Aug 01 2009
Test Cricket: A Pristine Touch-Me-Not
Test cricket - a term considered sacrosanct and therefore, blasphemous for any one to even contemplate tweaking, dare say, tinkering with. If there is one thing past and present cricketers and cricket aficionados would want to fiercely protect from crass commercialization, it has to be the oldest, most traditional form of the game. Yet it appears the sport’s governing body finds itself under considerable duress to make Test cricket more palatable in order to make up the numbers. But does the ICC really have the perfect plan?
It was the limited overs internationals that were supposed to be hit by the unprecedented mushrooming of Twenty20 matches. Their similarities had to work against the survival of both on the same pedestal. The buzz therefore was for the ICC Champions Trophy to be phased away. However, it appears that the ICC is willing to ‘rebrand’ the tournament to ensure its survival.
Instead it is Test cricket that is being looked upon as the child with the serious malady and in need of antibiotics. Such is the urgency within the ICC, given the seriousness with which they are intent on addressing the issue. But antibiotics tend to have side effects, weakening the body’s immune system while curing the disease. The question is: has the ICC really found the answers or will the game’s oldest and arguably most prestigious format undergo an ugly facelift through trial and error? Before posing the questions, it is a worthwhile exercise looking at the various proposals currently being entertained.
Two tier relegation
This one did not really reach everyone’s ears. But it had a sport oriented ring to it. Dave Richardson, the ICC General Manager and former South African wicket keeper, suggested the idea of having a two tier Test cricket structure wherein the top teams would compete against one another while those that are less competitive will have more of the same to contest future tours with. The reasoning behind the theory is that the game will become more competitive, generating closer matches with less predictable results and reduction of humdrum contests between unfairly matched teams, thereby attracting and holding the attention of cricket lovers otherwise put off by the lop sided matches.
Five day fun in four
This one got everyone’s attention. David Morgan, the ICC President, recently commented that it was unlikely that Test cricket would continue in its present ‘avatar’ for more than a year. He believes changes would be rung in sooner than expected to ensure Test cricket sustained the battle for survival. The point he mooted was the possibility of viewing Test cricket in its future format as a four day game as opposed to the present five day match.
In his opinion, this would be one of the easiest changes that could be implemented without disturbing anything associated with the game, especially the mind set of the players. By that theory, the advantage in having a four day format would free up cricket playing days to accommodate all three versions of the game, Test, ODIs and Twenty20 matches on a single tour.
Five days of action a la Kerry Packer
This one takes the cake. The very world that looked down upon Kerry Packer’s 1978 design for one day cricket, dubbing it pyjama cricket, are now willing to entertain five days of essentially the same fare.
If plans are executed, Lord’s could well become the first venue in the world to host a day and night Test in a year’s time, but there are logistics involved even if the floodlights have been installed for precisely that idea in mind. The idea of a day and night Test has been on the cards for a while, but perhaps this time it is being considered with more seriousness than at any time previously. The logic behind the idea is pretty simple. The idea is to woo fans after work hours, the very reason for which day and night one day internationals were brought about and why Twenty20 has been able to dish out cricket to a larger mass of audience. The changes that will need to be swung to make this happen definitely has a revolution reminiscent of Kerry Packer’s World Series.
One experiment down, verdict inconclusive
Innovation is almost always good. But when not made fail proof, even the best of ideas suffer when tested at the highest level. The Umpire Decision Review System comes into effect come October. This time it will not only be the selected series that will incorporate the system but rather Test cricket anywhere and everywhere in the world will make use of it.
But there are fundamental flaws which is why the review system received mixed signals last year. While there were the usual reservations about taking the traditional controls out of the on field umpires’ hands by allowing teams to refer to the third umpire, what the umpire decision review system suffered most from was lack of efficient and adequate technological aid to help the television umpire out on tight calls. The result has often been additional time wasting.
Without the advancement of technological innovations, it was a matter of putting three umpires under duress instead of two. However, it obviously has had more plus points than flaws which is why the ICC has decided to go ahead and incorporate it. The logic is apparent here. Too often teams have groaned about marginal decisions against their ‘star’ batsmen or bowlers which have often turned the match on its head and lost a team its momentum.
Is there a real need to tinker?
If bottom line was everything, and money made all the difference, Test cricket perhaps needed a greater acquaintance with its cricket loving audience, especially its newer lot introduced by Twenty20 who are yet to understand the finer nuances of the sports’ pinnacle test. What is also needs is tweaking with issues already present within the game as it stands, including taking into account the time factor lost due to slow over rates. Like players who are turned into overnight heroes with unorthodox skills in a Twenty20 game, the game of Twenty20 itself has converted many non sports lovers into cricket lovers. It will be the quality of the game that will allow them to appreciate Test matches.
Morgan himself expressed excitement that Test cricket has received a real fillip with the Test series of Australia’s touring India, South Africa touring India and the home and away series between Australia and South Africa. Ashes is currently generating an enormous amount of interest and it has in part to do with the fact that Test cricket had seen a change of fortunes for the England team at home four years ago and so expectations are predictably high. The England’s tour to the West Indies may have had its flaws but the win in the first Test at Sabina Park, Jamaica set off a frenzy for the hosts in the island nations where cricket has been slighted in recent times for American sports. Test cricket has not needed a Lalit Modi. Without the need for exhibitionism, the game is its own advertisement.
