BCCI takes on ICC again, defends Nagpur pitch in strongly-worded reply

New Delhi: In a strongly-worded letter to the International Cricket Council, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has defended the Nagpur track that was prepared for the third Test between India and South Africa.

ICC had sought an explanation from the Indian board with 14 days after match referee Jeff Crowe's report had termed the Jamtha track as 'poor'.

According to a report in the DNA, BCCI has questioned Crowe's interpretation of the pitch.

"The assessment of Nagpur pitch as "poor" was totally incorrect. The Board has strongly contested Jeff Crowe's report," a board official told the newspaper.

"There are different types of wickets – a batting wicket, a seaming wicket and a spinning wicket. If the spinners are able to turn the ball on the first day of the Test, then how could the pitch be termed poor," BCCI wrote in its reply.

"There is a perception that a contest between ball and bat can come only on a seaming wicket. Spinners can also have a contest with the batsmen in cricket," the official further added.

The Indian board has asked the ICC to take a look at all the 40 wickets that fell in the 3rd Test.

"Excessive turn is a matter of perception. The batsmen found it difficult not due to the wicket but due to poor technique and temperament. Not a single ball displayed excessive unevenness of bounce. Then, how can it be termed a poor pitch," the official noted

The BCCI went as far as to give an example of the Australia-New Zealand Day/Night Test in Adelaide.

"Adelaide game too ended inside three days. Most of the wickets there were taken by seamers. Can that pitch then be termed 'poor' for offering excessive seam movement"?

ICC's general manager of cricket Geoff Allardice and chief match referee Ranjan Madugalle will now go through all evidences before taking a call on whether Vidarbha Cricket Association's pitch was indeed 'poor' or not?

If they agree with Crowe's observation, BCCI could be be let off with a warning or be fined $15,000.