Explain To Me Again Why We Need Dead Pitches

While giving due appreciation to Younis Khan’s triple century, the recent Test between Sri Lanka and Pakistan was the worst advertisement for cricket there could be, especially in the age of instant cricket and global TV viewership. If this had been a timeless Test, it would perhaps have gone for ever. When Test cricket attendance is falling sharply and fans are clamouring for more Twenty20 matches, what excuse do the powers-that-be have for making a mockery of a contest.

Let us look at the advantages stoked in favor of the batsmen:

  1. Heavy bats that result in even mistakes being carried over the boundary.
  2. High standard and light protective gear that protects every part of the body from injury.
  3. Rules to prevent bowlers from intentionally or accidentally hurting batsmen.

Not to mention every change in one-dayers that has been favorable to batsmen and resulted in bowlers being turned into sacrificial sheep. What was the last innovation that helped bowlers? No, I cannot remember either.

These results hurt batsmen too where it really matters: their reputation. For example, Thilan Samaraweera’s batting has been praised as the best of Sri Lankan batsmen by Sangakkara, but there is no way to accept that, especially when he has scored on sub-continent pitches against poor opposition. He may still end up with a plus-50 average courtesy Bangladesh, but he will never be respected.

People will only come to watch Test cricket, especially on the last day if both bowlers and batsmen have the same chance of winning. The best matches are where the 4th innings is an average target and wickets are falling at regular intervals, so that there is always the suspense. Even draws can be thrilling as long as there is always the possibility of a result.

The solution? The ICC should draw up guidelines for competitive pitches. Obviously, having one standard would take the fun out of cricket, because all players could practice on the same kind of wickets. So there should be a range of acceptable wickets, some a little favorable to batsmen and some favorable to bowlers. So, you wouldn’t have a wicket that takes spin on the first morning, but you also wouldn’t have a graveyard for bowlers, either. The recent WI-Eng Test, abandoned for a different reason, should hasten such thinking. After all, the ICC does govern the conditions of balls and equipment, so why not pitches?

Why is a Cricket Pitch 22 Yards in Length?

According to Wikipedia and other definitions I stumbled upon on the web, it appears that the cricket pitch is set to “1 chain“. A chain is a unit of measurement popularly used in England and other English countries.

1 Chain = 22 yards = 66 feet = 100 links.

Although it make sense to have an easy memorable measurement term called “chain”, I still wonder why not 1.2 chains or 0.8 chains? Was a chain invented just for cricket? Or was it just convenient to use 1 chain? When the 22 yards is increased by even a yard, it makes a tremendous difference in the bowling speed and the angle, and complicates the ability of bowlers to pick up wickets. When the pitch size is reduced, it makes it harder for batsman to face the pace of the ball from deadly fast bowlers. Maybe during the invention of the game back in, some say, even the 13th century, the Englishmen perhaps tried with various measures and agreed to 1 chain. Wish they had a better historical record of those events.

It would be interesting to see what our readers think. Post your comment if you have other explanations.