survival of test cricket?

The last two Tests of the most recent Ashes seriesopen and close at short notice. But if the ICC and
showed why the one-day game can never be Testhome boards have the interests of the game and
cricket. In Melbourne, the action rose and fellcricket-watching public in mind, they’ll consider
dramatically over five days. The English team wereany valid innovation.
noble triers, undermanned and undermined by theirIn 1998, the then President of the ICC, Jagmoham
country’s own stultifying system, led by anDalmiya, noticing that interest in Test matches was
immigrant’s son who had fallen quickly and hardtaking a fade, devised a format for a World
from his exalted position. The story was powerfullyChampionship of Test Cricket, with a scale of points
subtended by the question of Waugh’s survival.for outright wins, first-innings wins and draws, and
The forces were ranged against our hero. He scoredbonus points for scoring rates. No matter what else
a flashing 77 to put his selection, seemingly, beyondwe thought of him, at least Dalmiya pretended for a
doubt. But then, on the final day, he was forced tomoment that the dead hand of politics, the
bat again to avert catastrophe for himself and hiscomplexities of international scheduling, and delicate
team. He failed, in a short and controversial innings.diplomatic issues were no barrier to innovation.
This dramatic last moment of suspense raised moreBut the “championship” has become a
questions. The English bowlers looked to have theirchimera. At the conclusion of a tedious,
tails up, as though they’d had a moment ofinexcusably-long five-year cycle, the average fan
revelation. But after the pure theatre of thatgets to look at a table, its outcomes determined by
near-catastrophe, Waugh’s team won the match.dodgy mathematics, hearing nothing meanwhile until a
Ultimately, it set the scene for the bitter-sweetsudden, illogical announcement that, say, South Africa
Sydney game.is the new number one. And who’s second -
At the end of each day, the developments of aMalawi? Who cares? What the public obviously want
day’s Test cricket are the topic of conversationis a competition – one with real significance, like
in lounge rooms and pubs around the country. Thesethe one-day World Cup. Or a series of them, the
twists and turns in the plot just don’t happen inscheduling of which is determined by Test match
one-day cricket, or any other sport, for that matter.performance, so the significance of a Test
It’s like comparing a rollicking novel with a clevertranscends its present series, and everyone who
slogan. Yes, it’s unique to former colonies, and angoes along to a Test is aware of it.
object of ridicule to Americans who know of it, butIf the ICC is serious about moving into the
let America have instant gratification in all things. Totwenty-first century, it will eventually live up to its
seek their approval is another way of cringing.promise to grant Test status to new countries and
Test cricket has something limited-overs cricketgive them international experience. However, space
needs: a variety of finishing scenarios. Crowdscannot be created for them unless established
don’t necessarily go to limited-overs games toteams, especially Australia, England and the West
see batsmen who might otherwise fail at Test levelIndies, concede that three-Test series’ are the
slap bowlers all over the ground. They go to seeway of the future, and the international schedule is
exciting contests and speculate about the way theyculled of redundant one-dayers.
might end.At the moment, the “championship” focuses
Perhaps the best way to ensure the one-day gameon series, rather than individual Tests. A 1-0 result is
reflects Test cricket, and vice versa, is for the ICCno different to a 3-2 result. Furthermore, a South
to experiment with a two-innings-a-side format.African victory over Bangladesh is worth the same
Martin Crowe had the right idea with Cricket Max,as an Ashes win. Although we’d certainly want
invented back in the late ‘90s. It introduced thethis to be the case in future, it’s a travesty now.
spectator to the principles of Test cricket byThe Proteas are patently paperweights compared to
mimicking the two-innings-a-team format (ten 8-ballthe Australians, and Michael Vaughan will be wizened
overs), but retained the compressed form ofand bald by the time Bangladesh is ready to topple
one-day cricket. It’s easy to elaborate theEngland.
two-innings concept for international consumption.One way to eliminate such absurdities is to have a
The one-day game’s current predictability can beWorld Championship structured in two tiers so that
rectified.developing nations get to play each other, with the
But innovations can only be judged by their intent,odd match outside of their group to give them
and the ICC and home boards should take heed.experience against high-quality teams. The inclusion of
Commercially motivated interests who see youth asnations like Holland, Canada and Kenya will demand
little more than a hormone-driven, thrill-seekingsuch a graduated approach. The third match of every
market won’t introduce anything for theseries should be enlivened by being worth bonus
betterment of the game. Their intention will be,championship points, ensuring there are no
simply, to “capture the youth market.” The“dead” rubbers. No Test should ever again
equation of youth with low standards and shortoccur in a vacuum.
attention spans is an introduction of the law ofTest cricket’s recent resurgence, due mainly to
diminishing fleas. If the logic is followed to its furthestthe sparkling efforts of Aussie teams under Taylor,
degree, one day no-one will have the aptitude or theWaugh and now Ponting, is heartening, but not
attitude to play Test cricket. What youth actuallysustainable. TV ratings are up in Australia. Crowds are
need –and what cricket needs to give them - areup in Australia. But what happens when the current
heroes who achieve spectacularly at both forms ofcrop retire? Gilchrist, McGrath, Ponting, Hayden,
the game.Gillespie, Warne – they all have charisma. But
Realistically, it’s only in the last ten years thataggressive cricket is only an attitude, and attitude is
the World Cup has become cricket’s greatesta changeable thing. Only when it’s built into the
prize – here, in fact, in 1992, when the organisers,game; encouraged and systematised with penalties,
in a pentecostal flash, realised its potential as a cashrewards and structures, will it continue beyond the
bonanza. The two main reasons for the success ofpresent era.
international limited-overs cricket – nationalism andAnother ingredient in the resuscitation of Test cricket
slick marketing – have little to do with its intrinsichas been the reconstruction of spin bowling by two
charm. The longer version, meanwhile, continues toof its greatest-ever practitioners, Warne and
try to resurrect its image around the world. ItMuralitharan. No longer is it considered an ancient,
hasn’t been marketed all that well since the daysmoribund art. Even the most rabid adrenaline junkie
of World Series Cricket. Test cricket needs towould feel robbed if their only opportunity to see
become a game for the masses, and qualitythese guys at work was within the strictures of a
doesn’t just announce itself to them. Onlylimited over match. But they, too, will soon retire.
marketing and education achieve that. And, in 2003,What then? The quality of any game is as good as
being tradition-bound just for the sake of itthe quality of the deeds of those who play it. Test
won’t wash with anyone.cricket must embrace quality, not retreat from it,
When the first limited-overs match was played underbecause only Test matches can fully display the
a roof (Australia vs South Africa) in 2000, the movevirtues that define cricket.
was hailed "the way forward" by Steve Waugh. ButIf the survival of cricket is now highly dependent on
traditionalists argued that the vagaries of therevenue raised from the World Cup, cricket is at the
weather and pitch conditions make cricket the greatbrink. The Test match must be instated as the meat
game it is. Both parties were right. Although Testof the game, or at least enjoy an equal share of
matches should be played in bright sunshine, a roofpower with international limited-overs cricket. But it
and lights do nothing except add another of thoserequires imagination, diplomacy and commitment from
variables, without the dreary thought of no play, duethe ICC and home boards around the world; new
to rain. This development is some way off, due toways of thinking, and the right reasons.
the lack of stadiums with roofs, especially roofs that