I think enough has been said about pitches and we can go on arguing without either side changing their stand, however I do want to address the part in bold.
I think the reason why pitches in India that help spin get the flack is that because they are dusty, people think they are under-prepared. First of all if you saw the pitch report today, both Sunny and Pollock said that the pitch has actually held quite firm, despite giving the illusion on day 1 that it just couldn't wait to come apart.
Second the larger point where the bias against spinning wickets comes from, while green wickets seem to get barely a comment and all kinds of positive spin put on them, is that there is this weird illusion going around that a curator has to work hard to prepare a green wicket, while a curator has to forget his job and at the last second find a strip of land and then basically throw some dirt on it, and viola you get a spinning track.
That is not the case, just like a green track, a spinner also needs just as much work. The pitch doesn't turn, and the pitch is not dry because the curator didn't work on it. No, the pitch is dry and helping spin, because it was made that way, with just as much preparation, as would go into the making of a green top.
I don't know where this comes from. People think of a square spinner, the curator must not of worked on it, because had he worked on it, we would get a flat wicket, or a green top, or basically anything expect a square spinner. This is why the bias exists against square spinner, this underlying assumption that its an under-prepared wicket.
The truth is that a wicket can be prepared for days to be a green top, and the wicket can just as equally be prepared by the curator to turn from day 1. This under prepared bit is wrong.
