Pitch dark

So where did these pitches come from? Not from the men you’d have thought were in charge. ‘‘We had nothing to do with the preparation of tracks in the last series. We had left it to the local curators to prepare the tracks’’, said Venkat Sundaram, chairman of the BCCI’s Grounds and Wickets Committee .

Well, that answers one question: The variety in pitches, surprises and all, came from the fact that there was no one central authority in charge. It was anarchy of the cricketing kind.

But Venkat’s atypical stonewalling raises another query: If the GWC, formed with the express purpose of bringing in some order in the system of pitch-making, doesn’t handle the pitches in this most important of Test series, what is it supposed to do?

To be honest, no one really knows. While the GWC, as the name implies, is meant to look after outfields, ground conditions and wickets, they end up doing none of the above. In its short history since 1997 the GWC has held two ‘visible’ seminars and relaid the 10 Test wickets — but not much else.

Ask Dhiraj Parsana, one of the GWC’s oldest members, and he puts it plainly. ‘‘We can look at the wicket, the outfield and all other facilities required to host an international fixture. But we are not supposed to interfere in pitch-making, the nature and texture of the wicket.’’

So who is? The real heroes of Indian pitches are the malis, says G Kasturirangan, a former GWC chairman who quit in a huff last year. ‘‘The wickets are left to local malis and they are always upto some mischief.’’

But he’s all praise for Nagpur curator Kishor Pradhan for standing his ground in the face of heavy pressure from the Indians. ‘‘That was the best wicket of the series and was just like we had asked all centres to prepare,’’ he said.

Of the four Test centres used, the GWC members visited only Mumbai and Nagpur. Anand Shukla (Central zone) arrived in Nagpur a day before the Test, Parsana travelled to Mumbai a little earlier.

While Shukla is silent on Nagpur, Parsana calls Mumbai ‘‘a fiasco’’.

‘‘I went to see the Mumbai track and it looked okay at first sight. Perhaps the delay in putting the covers when it rained on the first day may have damaged the pitch considerably. They could have done better.’’

But wasn’t that his job? ‘‘ No, my role is limited.’’

The ‘Aussie-like’ Nagpur pitch drew rare words of criticism from the usually diplomatic Rahul Dravid. ‘‘I hope they (curators) show the same purpose and prepare such wickets at the under-15, under-17 levels and in all the domestic matches,’’ India’s stand-in skipper said post-match. It was a very moot point: Players bred on slow turners cannot be expected to perform on fast tracks. Pity Aakash Chopra, thrown straight into Nagpur and then consigned to the safety and placidity of domestic pitches. How fair is that?

‘‘We did supervise pitches prepared for the knock-out stage in the U-19 tournament and Duleep Trophy matches last year’’, says Parsana. ‘‘But that process has stopped now.’’

The pitches problem seems to stem from a serious lack of communication. Kasturirangan recalls how he never met his panel at one single place. ‘‘We were supposed to meet every third month but that never happened. I used to be in touch with members over the phone most of the time,’’ he says.

For the most part, he says, he had been grounded and would operate from home. ‘‘I used to speak to the (BCCI) president and secretary. Request them to let me to travel and examine the wickets but there was never any positive reply.’’

The BCCI hasn’t sat back and watched the chaos. It has initiated some moves in the past few years to standardise pitches. Such as the tie-up with the New Zealand Sports Turf Institute.

Yet it’s a relationship that has been dormant for the past year. Despite a publicised tie-up with a top infocom company to facilitate easier communications, NZSTI CEO Keith McAuliffe says he has ‘‘not had any communication with BCCI for close to a year’’.

In 2002, the NZSTI collected soil samples from Indian pitches for testing back home. There has no forward movement. ‘‘I wouldn’t say I am frustrated but I would put it as one of the unique challenges of dealing with different institutions. Pitches are just one of the many priorities for the BCCI. We will be patient,’’ says McAuliffe.

Is there any hope of a more proactive approach from the Board? BCCI sources say there have been increased debates at recent meeting on the use of GWC. The members, said the source wanted to know the results of investing ‘‘so much money’’.

There really are two options before the BCCI: disband the GWC or use it to standardize pitch-making preparations. Former Pakistan captain and coach Intikhab Alam, now with the Punjab Ranji team, believes it is time to standardize the whole process.

‘‘Home advantage is a thing of the past. I believe that the time has come for the ICC to form a world panel of curators. This panel should work with the local curators of a Test centre before the start of a Test’’, he says.

McAuliffe agrees, adding that it’s time for the ICC to set some performance standards. ‘‘Though I do not believe all pitches can be the same, I believe it is time the ICC sets a certain standard for the home boards.’’

Kasturi has one wish: More powers for the GWC, only then could they deliver the goods.

The only thing green here is the curator
SANDEEP DWIVEDI
AT GREEN PARK

By the time you read this, the Green Park pitch would probably have been watered for the last time before the First Test against South Africa, beginning November 20. That’s the order from the BCCI’s chief pitch doctor Venkat Sundaram, following up on his ‘no grass’ diktat issued on Wednesday.

Given that it’s the first Test match since the controversies of the Australia series, news from Green Park is keenly awaited by Indian cricket fans. Not to worry: It’s a pitch that will bring smiles on the faces of the Indian team. Spin is in.

On Wednesday — the day the pitches committee visited Kanpur — the track seemed like a giant jigsaw, but not a puzzle. There were cracks all over in myriad designs but, though dry, it appeared hard enough to last five days.

Anand Shukla, associated with Green Park for decades, says it’s a three-spinners track but will have some bounce for the quicks. Perhaps the bit about the bounce is purely to lend the turning track a sporting status.

Kanpur is miles away from Nagpur and, Shukla insists, a fair distance from Mumbai too.

Former curator Chhotelal predicts ‘big turn’ as early as day two and adds that it isn’t a ‘sporting track’ as he’s worried about the cracks opening up.

Chhotelal is actually a story in himself, and perhaps a metaphor for all that is wrong with Indian pitches. He sits in the outfield, de-weeding with half a mind on the job; discontent is heavy in the air. The man who has laid the track here since the Gavaskar-Marshall era has been replaced by Shiv Kumar, a former electrician at the stadium.

Regional Sports Officer Brijendra Kureel, the state government employee in charge of stadium, offers one reason why: Chhotelal was on long leave when the turf was being relaid and so was sidelined. Others talk about a drinking problem.

The man himself says he wasn’t given any reason to be shifted to the fence.

Shukla wasn’t consulted when his star groundsman was moved out and UP Cricket Association secretary Jyoti Bajapi too appears out of the loop, saying he heard the news from this reporter.

The new man is willing to learn, says Shukla, but has a long way to go. First-hand impressions about the new curator and his knowledge about the wicket aren’t quite uplifting. Anand looks at the cracks and tells Shiv Kumar that the desired shine on the wicket is missing, and blames it on the watering and rolling. He insists that he will be around when he waters the surface the next day.

So is Mumbai repeat around the corner? Chhotelal laughs and says, ‘‘Char, sava char din ka match. After such games everybody is happy.’’

Except, of course, the South Africans.