It’s been fabulous watching the cricket on television. You can sit and chat with family and friends and still watch the Test match.
The fact that there is so much time taken for each contest - seen as a disadvantage in this modern sporting marketing age - is in fact what makes it so attractive. You watch with one eye, in a half trance, and can solve the problems of the world at the same time with your family or mates.
It’s sad to see such small crowds and maybe this is due to the quality of the TV coverage. It’s almost too good. At home you get analysis, replays, statistical information and buckets of fun. You also get close-ups and never miss a thing.
At the ground, yes, you get a tan and can say you were there, but it is a tough decision to go or not. I love Test cricket.
Looking at Port Elizabeth, it’s clear we prepared a pitch to nullify Rangana Herath and his spinning mates. The man is unplayable on his own pitches but here he looked competent and no more.
It brings into focus the righteous indignation we displayed when India produced pitches that favoured their spinners after just a single session. We got hammered, we bitched and have obviously decided to pretend we are in Rome.
Is this unsporting or good sense?
The whole issue of the preparation of pitches in cricket is almost unique in sport. Many other sports are going the artificial route to encourage uniformity, but in Test cricket this is not possible. The wear of the surface over the days of a Test are part of the mystique.
Drop-in pitches are being used in Australia, but again this plays with the tradition and history of the game.
The Waca is supposed to be fast and bouncy, as were the Wanderers and Kingsmead. Sydney and Headingley take spin. The West Indies now play on slow pitches. Can you believe it?
It is due to what the wine experts would call the terroir, the environment, the weather and the unknowns, that give character. Can you imagine if each venue’s wicket was the same? It would be awful. The problem is manipulation.
So how do you ensure that Test pitches retain their individuality and tradition without allowing nationalism or provincialism or greed or simply bad sportsmanship to hold sway?
Maybe, as with referees and umpires, the answer lies with independence of curators.
Think about it. It is a hugely skilled and responsible job to prepare wickets. It needs expertise, planning, efficiency and just maybe, a bit of unknown magic.
Of course cricket boards are going to influence their local unions to favour the home side. Also, there is financial pressure for a Test match to go the distance. This leads to a situation where the line between fairness and unfairness or unsporting behaviour is blurred.
Maybe a radical solution is needed.
How about the ICC contracting curators who get ranked and rewarded centrally? How about the governing body of the game deciding which Test venues will be quick and bouncy or slow and low in nature?
Of course, despite having these tendencies, they should also balance ball and bat and type of bowling to create a fair contest. This would force all Test sides to develop players who embrace all the skills of the game to stay highly ranked and win.
No longer would you be guaranteed home victories unless you were flexible. In other words, the home unions would be taken out of the loop.
In the same way that umpires and refs in rugby and soccer self-regulate and have strict standards, so could pitch curators.
That could and would shake up the rankings.
Robbie is a former British Lions, Ireland and Transvaal rugby scrumhalf.
The Saturday Star
