SPORTS

Pitch far too loaded  for inept Lankans

By T.M.K. Samat

THE third day's tea interval is normally about the time a Test match begins to reveal its end. During the third tea break at the Gabba last Saturday, for instance, the Australians' win became fairly discernible as they began the job of enlarging on their first innings lead of 167. Sure enough they won, though few thought that the end would come before the sandwiches and tea of the fourth day. But half a world away, day three's tea had become dispensable. The South Africans rather chose to sip champagne while the Sri Lankans wept into their cups.

When a Test ends so swiftly, a post-mortem is rendered redundant. Any way you look at it, the premature demise of Sri Lanka was made inevitable by the overwhelming superiority of the South Africans.

Some might argue that had Jayasuriya opted to bowl first things might have been different. Bundled out for 192, batting first, the initiative had been promptly handed to South Africa, who then went on to convert that initial advantage to triumph. Whether in opting to bowl first, our bowlers could've done the same deeds of the South African's is conjectural. Presuming they did,  then our batsmen would have had to prosper the way the South Africans did. To assume that would've happened is being more than a tad too optimistic, given how powerless our batsmen were to counter the vagaries of a spiteful pitch. At best, the inevitable might have been prolonged for awhile had Jayasuriya's decision been different. The reality is that, whether we batted first or not, the difficulties in the pitch weren't going to disappear with time. If anything it only became increasingly menacing, as the rush of falling wickets on the third day proved. So, Jayasuriya's decision might just have prevented an even quicker demise.

It is no secret that the South Africans were bent on taking all the advantages available to a home team. In fact, they made public of their intention to prepare uncomfortably bouncy tracts for their guests, just as the Sri Lankans had given them pitches that spun wickedly. Consumed by the memories of losing inside four days at Galle in the 2000 series and the frustration of being denied a win over India last September in the Champions' Trophy semifinal by Khettarama's slowness, the South Africans were not going to hold back on anything. There's nothing wrong with intent to exact revenge; after all, without some bloody-mindedness, sport would be a less exciting spectacle.

Suitability of pitch

But it is pertinent to ask if the South Africans had been a touch too revengeful in their preparation of the Johannesburg pitch. The pitch was handed with cracks on it. That isn't uncommon, but when the ball both squats and lifts as early as the first morning then it isn't difficult to suspect that the host's intention was to create something of a shooting gallery. The frequency of ducking and swaying increased as cracks widened to chasms. Fourteen batsmen perished in less than two sessions on the third day. This was carnage. And a signpost at either end of the pitch warning of danger wouldn't have been inappropriate.

When matches end as early as this, there's a case for questioning the suitability of the pitch for a Test match. It is easy to suggest that the tour-management ought to lodge some sort of formal protest, but then it's unlikely we'll have the courage of our convictions to do that, guilt-ridden as we are of doctoring pitches compatible to our strengths. But there is a difference. The Johannesburg pitch contained potential risks to limbs. The only health risk our pitches posed was perhaps momentary blurred vision caused by squint-eyed following of the mystifying paths of Muralitheran's spin. 

The influence of the accepted practice of doctoring pitches can go beyond the taking of home advantage. That is least of the concerns. Test matches finishing in three and four days, as did happen to two Test matches last week, can't be good advertisement for cricket, never a box-office hit as are football, rugby, tennis or golf in these times of commercialized sport.  Sponsors investing in Test matches must surely feel cheated if they get value for only three or four days when they've paid for five. So, though a win in under three days might have brought joy to Pollock's men, the empty stands to see them win well before the scheduled close of the third day doesn't tell a happy story for the future.

The pitch was, however, not the only reason why the Johannesburg Test ended in nearly half the allotted time. The ineptness of the Sri Lankan batsmen is equally a reason, not to mention the ruthless exploitation by the South African quick bowlers of all the built in advantages in the pitch. Brought up on batsman-friendly pitches, Sri Lankan batsmen's discomfiture against pace and movement is well known, especially in the post-Ranatunga years. In the 2000 series in South Africa, pace undid Sri Lanka, 0/2, both defeats coming on the fourth day. The story was repeated last summer in England. A ditto to this series only needs to be inked.

This continuing trend of failures only raises the question whether coach Dav Whatmore is delivering all that is expected of him. The pitch no doubt was treacherous, but even on less difficult pitches, like in England last summer, our batsmen were unable to make the technical adjustments to cope with bounce and movement. It is easy to explain this away by pointing out that we are natural shot makers and that any changes to technique will remove the flair our cricket is admired for. But cricket is not all about playing attractively alone. It is also about playing to win. And for that there has to be a completeness of technique. Whatmore has fallen short here. Short too in the job of expanding our bowling to something more than a one-man band.

Of course, he's contributed handsomely otherwise, notably the World Cup of '96 and that remarkable unbroken sequence of nine Test triumphs. When he assumed duties in 1995 a Test win was a rare achievement. He has now brought us to a point where wins are expected - and achieved. But success also has a cruel side.  With home series wins becoming customary, the expectation is now of winning overseas series. Whatmore hasn't failed here either. His charges won over Zimbabwe and Pakistan, both in the 1999-2000 season. What is asked of him now is the conquest of the likes of South Africa and Australia. He has managed those goals over the acknowledged world's nos. 1 and 2, both on the dust bowls of Galle. The expectation now is to beard the lions in their own dens. But that is a job that's beyond most other countries too. But these are the remaining peaks Whatmore is asked to scale. The question is if these are too Himalayan for him? 

No easy answers

There are no easy answers. A new coach could well be a case of a change of pillow not curing a stiff neck, which, in the context of our cricket is the deficiency in our batsmen's technique. That chronic deficiency is something Whatmore should be held responsible for. Much of the blame for the failures of the two to South Africa and the last one of England, over the three past years, can be attributed to our batsmen's inability to make technical adjustments to the differing conditions. So, it isn't unreasonable to presume that remedial measures haven't got the priority and importance they deserve. That probably was a reason why the previous interim committee secured the specialized services of batting coach, Barry Richards, a few weeks before the English tour. To no avail, some say. But obviously the malady isn't a quick fix thing.

Whatmore's contract is up for renewal after the World Cup in March, and should the abysmal failures continue, a chorus-call for his removal would be unavoidable. But in deference to the intimacy that exists between him and our cricket and country after nearly five years spent here, one hopes the liaison will continue. For that the Sri Lankan-born Australian will have to replay the wondrous deed of 1996 at next year's World Cup too, though at this point of time that looks a far fetched. The stars, unfortunately, don't seem to favour him at this point of time.  As if the disastrous first Test wasn't bad enough, Whatmore has now to do the job without skipper Jayasuriya for the remainder of the tour and Muralitheran for the five-match one-day series as well as the one-day triangular in Australia. But one wishes the stars would turn for this likeable man - and Sri Lanka cricket.

Rajiva Wijetunga - veterans TT champion

Rajiva Wijetunge of Ceylinco Shriram gave a pleasing display in winning the veterans men's singles table tennis title at the junior and senior Nationals Table Tennis Championship 2002, held at the Sugathadasa Indoor Stadium recently. Rajiva defeated A.D.S.K. Chandrasekera, 11-03, 09-11, 11-05, 11-05 comfortably to win the veterans singles titles