Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Test cricket has taken a couple of body blows in the recent past with some absolutely shoddy pitch preparation. In a quest to make a Test match last 5 days, thereby ensuring that TV revenue is not impacted, curators around the world have been preparing the flattest of pitches. It has been raining runs and a century no longer seems to be a big enough score for a batsman. But the ICC does not care for the viewer's interests, it appears. Sambit Bal takes up this train of thought on his editor's blog on CricInfo.

Of course, lessons are unlikely to be learnt from cricket's latest debacles. That's simply because it is unlikely there will be any repercussions. Unlike players, cricket administrators are rarely held to account. Giles Clarke, who was confirmed the ECB's chairman amidst calls for his resignation over his board's dalliance with Allen Stanford, claimed blithely to have received 9000 emails urging him to stay on and save English cricket. Twelve days after a Test was abandoned in Antigua because the custodians of a cricket stadium could not tell a beach from a playing field, the executive committee of the ICC came to the perceptive conclusion that "the responsibility for ensuring the delivery of a venue fit for the purpose of international cricket rested with the host Member board".

Move over, Roebuck and Bhogle, I think I have found a cricket writer whose style I like even more than yours! And, luckily, he has started his own blog on CricInfo. About time, I say.