There are some Test cricket records which seem unlikely to ever be broken. The untouchable Don Bradman's 99.94 immediately springs to mind, or Jim Laker's equally lofty 19-90 match figures.

Perhaps the 952 that Sri Lanka constructed against India in 1997? There would need to be extraordinary circumstances for a team to pass 950 runs in an innings again, but is it really less likely to be seen than a team being shot out for under 26?

Way back in 1955 a weak New Zealand team collapsed in a soggy heap to lose to England by an innings and 20 runs - and they began their second innings needing only 46 runs to make the opposition bat again. It was the extreme pace of Brian Statham and Frank Tyson coupled with Bob Appleyard's brisk spin that sent the Kiwis spiralling to the oblivion of 26 all out that day.

'It's no secret that a bat-friendly track is good news for administrators and television companies'


The nearest any team has come to that unfortunate record in recent years is the West Indies' 47 all out against England at Kingston, back in the days when Steve Harmison was apparently the world's best bowler. Strange days.

Now the 1955 Kiwis had an uncovered and damp pitch to blame, whilst the 2004 West Indians had no such ready-made excuses. When confronted with a bouncy track they capitulated lamely, yet fast forward by just a month and they were helping themselves to 751 on a nice, docile pitch at St John's. One could say that the 1955 Kiwis would have made more than 47.

But back to 2008, and the first Test of the recently concluded India v South Africa series. The batting orders on both sides were cashing in merrily to the tune of 1498 runs for the loss of 25 wickets over the five days. Aside from Virender Sehwag's fireworks the game was a drab and grim procession of run-making. Another two days would have been needed for a result to be reached. A similar thing was happening across the globe in Guyana, as Sri Lanka ground their way to a declaration on a lifeless pitch. The West Indies conspired to lose that match, mainly through their lack of application against disciplined bowling, but a stronger batting side would have ensured the bore draw.

In the second India-South Africa Test, the Indians were confronted by a first morning pitch with a thin covering of grass, and they soon turned green themselves. After they were skittled for 76 the run scoring became easier, but by then the game was irretrievable. It was the third Test that provided a more absorbing contest; played on a pitch that was slightly uneven and always aided the spinners. Fortune favoured the brave on such a track and Sourav Ganguly was certainly that, as he proved that runs could be scored with an excellent 87.

Unfortunately for Test cricket, the pitch exhibited at the first match in Chennai seems to be more the norm and less the exception. A 'good' pitch used to be one which offered encouragement to all players, pace bowlers, spinners and batsmen. But a 'good' pitch in modern parlance seems to be one so flat that you could paint a white line down the middle and encourage traffic onto it.

It's no secret that a bat-friendly track is good news for administrators and television companies - five days of action is always always better than three, no matter what the quality of that action. The three-day contests at Ahmedabad and and Kanpur were far better to watch than the five-day tranquiliser of Chennai, but we know which brought in more money.

Worse than that, when batsman are presented with flat pitches on a regular basis it encourages laziness of technique and the skill levels suffer. Would the Indian team have been bowled out for 76 if they had not strolled to 627 in the previous innings? After his awesome 319, Sehwag tallied just 53 runs in his next four innings. In the future players like Rahul Dravid, who are able to grind out runs on a minefield, may die out altogether.

Even someone like Jacques Kallis, a player who could make runs anywhere, was complaining about the 'poor' Kanpur pitch, yet isn't that exactly the type of surface you expect to be confronted with in India? You wouldn't expect to turn up and play on dustbowls at the WACA or Sabina Park, or see a seam-friendly greentop in Colombo. The whole challenge of touring other countries is adjusting to the different conditions and circumstances, both on the field and off it. If all Test pitches were homogenised then part of that challenge is removed - a flat track in India isn't any different to a flat track in England or South Africa.

Just as with everything in modern cricket, the advent and proliferation of Twenty20 has a big impact on pitch preparation. A good Twenty20 match needs good conditions for batting, spectators want to see plenty of fours and sixes, and more often than not it is the batsman's mistake that gets himself out as he goes for quick runs.

The same pitch for a Test match promotes attritional and unspectacular cricket for five days: sure the batsmen enjoy themselves, but it is a thankless and potentially injury-threatening task for bowlers. Perhaps it is time to start preparing separate pitches for the longer and shorter forms of the game.

One thing is for sure, if more flat pitches keep being produced for Test matches then Sri Lanka's 952 record seems a lot closer than New Zealand's 26.