I'm one of those who believes that pitches are crucial to cricket.
A lot of people seem to think they know what people want from cricket, and it often differs a fair bit.
I remember Bob Willis ranting that people didn't want close and exciting games, they wanted boundries that that was all. I totally disagree, i think a close and exciting game is far more interesting than just boundry hitting.
Javid Miandad has weighed in on the ODI pitches thing. He says ""People want to see fast-paced cricket and lots of runs and excitement and that is lacking generally in this tournament because of the inconsistent nature of pitches." "
which i'd disagree with, because it seems like the games have actually been exciting. I've even enjoyed them, and i'm not really into limited overs cricket so much.
And he may have his facts wrong: "Miandad said the toss at the venue gave an unfair advantage and made the matches one-sided. However, out of the eight completed matches so far, the sides winning the toss have won only four times."
Balance between bat and ball is what it's all about for me, and an even game between two well-matched sides