It’s inconceivable: CA refuses to take more control over Test pitch

Cricket Australia has ruled out taking greater control over Test pitch preparation, insisting that local curators are best placed to deliver good, unique surfaces despite criticism following the costly Ashes series earlier this year.

Following the two-day finishes in the Perth and MCG Tests, which cost CA nearly AUD 15 million in revenue, the quality of the state pitches came under intense scrutiny. CA CEO Todd Green had also admitted that short Tests are “bad for business”.

But despite the losses, CA is reluctant to opt for a centralised model.

“It’s inconceivable that we could ever control much more than we do now,” CA’s head of operations, Peter Roach, was quoted as saying by the Australian Associated Press. “In England, you could put in a central curator to go around or New Zealand, or South Africa, because the wickets and the clays and the climates are so similar.

“In Australia, because they’re so different, you could put the best curator in Australia to a different venue and all of a sudden, they’re an also-ran for a while.

“Because they wouldn’t know the characteristics and the climate and how those pitches respond to that,” Roach added. CA currently employs consultant Les Burdett to assist curators, but does not dictate what kind of pitches to be prepared. They, however, encourage curators to prepare pitches that last at least four days and offer a balanced contest between bat and ball, without resulting in dull draws. | Roach said CA wants states to embrace their venues’ unique characteristics rather than produce uniform pitches.

“The difference of our pitches across from west to east to north to south is so pronounced and it’s something that we don’t want to change,” Roach said.

“We think it’s a really good competitive advantage that we don’t want to make our wickets all too similar, like we see in some other countries.

“Giving curators the chance to explore their unique characteristics is really important. But with that comes a reasonable amount of risk.

“It does mean that occasionally we go wrong ... But I think our history is pretty good in terms of working with venues to improve them,” he added.