Bob Woolmer
FROM THE PAVILION
No team likes to get beaten, and, on the whole, England’s management were happy to concede that South Africa had played very well in order to win the first Test by an innings.
Normally it would end there.
But there was a proviso. The English team and many of its travelling media considered the pitch not good enough for a Test match and believed the toss had been too important.
It is worth explaining here the actual nature of the pitch, before we discuss the merits of the argument. Test pitches used to be the best; recently, throughout the world, pitches have been prepared with more chance of a result (other than a draw) than ever before. Inevitably it will suit the home side. However, it is amazing how some teams can shoot themselves in the foot by having a pitch prepared that suits the opposition. England have been good at that and recently Zimbabwe followed suit against South Africa and Australia.
On the pitch preparation, I can honestly say the South African coach and captain have never been asked what they want, more what they think. Then it is up to the local province to prepare the best they can.
Hansie Cronje and I just wanted a good cricket pitch that has pace and bounce with less lateral movement off the seam. Sometimes in their effort to provide pace and bounce the provinces may have left too much grass on the pitch. This allows the ball to grip on its seam and lateral movement is inevitable.
To return to the first Test, I spoke to Chris Scott, the curator at the Wanderers, the day before the game. He said he would have preferred a sunnier day before the Test match started. He wanted the wicket to start with some moisture, but there was a little too much at that time. Unfortunately, like all groundsmen, he is often in the hands of the weather.
The final test of any pitch is how it plays. Certain last-minute checks are made on the final morning, such as testing the pitch with spikes and or a key. Naturally the match referee frowns and does not allow this but there are ways and means one can find out.
The amount of moisture in the pitch meant that the side winning the toss would field first. The reasons were clear: there would be lateral movement, but would it dent? Oval indentations made by the ball bruising the surface could cause problems such as steep initial bounce, and as the dents hardened then the ball might hit the front or back of the dent and bounce differently. This factor was clearly prevalent during the whole of the Test match.
The weather during the Test became important. The more sun, the harder the pitch; the more cloud cover, the less the drying. That is why England captain Nasser Hussain said he “looked up and down” when he came out to toss. The million-dollar question of course, is would England have bowled out South Africa had they bowled first?
Quite frankly it would be hard to answer without a lot of ifs and buts! What was quite clear during the match was that when the sun came out batting looked comfortably easier. Another factor, which always has to be taken into account, is the effect of the new ball.
Allan Donald cruelly demonstrated this, in both innings. In the first, he swung the ball enormously (no pitch involvement in three of his wickets, which were all swing). In the second, Donald gave Andy Caddick – who was, with Darren Gough, whittling away at South Africa’s lead with some high-class shots – a torrid time, hitting him in the midriff and on the back at real pace. This undermined Caddick’s confidence and allowed Shaun Pollock to cleverly get him out with a slower ball.
The quick bowlers between them took 28 wickets -19 by the South African quickies and nine by the English, with Paul Adams upsetting the flow.
One aspect of this match I do know is that in South Africa’s innings England bowled 40% of the balls wide of the stumps in stark comparison to South Africa’s performance, which was under 20%. I also watched Pollock wear down a patch on the wicket 1m long by 30cm wide just back of a good length (he calls it the business area). As the divots in this area dried up, they caused the downfall of many English batsmen. This “business area” was directly responsible for removing Atherton and Hussain in the second innings, Atherton by steep bounce and Hussain by a shooter!
This demonstrates an extremely high skill factor and is one of the reasons that I believe South Africa may well have won the game even if they had had to bat first.
Domination by fast bowlers is inevitable in the Test match arena; just look at Australian and Pakistan. However, this is not necessarily good for Test matches. I believe there has to be a place for spinners, but the one thing certain is that the pitch at the Wanderers would never have broken up (becoming dusted or powdery), and that cannot be good for cricket.
There I agree with Hussain and I really believe Test pitches should have minimum specs, including bounce, moisture levels, grass cover, and so on. Maybe if the match referee says the pitch does not concur with those standards he can award the toss to the visiting side.