Batsmen versus Bowlers

The Aussies have complained to the ICC about the Mumbai wicket. As much as I am a great fan of Australia and the way they play their cricket, I cannot support this decision. I do not intend to imply here that the Aussies are whining because they lost the Test. Far from it. They had expressed reservations before the third day at which point they were in the driver's seat. James Sutherland also says that pitches should reflect local conditions; again very correct. Agreed. We do not complain about the bounce at Perth either.

What I object to is the following: "It's more that we should all recognize that we are not only in the sport industry, but also in the entertainment industry, and there is a need to provide the best possible conditions for Test Match Cricket to be played in." I'm sure he means "the best possible conditions for batting". If not, he should explain whether he thinks that tumbling of wickets is not entertaining for the true lover of Test Match Cricket. For the lay fan, it is all about runs - boundaries and sixes, but for the connoiseurs we would like to occasionally have a pitch that tests the batsmen to the fullest. And if they come out with flying colours, like Tendulkar and Laxman did in Mumbai, that is, indeed, great entertainment.

I will ask the following question: If 40 wickets falling in 2 days in not acceptable, why is only 25 wickets falling in 5 days with 1774 runs scored acceptable ? This is exactly what happened in the Sydney Test in January (Note that I am not whining because India clearly dominated that Test Match). Clearly shows that bowlers are treated as second class citizens. Isn't the humiliation that they suffer in ODI cricket enough ? Shouldn't they get some assistance sometimes in the longer form of the game ?

It is not a question of nationality. Neither is it of the losing team complaining. It is a question of batsmen versus bowlers.