Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar has once again stirred debate around pitch assessments by openly questioning the International Cricket Council (ICC). The batting great has highlighted what he believes are double standards in the way pitch ratings are awarded, using the recently concluded fourth Ashes Test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground as a prime example.
A two-day Test raises questions over pitch assessment
The Melbourne Test raised eyebrows after it wrapped up inside just two days, with bowlers dominating from the very first session. A staggering 20 wickets fell on Day 1 — the highest number in Australia on an opening day since 1951 — followed by another 16 on Day 2. In total, the match was completed in just 142 overs, an unusually short duration for a Test match at one of cricket’s most iconic venues.
Despite the heavy assistance for bowlers, Gavaskar feels the pitch is unlikely to attract criticism from match officials. Drawing comparisons with the opening Test of the series in Perth, which also ended inside two days yet received a glowing assessment, the former opener suggested that the MCG surface could still escape scrutiny.
Sunil Gavaskar hints at referee-driven ratings for MCG pitch
Gavaskar pointed out that the Perth Test pitch was rated ‘very good’ despite similar conditions leading to a rapid finish. He added a sarcastic twist by suggesting that the rating for the Melbourne pitch may depend more on who is holding the referee’s clipboard than on the actual nature of the surface.
Gavaskar noted that with Jeff Crowe officiating the Melbourne and Sydney Tests instead of Ranjan Madugalle, the wording of the rating could conveniently change. According to him, the removal of the word “very” from “very good” might be the only visible difference, even though more wickets fell in Melbourne than in Perth.
“Since there is a new match referee, Jeff Crowe, for the Melbourne and Sydney Test matches, the rating could be different. Since 36 wickets fell in the Melbourne Test instead of 32 in Perth, Crowe might drop the word ‘very’ from the ‘very good’ that Madugalle gave for the Perth pitch and rate the MCG pitch as good. Surprises never cease, of course, so we may get another rating,” Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar.
Sarcasm aimed at ‘horrible groundsmen’ narrative
The 75-year-old did not stop there. He also took a dig at how Indian pitch curators are often portrayed by ICC match referees. Gavaskar sarcastically remarked that while curators in Australia may make an occasional “human error,” they are rarely labeled as manipulative — a stark contrast to the harsh language often used for Indian groundsmen.
“The curators, or as we found out about the person in charge at the MCG, the Director of Turf, may make a human error and get it slightly wrong, but they are not as devious as those ‘horrible groundsmen’ in India who do not even prepare a pitch and expect the batters to score runs on them. Tut tut,” Gavaskar added.
