Don’t be alarmed, but we’re taking a stance on something. It’s to do with semantics though, so we’re not overstretching ourself.
In cricket, what people describe as a good pitch is invariably one that is good for batting. It is flat, offers even bounce and little spin. Batsmen score hundreds with ease and the cricket is boring.
It might not seem like a big thing, but calling such pitches ‘good’ is symptomatic of an attitude that cricket is all about scoring runs. Cricket isn’t about scoring runs. It is about taking wickets.
Why the misuses of ‘good’ matters
This attitude is a problem. People who don’t know about cricket see the game in terms of runs and completely miss the whole point of the sport. They think it’s boring because they don’t understand what they’re watching.
Describing pitches that are easy to score on as ‘good’ is only a tiny part of this, but we’re taking a stand. From now on, if we talk about a ‘good pitch’ on this website, it will be cracked, grassy, uneven or a sharp-turning monster. If a batsman makes 50 on it, he will be a bloody good player. These sorts of pitches show you the worth of a cricketer, because a run has more value.
Ideally, we’d like to see the widest variety of pitches, but for the minute, the flat ones rule. So, until that changes, ‘good’ is bad.