It’s almost certainly too late to do anything about the KNCB board’s extraordinary decision to allocate the inaugural Hoofdklasse final to ACC’s ground in Amstelveen, but now that the regular season is over it is possible to look at the statistics to see whether there is a factual basis to the criticisms which have been made of the facility at Het Loopveld.

The arguments have raged ever since the KNCB made its initial announcement at the end of May: over whether the highest qualifying club should have home advantage in the final, or at least the choice of playing surface; over the logic of playing the final in Amsterdam, come what may; over the merits and deficiencies of the ACC ground itself.

We must, of course, be cautious about statistics, and they are only part of the story. But there is no doubt that cricket is to a large degree dependent on its physical environment, on the relative advantage batsmen and bowlers receive from the pitch, on the length of the grass in the outfield, on the distances to the boundary. And over a full season, scoring rates per wicket and per over give a revealing picture of those conditions in the Hoofdklasse.

The figures are as follows:

This statistical evidence seems unequivocal: on almost every measure, ACC’s ground not only has the lowest averages, but is in bottom place by a distance.

The average difference per wicket between the most productive ground and ACC amounts to between 65 and 75 runs over a full innings, depending on whether one takes the first innings only or an entire match, while measured in runs per over the gap is again 60-70.

That it’s not simply a question of turf pitches versus artificial surfaces is indicated by the fact that VOC’s ground, where most games are played on grass, ranks so low in the table. There are good and poor turf pitches, just as there are good and poor artificial ones. It is, however, the case that whereas one turf square can produce both belters and batting nightmares, a problematic artificial wicket just stays problematic until something radical is done about it.

Perhaps it will be argued that the quality of the home side distorts the picture: that Het Loopveld West is unfairly represented because ACC played their games there, with the same operating in reverse for VRA’s ground. But there’s certainly no direct correlation between this table and positions in the competition, and as a matter of fact, two of the three 200-plus totals registered by the side batting first at Het Loopveld West came from ACC themselves, while visiting teams frequently found making runs extremely difficult. 

You can argue, of course, that it’s the same for both teams, but as a showcase for the top level of Dutch domestic cricket a game in which pitch and ground conditions give the bowlers an overwhelming advantage seems almost certain to be a disappointment.

If giving the batsmen a reasonable chance is the key to successful one-day cricket, and the trend all over the world has been to follow this principle to ever greater lengths, then Het Loopveld West is absolutely the worst Hoofdklasse ground on which to stage the first-ever national championship final.