricket associations. That, combined both with drop-in pitches and a subcontinentally-led trend towards One-Day strips favouring batsmen means since the mid-1990s each pitch in Australia has become more bland and, to a certain extent, lost their individuality.

The ideal pitch was always said to produce a result on the afternoon of the fifth day of a Test. That way, it ensured there was something in it early for the quick bowlers and something in it late for the spinners. Perhaps it's time to dismiss the notion that crowds and administrators get their money's worth by how long a match endures. Surely the quality of match ensures value for money, not the quantity?

In proof, The best One-Day match I have attended was in 1992 when the Australians defended 199 against a West Indies side at the tail end of their greatness. The pitch, the players and the situation made for great cricket, not the fact that the match went the distance. The match, in Melbourne, went to fifty overs per side but ended only just after 9.30pm.

Once Cricket Australia acknowledge that we watch cricket for astounding feats and just to kill three, eight or forty hours, then pitches the country over will hopefully begin to regain their own unique natures and we'll again have the greatest variety in the world of pitches. Also, Australia as a team would be so much the stronger because players in domestic competitions will have matured playing on different types of wickets and not the same uniform tracks which encourage a good eye rather than a good technique.

The WACA, an association faced with bankruptcy only a matter of years ago, has made the conscious decision to ensure the pitches they prepare are different and true to the form that's been the case in Perth over forty years of Test cricket. By being prepared to make the choice of identity over profit, they will in time benefit firstly as the Warriors develop a home-ground advantage that no other state can match, and also as fans flock to matches because a pitch that demands perfect technique will produce performances of the highest quality. I'd take three days of magnificent all-around cricket instead of five days of batting on a flat deck any day: we watch sport for the challenge as well as the result and the WACA, by remaining true to what it believes, has invigorated this Ashes series.

Handbags at ten paces

Sledging has been a part of the game of cricket since the early days of the sport. The earliest superstar, Dr. W.G. Grace was apparently a proponent of what latterly Steve Waugh's termed "mental disintegration". The term "sledging" was coined in the late 1960s in honor of Aussie fast bowler Graham Corling, who during a team barbecue made several lewd remarks and was deemed by teammates "as subtle as a sledgehammer", when then evolved into "Percy Sledge". Later "sledging" has been applied to any term of abuse in reference to a sports match and the more creative sledgers have won plaudits for their creativity and humour. Sometimes, however, talking crap backfires: just ask Glenn McGrath.

In his book "Loose Balls", former NBA star Jayson Williams says that trash-talk in basketball circles never involves family, partners or girlfriends because it's just too dangerous. There's a line in the sand that players respect and generally any discussion is limited to "Y'all can't stop me", "Who's guarding me?" and the like. Their reasons are simple - it's just not worth it because trouble always follows personal remarks.

In cricket it's different. Sledging as we now know it started off as casual comments about a player's technique or the state of the scoreboard but over the past twenty years as players think the stakes have risen, it's morphed into "say what you can to make the batsman lose concentration". All nations take part in it, probably equally. Supposed men of faith like Matthew Hayden have been serial offenders which doesn't sit well with those of us who ostensibly hold the same faith and belief systems.

But let's be honest - mostly it's just boys being boys. Or at least it should be. With England wicketkeeper Matt Prior reportedly suggesting to Peter Siddle "let's go - let's take it outside", the boundary between "gamesmanship" to "handbags at ten paces" was crossed. What Siddle did to entice the invitation was pepper the hapless 'keeper with short lifters and then dismiss him. If the Victorian tearaway stayed true to form would have also have given the Englishman a send off coloured by expletives, which if he did so was probably pretty dumb given Prior was dismissed by Siddle's good luck rather than good management.

Prior's response - essentially encouraging a fight, in which I have no doubt the bigger and stronger Siddle would triumph - has all the elegance and cleverness of a schoolyard "So's your Mum". Never the most startling riposte, but again perhaps Glenn McGrath or AFL player Adam Selwood would disagree. The Australians have attempted to regain their swagger this Test by aiming a series of barbs at the Old Enemy, who as expected have responded in kind. Perhaps, given Australia's performance in this match it has worked, but even so they have appeared not as the gum-chewing, self-confident larrikins of the Chappell, Taylor & Waugh eras but as petulant, self-aggrandising children; children on both sides of the match who Daddy Match Referee will be dealing with sternly because they look ridiculous and by extension, the game is reflected upon poorly.

It takes on even more of ludicrous stance when chief among the talkers has been Michael Clarke, whose form thus far has wobbled between horrible and below par. By involving himself but failing to back it up with runs, Clarke negates his own authority and further erodes his position as heir apparent to the Australian captaincy. As has been pointed out repeatedly, very few positions are as visible in Australia as that of the cricket captain, so for him to make himself look foolish in this manner doesn't bode well for his future leadership prospects. While Border and Waugh led the side they engaged in verbal stoushes with their opponents but almost always from a position of strength, or knowing they were going to be able to add strength to their words with runs. The simple reason Michael Jordan was the biggest trash-talker of all was that he was the best player that basketball had seen and so always backed his words with points or wins.

Clarke, again, seems to try to bully opposition simply because the big kids do it and so resembles a teen, who rather than being full of confidence is full of braggadocio and bluster. It would make his press conferences infinitely more palatable should he carry on this attitude post-match as well!

There's no excuse for getting personal in sledging Neither is there any excuse for name-calling as a) it rarely works and b) it makes the name caller look dumb. If you don't agree - and that's fine - then ask yourself this: hearing swearing is a very different thing to being sworn at, isn't it? With language and emotion like that directed at each other, there's no surprise each responds in the way they've been addressed. Of course it's coarse and disappointing and both sides obviously don't realise that they look very small doing so. It's a pity that the line never crossed in the NBA simply doesn't exist in cricket any more.