A Test match over almost as soon as it began
The fourth Ashes Test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground was supposed to be a Boxing Day spectacle, a centrepiece of the Australian summer. Instead, it ended almost as quickly as it began. With 36 wickets falling and the match wrapped up inside two days, the result triggered a familiar global argument — not just about pitch quality, but about who gets criticised when Test cricket collapses so rapidly.
Australia were bowled out twice for low scores, England chased modest targets, and while the crowd may have enjoyed the drama, the game left behind a trail of uncomfortable comparisons. Similar short Tests in the subcontinent have historically drawn harsh condemnation, but this time the narrative appeared noticeably different.
Aakash Chopra questions selective outrage
The uneven reaction to two-day Tests has been a recurring theme for Indian commentators, and the Melbourne finish only sharpened that frustration. The conversation inevitably drifted back to how short matches in India are portrayed compared to those in Australia.
“When the match ended in Ahmedabad in two days, a BBC report said, ‘death of Test cricket.’ Here, they say it’s actually not bad, that two-day Test matches are also great. Hypocrisy much. Something there and something else here,” Aakash Chopra observed on his YouTube channel.
The criticism extended beyond media reactions to the role of officials and governing bodies in shaping perception.
“I am talking about the hypocrisy. The match ended in two days in Perth. The ICC rates it a very good surface. The entire world says the pitch was good and that the batters’ technique has become bad. Then the same thing happened in Melbourne. The match ended in two days. There also they say the pitch was good, there was slightly more help, but the batters’ technique has become bad,” Chopra said.
He also highlighted how carefully worded responses from players tend to soften scrutiny when it involves certain teams.
“Ben Stokes spoke very diplomatically because these guys, when they are talking about each other, they are very diplomatic. He said that it was favoring one skill more. If it had been a rank turner in India, they would have said it’s like the death of Test cricket, and what sort of pitch it is? There also it is helping the spin-bowling skill a little more,” Chopra added.
What particularly stood out to Chopra was the complete absence of spin bowling in a Test that ended so quickly.
“Not even a single over of spin was bowled on the Melbourne ground, and the match got over. How is that right? If a Test match happens in India or in subcontinental conditions and a single over of fast bowling is not bowled, there is an uproar, but that’s not the case here,” Chopra concluded.
Sunil Gavaskar takes aim at pitch ratings
The two-day Test in Perth earlier in the series, which had already raised eyebrows after receiving a ‘very good’ rating from the match referee, framed Sunil Gavaskar’s sharp response to the MCG finish.
“Another Test match in Australia has finished in less than two days of cricket. The Australian Cricket Board’s CEO says it is not good business and most, if not all, cricket fans in the sub-continent (read India) are screaming blue murder about the quality of the pitch given in Melbourne. They were astonished when the first Test match pitch in Perth was given a very good rating by the match referee Ranjan Madugalle,” Sunil Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar.
With a different referee overseeing the later Tests, Gavaskar suggested the wording might change — even if the outcome did not.
“Since there is a new match referee, Jeff Crowe, for the Melbourne and Sydney Test matches, the rating could be different. Since 36 wickets fell in the Melbourne Test instead of 32 in Perth, Crowe might drop the word ‘very’ from the ‘very good’ that Madugalle gave for the Perth pitch and rate the MCG pitch as good. Surprises never cease, of course, so we may get another rating,” Gavaskar added ironically.
His criticism also extended to how pitch curators are treated differently depending on geography.
“The curators, or as we found out about the person in charge at the MCG, the Director of Turf, may make a human error and get it slightly wrong, but they are not as devious as those ‘horrible groundsmen’ in India who do not even prepare a pitch and expect the batters to score runs on them. Tut tut,” Gavaskar noted.
At the heart of Gavaskar’s argument was a deeper inconsistency in how surfaces are judged.
“The irony is that if it is a pitch where not too many wickets fall but plenty of runs are scored, then the match referee more often than not gives it a poor rating. So, batters scoring loads of runs is a no-no, but bowlers picking heaps of wickets is okay and the pitch has to be rated good or very good. Clearly, it is no longer a batters’ game but the bowlers’,” Gavaskar concluded.
English voices echo concerns about balance
Criticism of the MCG pitch was not limited to Indian observers. From the English camp, the concern centred less on hypocrisy and more on whether the surface truly reflected the demands of Test cricket.
“[The crowd] gone home royally entertained. [This] isn’t Test cricket on this type of pitch,” Michael Vaughan said while speaking to the BBC.
He stressed that entertainment alone should not define pitch quality.
“We’re always looking for a fair balance between bat and ball. I thought that was unfair for the batters,” Vaughan added.
The movement off the surface, in his view, crossed an uncomfortable line.
“The pitch has done plenty. There’s been plenty of movement out there. It’s not been easy for both sides but I don’t like seeing a pitch do so much,” Vaughan stated.
Geoffrey Boycott holds curators accountable
If Vaughan focused on balance, Geoffrey Boycott went directly after pitch preparation. From his perspective, the responsibility lay squarely with those who produced the surface.
“The pitch had too much grass on it and failed the standard expected for a five-day Test. Batting became a lottery and all the seam bowlers had to do was get the ball straight, on a full length and let that pitch do the rest for them. That is not good enough and the curator should be held to account by his bosses,” Geoffrey Boycott wrote in his column for The Telegraph.
Boycott dismissed explanations linked to weather planning.
“No excuses are acceptable. Talk of him being worried about the very hot weather later in the Test will not wash, as it was all over before the sun arrived,” Boycott noted.
Ashwin calls for consistency, not condemnation
Amid the criticism, Ravichandran Ashwin struck a more nuanced tone. While acknowledging double standards, he stopped short of attacking the MCG surface itself.
“Let’s take for example how the Test finished at Eden Gardens recently. We ourselves said it. Having played cricket for several years, we criticize ourselves justly for pitches. But the other countrymen are not doing the same. They are talking highly about themselves and lowly about us,” Ravichandran Ashwin said on his YouTube channel.
For Ashwin, the issue was less about conditions and more about fairness in judgment.
“Australia have produced Shane Warne and Nathan Lyon but New Zealand and England haven’t produced any great spinner yet. The beauty of Test cricket is to adapt to foreign conditions. I won’t criticize the MCG pitch either because it’s common for both teams. It was fun to watch. It was like watching a racing thriller film. But I feel double standards must be avoided,” Ashwin added.
Beyond Melbourne, a wider reckoning
As the Ashes moves toward its final Test in Sydney, the Melbourne debate has already outgrown the result itself. What remains under scrutiny is not just how pitches behave, but how cricket chooses to judge them — and whether the same standards apply everywhere.
