Sunil Gavaskar, a former Indian cricket captain, has unleashed a scathing critique of the International Cricket Council (ICC) and its referees, as well as the double standards in pitch preparation and evaluation. Gavaskar's recent comments highlight the stark contrast in how Test pitches are assessed in Australia compared to India, particularly when matches end early.
In his Sportstar column, Gavaskar delves into the recent Australia-Bangladesh Test series in Mackay, where the hosts dominated, winning by an innings and 51 runs. He questions the apparent double standards in pitch assessment, noting that four Tests in Australia have ended within two days in recent years, yet the pitches involved have not attracted the same criticism often directed at Indian surfaces when matches end early. Gavaskar argues that the familiar argument about batters lacking technique to handle extreme pace and bounce is not entirely valid if both teams struggle to produce substantial partnerships.
He emphasizes the role of the pitch in such outcomes, stating, 'If both teams struggle to produce substantial partnerships, the pitch cannot be completely absolved of responsibility.' Gavaskar's criticism extends to the ICC referees, suggesting that they often prioritize media brownie points from the old powers, leading to biased ratings and reports. He predicts that the Mackay pitch will receive a high rating, despite the short match duration, and contrasts this with the harsh scrutiny Indian pitches face when matches end early in India.
Gavaskar also takes aim at the different standards applied to pace and spin bowling. He argues that batting against quality spin is equally demanding, requiring precise footwork, balance, and soft hands. He questions why fast bowlers who struggle for wickets on slower Indian pitches are not subjected to the same scrutiny as batters who fail on Australian-style surfaces. Gavaskar's concerns stem from the fact that players with ordinary records in the subcontinent are often hailed as great by those from the old powers, while their fast bowlers are never judged by their failure to take wickets on slow surfaces.
In summary, Gavaskar's commentary underscores the perceived double standards in cricket, where pitch preparation and referee ratings are influenced by geopolitical considerations rather than purely sporting criteria. His critique highlights the need for a more consistent and fair approach to pitch evaluation and referee decision-making in international cricket.
