Changing conditions to suit your strength or to negate the opposition is doctoring. The extent to which its done doesnt matter. Though I agree that 2 rank turners in a 4 test series is a bit OTT. I am completely for at least 1 rank turner like you had at Nagpur.
Dont care what the ICC says. Our pitches, our game. If you have the skills to beat us at our game, kudos to you. If you dont, stop whining.
My definition of doctoring conditions is to completely alter the conditions and the nature of the surface.
For example since the beginning of time India has played 256 matches at home averaging 36 runs a wicket.
Since SA's readmission to international cricket (I used 92, January instead of 91 since SA played their first Test that year (April?)) India have played 110 matches averaging averaging 40 runs a wicket.
Now let's look at SA at home. Since the beginning they've played 220 averaging 31 runs a wicket. Since reintegration they've played 122 averaging 36 runs a wicket.
India against SA averaged 26 runs a wicket, which is well below the national average historically or the modern era.
South Africa against Sri Lanka averaged 40 runs a wicket. Which is in range to the national average.
For a team to average 14 runs less per wicket suggests to me that something was very wrong with those pitches irrespective of the quality of the opposition bowling (which was poor by the way). You can't go from averaging around 400 runs for the loss of 10 wickets to 260. Something is very wrong there, i would understand 32 runs a wicket i.e reaching 300+ on regular basis.
Now had SA drastically altered conditions we would have had the same problem as in India. That is a weak bowling attack looking world class. SA still managed to score above the national average (modern era) on tough pitches. That to me suggests that with the right application runs were possible on these surfaces, which wasn't the case in India (variable bounce and turn from day one).
Even for argument sake, say SA made the same pitches for England or Australia. Yes I do admit that the average would be lower. But a differential of 14? I refuse to believe that, perhaps SA would have averaged around 30 which would have been acceptable (that's a difference of 6 which we can take). We did see that in second innings run scoring was possible (SA batted first in all the matches anyway).
It scares me to think what would have Herath averaged in the conditions SA got, or the runs per wicket.
Another scenario is if SA invite a world class bowling unit. To negate this threat they make complete roads and earn a 0-0 all series draw.
Suddenly they go from averaging 36 to 50 runs a wicket. That would be completely wrong and qualify as pitch doctoring.