Twenty20 has also done the Test cricket an enormous favour. What began as an odd match of excitement has turned into months of virtual non-stop Twenty20 matches in the various leagues and mushrooming of more. While the ICC World Twenty20 was well received, there was also a genuine interest evinced in the Test series following shortly between Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and the Ashes as a relief from the rather heavy bombardment of Twenty20 that marked the summer in the northern hemisphere and winter in the southern. It has, in many ways, brought back an appreciation for the test of endurance, skill and temperament that mark Test cricket.
Unfair Advantage… all the way
The one with the sports oriented ring is not sporting in some boards’ opinion. Richardson’s idea of a two tier system is not meeting consent with certain boards on two counts. Firstly the boards whose cricket is not exactly enticing crowds for the lack of development of the game within their country fear that their team will remain relegated without exposure to the more competitive teams and continue to languish. The discrimination is something they are not in favour of.
The second and perhaps more valid reason from ICC’s stand point given that their problem with Test cricket is as much about spectators as it is about the money is that these boards also fear loss of revenue. Without a bigger team in the fray, the lack of interests from sponsors is likely to affect the revenue figures and it is that prospect that has not gone down well.
There was the idea of a World Test championship mooted but it did not see the light of day and one would imagine the reasoning would not have been much different. After all it would mean that revenue would be pooled together from all the contests and then, it would be perhaps a case of BCCI and ECB having concerns given that they are the predominant attractors of Test cricket and would bring in a huge chunk of the revenue that would then be dispersed with or without entitlement.
As for Test matches being reduced by a day, the question begs to be asked: what can be accomplished in four days that could not be accomplished in five? It appears that the most traditional format of the sport is being asked to squeeze into a tighter fit in order to accommodate the more popular but less technically sound version, Twenty20. While it would indeed be the easiest way to add (or subtract) something, would it really enrich the game by any value addition?
As for day and night Test matches, as enticing as the novelty factor of the prospect is, would it not simply be reduced to another entertainment angle to the longer version of the game? Besides playing under lights would put the red ball out of the equation. Coloured clothing defined one day internationals. Test cricket finds its identity in its qualities of purity and sanctity in the off white flannels. Would not dispensing with that distinctive, representative identity, diminish the significance of Test cricket to another circus under lights?
Besides day and night format Test cricket also require testing coloured balls, such as orange or pink ones, under lights. There would be the usual conundrums about unfair advantage where not only will the light change when batting as the match progresses from afternoon to night but also, the dew factor could play a rather significant role. The one day internationals on certain grounds have already made the captain with the winning toss the virtual winner of the match simply because dew has had a swaying effect on the result once the lights took effect past twilight. There are plenty of considerations that need to be taken into account at the risk of over thinking about the game because the results will matter.
Why not tweak what needs to be tweaked?
That is the most pressing question that purists and lovers of Test cricket, that includes former and contemporary cricketers, are asking. Even cricketers who have enjoyed immense success in Twenty20 hunger to be recognized as the ultimate cricketer, a title that only comes from playing the very highest form of the game.
There are matters within Test cricket as it exists that can be addressed to improve upon such as the conditions of pitches, better over rates, and the timing of the future tours programme to ensure fewer rain affected matches and also, more evenly spaced contests between different teams. While unpredictability of the weather only adds to the element of drama, adding intensity to the game, often tours are crammed in for vested reasons and it sometimes means that they are planned despite knowing that play would be next to impossible in obvious rainy season like months.
Perhaps the most crucial area but also controversial is that of the affair of managing pitches. Three, plausibly four, pitches were outright disasters for the game in the last one year. The pitch in Kanpur that handed India victory over South Africa to level the series came in for plenty of criticism and even resulted in the ICC sounding a warning. The pitch for the second Test against England at the Sir Viv Richards Stadium in Antigua was a disaster where only ten balls were bowled before it was blacklisted and game abandoned. England were sporting enough to contest the West Indies at the Antigua Recreation Ground two days later but it did not mean that the flatness of the pitch was greatly beneficial for enhancing the interests. Sri Lanka were greeted with more flat pitches in Karachi and Lahore before the terror attacks shifted focus away from the game to a more wider, contentious problem plaguing the world.
Perhaps more sporting pitches with marginal home advantage would be the ideal way to go towards enticing crowds to the grounds. As much as fans love high scoring matches, they are always keen for an evenly contested game between bat and ball. And without a small margin for home advantage, the game would become monotonous and one dimensional. The finer line is in deciding when and how much is too much.
Test cricket has seen faster scoring rates since the evolution of one day internationals. But there is the serious problem being addressing in improving over rates to improve the quality of the contest. That alone would greatly enhance the viewing pleasure as well the competitive contest between teams on the field.
Not everything needs a drastic change or plastic surgery to enhance its quality. While being resistant to change is not always an ideal quality, destroying a beauty such as Test cricket by making sweeping, sometimes extravagant changes, without really improving the elements that comprise the game itself does seem like ignoring the details rather expeditiously for want of a larger piece of the pie. But in detail lies the game of cricket. And it is details that add to the allure of Test cricket.
