Bat and ball / Andrew Hughes / 01 August 2008 /

Andrew Hughes uses recent Test matches as case studies for explaining the role and responsibilities of a Test Match groundsman. The conclusion: whatever you do, someone's always going to have a go at you...

This year's draw between England and South Africa was the sixth consecutive stalemate at Lords'. In recent times, batting at the headquarters of cricket has appeared to get easier as the match progresses and the pitch stubbornly refuses to deteriorate. As ever, it is the groundsman who gets it in the neck and journalists have not been slow to criticise.

However, such criticism fails to take account of the constraints under which groundsmen operate. Mike Selvey pointed out in the Guardian that the Lords drainage system, installed six years ago, may have contributed to a lowering of the water table. This would not be a major problem on some grounds, as dryer conditions would simply produce more cracks.

However, the surface at Lords' binds very well and so though it may get dry, it doesn't deteriorate. In the absence of underlying moisture, the pitch therefore offers nothing for the bowlers. Groundsmen may be highly skilled but they are not magicians and have to make the best of the prevailing conditions.

Of course, it isn't only the media who put pressure on groundsmen. The Laws of cricket say little about the pre-match preparation of a pitch, other than that it is in the hands of the ground authority. In theory, therefore the groundsman should be free to prepare the pitch as he sees fit. Of course, no one is naive enough to believe that is what happens.

For a long time, we maintained the fantasy that whilst other international teams regularly asked groundsmen to prepare favourable pitches, no England captain or coach would countenance it. For example, when, in 1995, Steve Rouse produced an Edgbaston pitch offering alarmingly two-paced bounce which the West Indian bowlers thoroughly enjoyed, it was taken for another example of our bending over backwards to be hospitable to the touring team. The press mood soon changed, however, when it became clear that it was England coach Ray Illingworth who had requested just such a pitch.

And the pressure on groundsmen doesn't end there. After every international game, the match referee fills in a pitch report, grading it from Very Good to Poor. The definition of 'Very Good' is hard to argue with, specifying consistent bounce, minimal movement for seam bowlers on the first two days, but enough natural wear to take spin later on. Yet there are no rewards for producing a 'Very Good' pitch.

On the other hand, there are penalties, including warnings, fines and suspensions from the international circuit, for producing pitches that are 'Poor'. The definition of 'Poor' is simply a pitch that offers excessive seam movement, spin or inconsistent bounce. In other words, a bowler-friendly pitch can be classed as 'Poor' but a featherbed like Lords will never be. Understandable then that groundsmen will err on the side of batting friendly wickets.

The recent series between India and South Africa offers a perfect illustration of the pressures under which groundsmen operate. After a bore draw at Chennai, the surface for the Second Test at Ahmedabad appeared green early on and had some inconsistent bounce, though it was nowhere near being categorised as 'Poor'. Unfortunately for the curator, India were bowled out for seventy-six and the press reported allegations that captain Anil Kumble had been unhappy with the wicket and requested that it be changed. For standing his ground and preparing the best wicket he could, the curator's reward was to be pilloried in the Indian media.

By contrast, with India needing a win in the final Test, the Kanpur pitch was unveiled as bone-dry and lightly prepared. It span from day one, even Sehwag was unplayable and India won at a canter. Stand-in captain Dhoni was alleged to have sent a note of thanks and 10,000 rupees to the curator though the match referee was less than happy. A scathing pitch report led to a warning for the BCCI. Meanwhile the curator responsible for a sub standard pitch was treated as a national hero.

Which all goes to show that the groundsman, along with the umpires, has one of the most unenviable jobs in cricket.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: