Tony Becca
A COUPLE of days ago, shortly after the West Indies loss to Australia in the DLF Tri Nations limited-overs tournament in Kuala Lumpur, I was involved in a discussion re the West Indies batting performance in the final, when someone said, loud and clear for all to hear, "don't blame it on the batsmen, blame it on the pitch".
According to the speaker, the pitch was bad and it was almost impossible for the batsmen to bat on it.
I looked at him in amazement, and then I shook my head.
I looked at him in amazement for although the ball tended to move a bit off the seam and to bounce somewhat awkwardly off the pitch, it was by no means a bad pitch. I also shook my head because it then dawned on me, not for the first time however, that that is one of the reasons for the poor batting in the West Indies and therefore of the West Indies team.
If one does not believe that something is wrong, one will never ever try to do something about it. It is not the first time I have heard excuses for poor West Indies batting, obviously enough people really believe that nothing is wrong and that may be why nothing is really being done about it.
If the pitch was bad - so bad that the West Indies were blown away for 113 in 34.2 overs, how come Australia were able to score 240 for six in the allotted 50 overs? How come Damien Martyn was able to score 52 off 77 deliveries, how come Andrew Symonds was able to score 52 off 59 deliveries, and how come Michael Hussey was able to score 30 not out off 24 deliveries?
No. While the pitch was somewhat difficult to bat on, while it was not an easy pitch on which to bat, it was by no means a bad pitch - and neither was it impossible to bat on it.
The problem is that this West Indies team - the same team that was sailing along at 171 for one in the 24th over before losing its last nine wickets for 29 runs in 11 overs in the first match of the tournament, the same team that was routed for 146 with Brian Lara scoring 40 not out off 48 deliveries batting at number nine - are short in quality batsmen.
Pitches
If the pitch in Kuala Lumpur was a bad pitch, if the pitch was the reason for the West Indies embarrassing batting performance, I shudder to think what their scores would have been in days gone by - in the days, up to the late 1950s, when, unlike today when pitches are covered up like a new-born baby, pitches were not covered.
In those days pitches were left open to be saturated by rain and then to be dried by the sun.
In Australia they called a pitch like that a "sticky dog", and with the ball turning at almost 90 degrees when play was resumed, with the ball sometimes jumping at the batsman from off a good length, and with the ball sometimes shooting, also off a good length, into the batsman's ankle, that was a bad pitch, and almost an impossible one on which to bat.
Those types of pitches were difficult, almost impossible to bat on.
Averages
Of the 34 batsmen who average above 50 in Test matches in the history of the game, however, 12 of them played before the coming of covers, 17 of them afterwards, and five of them straddled the two.
Higher up the order, of the 18 batsmen who average above 55, 10 of them played before the coming of covers, six of them afterwards, and two straddled the two; and when it comes to the best, in terms of averages, between the best of those before covered pitches and the best of those after covered pitches, there is no comparison.
Don Bradman's average of 99.94 is way superior to Rahul Dravid's 58.75. For informations sake, Dravid's average is even below Graeme Pollock's 60.97 - second to Bradman, George Headley's 60.83 and Herbert Sutcliffe's 60.73 which are right behind Pollock's.
The pitch in Kuala Lumpur must have been a good pitch in comparison to some which Jack Hobbs and Sutcliffe - 56.94 and 60.73, Wally Hammond and Headley - 58.45 and 60.83, Denis Compton and Len Hutton - 50.06 and 56.67, Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott - 58.61 and 56.68 - batted on.
For Bradman, the greatest batsman of all time, it would have been like a pitch made in heaven.
