Former India Captain Sunil Gavaskar has questioned what he sees as a stark disparity in the scrutiny applied to Test pitches after Australia defeated Bangladesh inside two days in Mackay, arguing that comparable short matches in India attract a very different reaction.
Australia won the second Test by an innings and 51 runs to level the two-match series 1-1, with Bangladesh unable to reach 100 in either innings. The hosts encountered batting difficulties of their own, with Cameron Green scoring 67 and only four Australian batters reaching double figures.
Gavaskar challenges scrutiny of Australian pitches
The Mackay contest lasted just 750 deliveries and was the fourth-shortest Test in the history of the game. It also became the fourth Test in Australia in recent years to finish within two days, placing the duration of matches on fast and bouncy surfaces at the centre of Gavaskar’s criticism.
Writing in his Sportstar column, Gavaskar stated: “So, another Test match in Australia has finished within two days. This has happened four times there in the last few years. And we are yet to hear any criticism of the trampoline-bounce pitches that produce such results. The excuses will come thick and fast. ‘Oh, the groundsman, sorry, turf executive, got it wrong. He went by the weather forecast, which predicted some hot weather, so he left a little more grass, and that led to the excessive bounce.’ Or the other cricketing excuse that the batters didn’t have the technique to cope with the bounce and it wasn’t the fault of the pitch. This last excuse could be faintly accepted if the home team batters had batted well, but when even the home batters can’t stitch a run or a decent partnership together, then what does it tell you about the pitch?”
The result represented a sharp reversal from the opening Test, which Bangladesh had won. Australia’s response in Mackay secured a series draw, but the nature of the surface became a focal point for Gavaskar as he compared how host countries approach conditions that favour their own bowling strengths.
Gavaskar added: “The pitch in Mackay was no surprise. After the Aussies were humiliated by the Bangladeshis in the first Test, they were going to prepare a pitch that would be fast and bouncy. And, of course, claim that the groundsman had done it on his own and there were zero instructions from the team management. We all know what really happens. It’s just that the Indian management is open about wanting pitches to suit its bowling strength while those from the old powers will do the little whispering and nudging and get a surface that they need.”
Pace and spin standards come under focus
Gavaskar’s criticism extends beyond the length of the Mackay Test to the standards used when assessing individual performances in different conditions. His argument contrasts the emphasis placed on a batter’s ability against pace and bounce with the treatment of players who struggle against spin in the subcontinent.
The former India Captain wrote: “Even today, that brainwashed thinking that a batter has to be judged by how he bats on fast, bouncy pitches prevails, while nobody even asks why lack of footwork, which is such an essential skill requirement to play spin bowling, is not considered a negative and all blame for lack of runs is put on the surface. Playing spin is a real test of batting skill, as it requires deft footwork and soft hands, while playing fast bowling basically has just two movements, either front foot or back foot. Yet lots of players with ordinary records in the subcontinent are called great by those from the old powers. Amazingly, their fast bowlers are never judged by their failure to take wickets on the so-called slow surfaces of the subcontinent. Batters not scoring runs on fast pitches are not rated, but their fast bowlers not getting wickets on slow surfaces still are called great.”
The debate also places attention on the official assessment of the Mackay surface. Despite the match ending inside two days and batters from both sides struggling, the pitch was set to receive a “very good” rating, the highest classification under the four-tier grading system described in the supplied material.
Mackay rating becomes the next focus
That prospective assessment is particularly significant to Gavaskar’s argument because his criticism centres on what he regards as unequal treatment of surfaces depending on where Test cricket is being played.
Gavaskar noted: “It will be interesting to see the report and rating for the Mackay pitch by the match referee. There’s generally been a desire among the referees to get brownie points from the media of the old powers, so it won’t be a surprise if there’s no adverse rating for the Mackay pitch just as we have seen for similar two-day finishes in recent years. But lo and behold, if a game finishes in three days in India, there will be all kinds of derogatory reports and insinuations made about the pitches, BCCI and Indian cricket. The hypocrisy is so brazen that it is simply mind-boggling. The usual excuse of ineptitude against fast bowling will be brought out. Nobody says the same when the overseas batters can’t play the spinning ball. Then there’s no lack of ability but hidden devils in the pitch.”
The official assessment of the Mackay surface now remains the key outstanding development, with its rating set to determine how a pitch that produced a two-day Test is ultimately classified.
