The Nagpur wicket for the recent third cricket Test between India and South Africa generated a lot of discussion, with the consensus being that the batsmen from both sides couldn't bat on that surface, and India deserved to win because they have better spin bowlers than we do.
That's true, I guess, but one point that's missed is that a cricket Test match is supposed to last for five days and a lot of time, effort and money is put in, by all sorts of people, based on the fact that the game will last that long.
The three games so far (the second one was rained out) never came close to that. India won the two that were played in three days or less and will, no doubt, take the fourth as comfortably, if the conditions are the same, and they are very happy with their performance.
As with all sport, however, I wonder about the educational implications of it all. There are a number of points arising in this regard.
In the first instance it's clearly all about winning. Sure, it's a serious business at this level and everyone goes all out for victory. But are you justified in doing whatever it takes to win? The response coming out of India to the expected world-wide criticism of the pitches they have prepared is that when they go on tour the hosts lay on green-tops, favouring the quick bowlers. So why shouldn't they control the conditions at home?
They are right, but there's an element of two wrongs making a right there, and what about concepts of level playing fields and old-fashioned fairness? How can we advocate for sport as part of education if we are saying that the home team is justified in setting up the conditions to make winning more difficult for the opponents than it is for them?
Then there are the principles that lie behind sporting contests. If the matches were not supposed to have an educational value, win or lose, then why have them? Why not run some sort of non-competitive, internal, games programme at schools like they do in some countries?
The lessons learnt from sporting matches begin before the game is played and continue long after it ends. And they have to do with preparing as well as you can, giving it a full go, and then accepting the result. And none of those lessons can be taught or learnt if you aren't confident of it being a fair contest.
And in cricket that means coaching players to handle whatever is thrown at them, but also to throw all you have at the opposition. If the playing surface doesn't allow that to happen fairly then the all contest teaches the players is that it's possible to win by manipulating the conditions - and that's a lesson best left untaught.
Then there are the lessons that cricket as a game is specifically the best to get across. And they have mainly to do with the length of the game. Just about all the most popular games played around the world are over in 80 or 90 minutes. In contrast, even the shorter forms of cricket take all day. (T20 is changing things, but there's a whole other discussion around that).
The game has been teaching about the evils of instant gratification since long before that term became generally accepted into the English language. Build an innings, buy a wicket, pressurise a batsmen with close fielders, fight for survival and earn an honourable draw - on day five. Those are cricketing concepts that easily transferred into life skills, and they are why we teach children to play the game.
So, why prepare a wicket that guarantees a win for one side, and ensures that the game will never last long enough for those lessons to apply. And what about the waste of money and time, and the disappointment of fans like me who wanted to spend the weekend watching the Test on TV?