The bumpy question of a sandy field

Eleven years ago the English were put in to bat by the West Indies and after being struck seven times in 61 balls by Ambrose and Walsh, the pitch was rightly deemed far too dangerous and unpredictable to keep playing. Test abandoned. Embarrassing. Caribbean cricket must have learned its lesson, surely.

Evidently not. A new stadium, a new island, but it took ten balls to confirm what was readily apparent in Antigua; the field, which had more in common with a beach than a cricket ground, was unsuitable for play.

There were rumblings in the press beforehand. Cricinfo drily suggested that:

Antigua is famous for its 365 beaches, but there is enough sand on the outfield of the Sir Vivian Richards stadium to ensure they have one extra for a leap year.

The match referee, Alan Hurst, said conditions weren't satisfactory, but not unfit for a Test, and it adds to a list of problems associated with this ground since it opened for the 2007 World Cup.

There are areas of bare sand, especially near the boundary edge, and elsewhere the grass is very thin and patchy. Anyone fielding at third man or fine leg might as well take a bucket and spade with them to wile away any slow passages of play. The bowlers' run-ups are also a cause for concern while there is a significant ridge in the take-off area at the north end of the ground.

The idea that conditions were less than satisfactory but not unfit for a Test match, still the most important form of the game, is a troublesome one. Clearly it had been understood that the field was in a terrible state. Alan Hurst's explanation to Test Match Special left a lot to be desired:

"There was no evidence (before play) that this would happen," he said. "We knew of the problems yet there was no evidence - but after two overs it became clear.”

So there was no suggestion at all? Clearly there was. Nobody, Hurst confirms in the Times' summary, had tried running up on the strip, or even near it, to make sure that it was fit for cricket. As it only took ten balls to establish that it was not, it points to an extremely disappointing assessment of the situation. Andrew Strauss was measured in his criticisms of the wicket, knowing full well that nobody would be interested in his excuses in the wake of their 51 all out effort in the previous Test:

"I'm not really too concerned about the pitch, although it is fair to say it is not in an ideal state," said Strauss.

"However there are plenty more important things for us to be thinking about than the outfield. As long as we are sensible about the way we field on it then it shouldn't provide any injuries and it is the same for both sides so we can't lose too much sleep over it.

"There is a bit of an issue over the bowler's run-up at one end, but the ground staff are pretty confident they can get it right by the morning of the match.

"It is important not to worry about things like the ground considering the situation we are in. We've just got to be very focused on trying to win this Test match.

"You'd like every training session to be perfect with great run-ups and outfields, but in a lot of parts of the world you don't get that and you've just got to deal with it.

They probably also had a clue that things weren't right when the nets at the ground were deemed unsuitable, and England had to revert to the Antigua Recreation Ground instead. Chris Gayle hinted at the same, as the Guardian reports:

As far as West Indies were concerned, Chris Gayle said that it " could be dangerous" and that the run-ups will make for heavy legs.

Hugh Morris, speaking on Sky Sports, confirmed that he had written a letter expressing his concern to Alan Hurst about the pitch. There are some fairly obvious reasons to test it out before starting the game, then.

It's unfair to lay the blame at Hurst's door, however, when he had no role in the preparation of the ground. The West Indies Cricket Board have had since the fixture was confirmed officially on May 28 last year, and have provided a ground which is in a poor state. They can have no excuse for its failure, and we will be sure to append any comments from the WICB or ground staff which attempt to portray the field as suitable. Sir Ian Botham, again on Sky Sports, suggests that groundstaff warned the WICB in November that the ground could not be ready, but the reports are sketchy and the blame game has only just begun. And how could the situation not be confused, if the Telegraph is right when it says:

Apparently, it is the groundsman, Tony Merrick, a fearsome fast bowler who played for Kent and Warwickshire in the 1980s, who is responsible for the square. The keep of the outfield is contracted out.

When the fog of confusion lifts, there will be little more to say other than that this abandonment could and should have been prevented, and the indignation that is about to land at the feet of anyone with any involvement in organising the game will be merited. those who attempt to spin their way out of responsibility will be spotted.

Fianlly, a word of credit to the English cricketers for chatting to the fans and making themselves available. The scenes were most heartening on a day when the name of cricket was being sullied by others. Was this the moment that the England team began to reconnect with the frustrated fans?

To leave a comment on this article, please scroll down        BOOKMARK THIS -