Bad pitches, not over-rates, are the real danger to the fan experience in Test cricket – a technical solution is needed

The West Indies, healthily placed on 288-4 at the start of the day, scored 63 runs at well under two an over. England managed a solitary wicket, that of nightwatchman Alzarri Joseph, who slashed Ben Stokes to point. Either side of that dismissal, Kraigg Brathwaite, spent 49 balls on 142 and 143. The pitch was doing nothing for either discipline. But, with 34 overs bowled in the session, in spite of a rain delay, this was a passage to have the paying punters salivating, at least according to the prevailing narrative about the dangers of slow over-rates to Test cricket, and to the order of priorities implied by the ICC’s own rulebooks.

Over-rates are an issue that matters a great deal to some fans, even if catching up with the rate is often achieved by running through some overs of part-time spin, rather than actually getting round the field quicker throughout. But they surely do not affect the entertainment to the same degree as a poor pitch can. Losing one or two percent of a day’s play can’t be as bad as all the action being turgid.

An over-rate penalty can cost a team a place in a World Test Championship final, but, while it is yet to be seen what fate befalls the Kensington Oval, a ground can roll out four pitches like the one seen at Rawalpindi in succession and escape punishment. On that surface, an Australia attack containing four bowlers who qualify as greats for their country managed just three wickets between them. The surface was merely rated ‘Below Average’.

Given that, it is hard to see the Kensington Oval surface being rated anything worse than ‘Below Average’, and the drama created by England’s enterprising batting and Saqib Mahmood’s skill on debut may yet mean it avoids even that fate. But a good finish does not equate to a good Test match, or a good Test surface. And even a definitively bad Test on a definitively bad pitch is not adequately punished.

A ‘Below Average’ rating is hardly something to be feared. Such an evaluation brings with it a sole demerit point, with an accumulation of five demerit points in a five-year rolling period bringing with it a 12-month ban. This means that, should the authorities at Rawalpindi roll out another three such surfaces over the next five years, they would escape any meaningful punishment. A ‘two strike’ system, with three ‘Below Average’ pitches in five years leading to a ban, would act as a much more effective deterrent.

None of this is to criticise the two teams at Barbados, one of whom has done everything in their power to push for victory, and the other of whom, upon realising a win is out of reach, has sensibly set out their stall for a draw. Some of the action has still, in its own way, been high quality, even after England’s ball-striking on day two. Ben Stokes backed up his blistering innings with a spell of skilful resolve, beating the bat of set batters even late on day four. Jack Leach showed admirable control in his marathon spell. Brathwaite demonstrated again that he possesses a level of concentration bestowed upon very few.

But even if it was intriguing, you could hardly call it entertaining. So what is there to be done?

It is tough to punish a team for the surface inflicted upon them. While PCB chair Ramiz Raja made explicitly clear that preparing slow, low wickets is a diktat delivered from on high, West Indies’ players are not happy with the pitches they have had to play on, and, in theory, pitch curators operate independently of governing bodies. There are also elements of groundskeeping that are out of the control of those responsible, with weather, the balancing of different requirements for different events, and competing interests of those above them. It is also not as if Test cricket generally suffers from a glut of slow, low pitches, with the recent spate an outlier.

But still some adjustment to the number of ‘Below Average’ pitches needed to incur a punishment, and to the criteria for each rating, is surely in order, if only because of how vague they are currently. As written, a pitch should be rated ‘Below Average’ if it displays “Either very little carry and/or bounce and/or more than occasional seam movement, or occasional variable (but not excessive or dangerous) bounce and/or occasional variable carry.”

This could describe most wickets Test cricket is played on, with a few balls generally keeping low at some stage of every Test match, or dying before reaching the keeper. The criteria for a ‘Poor’ rating are that a poor surface “is one that does not allow an even contest between bat and ball”, with the ICC describing such a pitch as displaying excessive seam movement, uneven bounce, or spin at any stage, or little seam movement, turn or bounce at any stage, helpfully pointing out that “‘excessive’ means ‘too much’. Australia’s bowlers would certainly argue that the Rawalpindi surface is a clear example of the latter, and yet there has only been one poor rating handed out in the last five years of international cricket, to a Cape Town surface which almost led to a Test being abandoned. Sri Lanka may well argue that the Bengaluru surface used for a recent day/night Test, which showed noticeable inconsistent bounce on day one, should also have been considered poor.

There is no need for this to be decided based on vibes and perception as is currently the case. The tools are available to make the process a much more scientific one. With DRS in operation in every Test match, it is possible to judge whether there is too much seam movement, spin or variable bounce using ball-tracking technology, along with a set of pre-agreed standards. For example, should a certain number of balls from a seamer move laterally more than an agreed limit in a set time period, or the average seam movement in a period exceeds set figure, then a pitch can automatically be rated ‘Below Average’. This would also mean that surfaces which might have escaped sanction because of an exciting finish, as could yet be the case with the Barbados pitch, would no longer be safe. There would be an objective standard in place.

What is needed is a complete overhaul. A ‘two strike’ system is the place to start, with a pitch like that at Rawalpindi leading to a first warning, with another leading to a final warning in place for five years, and the technology which is already in place used for determining whether a ground merits punishment. At the moment, it’s the ICC’s stewardship of the Test game as well as the pitches that deserve to be considered below average.