(Photo by Duif du Toit/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
The old adage states "If it ain't broken, don't fix it". David Morgan, the ICC president, recently said that Test cricket could or would undergo serious changes by the time the clock strikes 12 and 2010 becomes 2011.
This statement emerged from the background of what has now become a cliche in cricket circles: "Preserving the primacy of Test cricket". When these words were first uttered, it was in the context of keeping Test cricket as is, especially since memories of South Africa's wonderful contest with Australia over six Tests at the end of last summer were fresh and vibrant.
It seems however that the games administrators have short memories, or perhaps an alternative agenda. Doesn't it sound contradictory to first say that Test cricket should be preserved, then to change one's tune and suggest that 4-day, day night Tests are the way to go?
The ICC appear to be spinning a web of deceit, because no one really knows what their intentions are. The ICC are starting to mimic the FIA and all their contorted statements meant to generate press (OK, it isn't as bad, but as they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions").
Since many supporters (especially on this forum) question the ICC's motives, perhaps we should investigate whether these suggested changes are actually what the game needs. Perhaps it is the fans who can't see the real picture?
Test cricket has been played over five days for over 100 years. Some of the game's greatest moment have happened in the dusk of the fifth day, the tail end of a gruelling contest when the body is weak even though the mind is willing.
First class cricket is played over four days, but it is the step up to five day competition that truly separates the lamb from the bone. Test cricket is the ultimate test (hence its name) of a player's skill and mental fortitude. If you can hack it in Test cricket, you have proven your worth as a cricketer.
Now, Test cricket in recent years has been dogged by boring draws, especially in Pakistan and the West Indies. Why those two places have proven to be the deathbed of a result wicket is understandable: both Test nations have suffered under administrative sloth and a changing view of where Test cricket is in relation to it's place in society.
In the West Indies, it has been reported the cricket is losing popularity to dare it be said American sports, such as basketball. Usain Bolt's success at Beijing has also further entrenched the durability of Jamaican athletics, which filters down to the rest of the Caribbean, as an example. The fact that the WICB are shizophrenic doesn't help matters, with different factions within the board hitting eachother in the 'box' on a regular basis.
Pakistan on the other hand has gross political problems, such as the insurgencies (or whatever they should be called) in the Swat valley. The attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team proved to be a seminal turning point between Pakistan and cricket: no longer did cricket mean a free pass from the political.
Thereby, as a result (or lack there of), pitches have been disrespected or mismanaged or, and this is a whisper, fixed in a manner dictated by TV networks screaming for the full five days. Both the WICB and maybe the PCB (it stands to reason) are strapped for cash, so when the suits say jump for a nominal fee, they respond with "How high?"
Apart from these two examples, the rest of the cricket world (India's Test pitches aren't that great either, but they merit a pass) seem to be able to produce pitches that offer a fine contest between bat and ball, with the odd exception.
The game itself is entrenched in world cricket culture. Most fans (ones that are over the age of 20) were raised on the game, with ODIs as a sweetener after the Test series had concluded. Since then, the game has changed dramatically with Twenty20 being the new sensation, though that feeling isn't going to last for long at the current rate.
So why the sudden change of heart? Is Test cricket unhealthy around the world? The Ashes is beginning soon, and South Africa's contest with England last year is a riveting affair. They will be touring SA this year, always a fun tour with the Barmy Army being a great bunch of cricket lovers. Sri Lanka, Pakistan (when playing away) and India always generates buzz considering the complex relationship between these different cricket powers.
Australia, very much the team to beat even two years ago, always generates excitement considering they are still one of the best sides going around. The West Indies, though a problem child, is a great place for teams to tour. Bangladesh is still finding it's feet (another cliche) and New Zealand has always produced a fighting team (and Bond is back).
What reducing Tests to four days and making them day night affairs will do is free up more space on the calendar. Who gets those extra days is easy to guess: Twenty20. The ICC appears content to gorge itself on Twenty20 till they overdose, irrespective of other cricket formats. It's a slippery slope if there ever was one.
Perhaps we are the ones, the fans that can't let go of the original cricket format, who don't see the commercial pressures and the need for the game to modernise. Maybe we are one step away from abandoning the game altogether, but damn, most of us just don't see it.
Cricket's supporters (and this isn't a slight against other sports, just an observation) have the intellect to appreciate where the game is in relation to macro-economics. The ICC seem to take cricket fans as a bunch of chumps.
Cricket's need to modernise is stripping the game of its soul. Would you want to go watch a Test match if it were a day/night affair? I wouldn't because that isn't what Test cricket is. If the game changed, they might as well call it "Super" cricket or some other name, because calling it Test cricket would be an injustice.
The real problem lies in the currency of cost, because since TV became involved, events have only been going one way. They are the ones who pressure boards to produce a five-day pitch that guarantees a result. Ask any groundsman: that isn't easy.
It is TV money that is turning red-blooded administrators green. Players shouldn't be blamed since all they can do is take advantage of what is put in front of him.
The ICC are using the lexicon of "primacy" as a tool to quietly run a coup over the foundations of cricket's most prized history. They are using the need to keep it "cool" to create more space for Twenty20 and to enrich the bottom line, not the game itself.
They seem to forget however that this whole argument and "mission" only came about when the ICC themselves were the ones who shifted attention away from Tests in favour of 20/20. ODIs, as we know it, is a dead-man walking. It is only a matter of time...
Perhaps all this is inevitable? Since the game went professional, and with its development accelerated by the IPL (an epoch shift if there ever was one), it has always been about the bottom line.
Don't let the ICC fool you into thinking they are doing this for the benefit of fans and players: they don't give a damn about the little people, because that would get in the way of making a quick buck.
The ICC in this piece might be being judged unfairly, since this author admits his view is biased. But damn it, it just ain't cricket, and the ICC are determined to make sure it becomes just that. They created the problem which suits their motives conveniently, though no one seems to acknowledge that.
The BCCI are also to blame, since from this author's perspective, they don't give a fig about Test matches and fathered Lalit Modi and the IPL concept (after someone else beat them to the punch). That in itself is an injustice to the Indian fans, who have proven to be incredibly passionate and, more importantly, knowledgeable of the game in understanding its little quirks.
To take away Test cricket, the tea breaks, the sessions, the subtle changes in momentum, is to pull the carpet from under the game so that the body becomes a smooth vessel for currency to run over it.
The ICC be damned. Maybe my views will change if the future becomes the present, but right now many supporters, including this one, know where they stand: if it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Long live Test cricket, the true measure of cricketing ability.
4 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete