"><$MTEntryTitle$>

<$MTEntryExcerpt$>

">Read more

This post is rich on opinion but poor in facts, like all blogs. It also ignores objective reality - Test cricket is under no danger, simply because the players love it and are committed to it.

The Indian team is understandably tired and injury filled after the gruelling 4 month tour of Australia, while South Africa have had an excellent warm up in subcontinental conditions against Bangladesh - a side that would struggle against our first class sides.

The Indian players are jaded and frankly need and deserve a break. This SA test series was a mistake.

"Indeed, the entire Indian cricket structure – establishment ... IPL promises to be." The BCCI awarded Nimbus with a contract spanning 4 years, and the information ministry decided that this series is not an event of national importance, so DD cannot telecast it and millions of fans don't really have the chance to appreciate it. Pretty soon the BCCI will also be able to dictate precisely how the media covers all of its events, going by their experiment in restricting media rights for the IPL. In other words, the BCCI will control how Indian cricket must be viewed, enjoyed and accepted by everyone.

Modi's strategic political and corporate alliances have ensured that cricket will follow the path he intends to take it along. He doesn't need to formulate rules like those you've mentioned to ensure test cricket's existence, he doesn't care about it. If test cricket justifies the investment, it will survive. Test cricket as a novelty will not justify that investment.

Malik Sahib, a very thoughtful insight in the current state of affairs.

India is doing poorly because as Sunny Gavaskar says, the mind of the players and all around them is on IPL and on minting money not on toiling test matches.

It is difficult to disagree on your 5 points agenda. In my opinion, unless India becomes the only power broker in the cricketing fraternity, the test cricket will remain. The only thing likely to change is that T20 would take over the current one day format. By T20 I don’t mean the current IPL/ICL circus but national sides.

I once mentioned, once IPL/ICL novelty is worn off, it would soon evolve into countries playing against countries. My prediction is coming good sooner than I thought because ICL is now arranging a competition between three international sides.

Hi Ashok:
This article does not address the main issue: how do we get the bums on the seats for test matches? The recent test between India and SA at Ahmedabad saw many empty seats...this was never the case in cricket-crazy Ahmedabad. A sign of the time perhaps?

A brilliant idea - but can you get the greedy BCCI to give up the lucrative T20s in favour of the Tests.
Do you think that they will give up the prime season for Tests?
There are many sane people like you Ashok, with wonderful ideas for preserving Test cricket - but they are regarded as cronies by the instant cricket hordes.

Hi Ashok,
Good positive ideas. Will come to points 1 & 2 next, but 3 & 4: absolutely, and 5 ties in with 3 & 4, so yes.

1 & 2. Agree, Zim & B/desh not consistently competing, though permanent exclusion after granting Test status works against development of cricket. Suggest compromise at Top 9 Nations, then…
Set up 5-day Test Championship on 4yr cycle of 8 series against each nation. One home, one away each year. 5pts for win, 1pt for draw/no result. To maintain quality, relegation each 4yrs.
Launch second tier 2-day Test Championship for next 9 countries. Same double-innings, 90-over days as for 5-day. 5pts for win, 1 for draw/no result. Top side promoted each 4yrs.
ODI/T20 Series set to align with Test Championship tours and World Cups.

Result: robust tours program can be planned, space for longer/shorter versions of the game, development of cricket outside core regions, meaningful competition in between trophy tournaments.

Some pretty sound ideas about the future of test cricket. I think many are overestimating the impact of the IPL and 20/20 in general. That format gets old pretty quickly and I think the casual cricket fan who only comes to 20/20 may tire of it and move onto something else. There is virtually no genuine cricket who does not prefer the longer format-after all, it's real cricket.

I remember suggesting something similar-
1. No Test series shorter than three games.
2. No bilateral ODI series longer than five games.
3. No more than two T20s per series.
4. At least two f-c tour games before the first Test.
5. No Champions Trophy.

As for "cricket must play in host country's core season," it sounds good, but how would you make it work? Inevitably someone's going to miss out.

But you're right generally right about how Tests should be treated- as foreign films, fine whisky and classic cars, rather than something cheap and commercial.

Completely agree with you Ashok ... Its time to realize that test cricket requires more time and space ... and it needs to be played in relaxed mode ... not cramped between ODIs / T20s
One think that I cant quite agree is the decrease in number of teams .. I would say, Steve Waugh's idea is better .. Create 2 divisions ... let top 4 teams play against each other .. and let bottom 3 play against each other .. and there should be a system of relegation / promotion.

I, and many others too I hope, completely disagree with your first two points. You acknowledge that Test cricket is the finest form of the game, so then why should other nations be deprived of it? Restricting a sport to a few nations goes against everything the game stands for. Who knows, perhaps in 50-100 years China will be a competitive cricketing nation? Just look at Sri Lanka's remarkable rise from being the Bangladesh of the 80s, to World Cup champions, to a team capable of challenging the might of Australia in Test cricket.

What you are missing is when the graduation takes place from playing in the lower formats to the Test format. That is a signal to the country Board to state that they have 'arrived'. Since money is a driver, there should be monetary and non-monetary incentives for a country to graduate to a test level.

It is as simple as the team is down with injuries and also goes into home series with a defensive mindset. I love the way everybody is reading this as the demise of Test cricket because good, exciting Test cricket in India died after the 2001 India-Australia series.

Either batsman-friendly pitches ensure dull draws or India baulks at green tops or the visitors grumble about dustbowls. Same pattern over and over. I would not want to see an extra two or three matches of this ordeal every series, no sir.

The one point that is valid is shifting all matches to October-November. But that time slot is always packed since Aus, NZ, SA have their season at the same time so can't be done.

I don't think IPL was to blame for the abject defeat in the 2nd test.

Anyone who has been following cricket will genuinely realize that that's the true face of indian cricket.

All the hoopla and cry about being No2 rightfully came crashing after 76 all out.

I was really disappointed that sachin didn't play. If he would have played, a duck or a century would have really thrown light upon his influence on the game LOL

Let's face it, indian cricket is neither her nor there. it is neither professional nor competitive on global standards on a fairly consistent basis.

To blame the defeat on IPL and lamenting about demise of Test cricket is totally farcical.

Test cricket really faced a threat during the Packer era. If it could survive that, these are all mosquito bites ..

Stop whining and try playing some good fast bowling near the throats rather than feasting on below the ankle rollers on dead wickets.!!!

Well. considering that. people will start playing street cricket like tape ball instead of real cricket. Problem is that cricketers who are coming to play for respective teams are not bound enough to play for test cricket. Regardless , test cricket is what is about real cricket, of skills, language and it makes i a geniune cricketer. not the bolly/hollywood style 50 overs or dholki dhama T20.

I firmly believe that all these arguements predicting the death of Test cricket are premature to say the least.

Test cricket will survive for two reasons.

1) The players, despite their understandable rush towards the riches that new formats of the game have to offer, still beleive it is the ultimate 'test'. Test match performances define players in a way that ODI and T20 ones never will.

2) Television (the entity that supports global cricket) will still want Test cricket to continue. For burgeoning sports channels (especially in the sub-continent) it represents a cheap, live and vital way to fill five days worth of air time.

Never mind that the stadiums are empty, that's not where the money is coming from. It's bums on sofas that pay the bills.

Of course the avaricious will still want all the ODI and T20 content they can get their hands on but I'm supremely confident that the 'greatest of tests' will always survive.

I agree with Jim Ribbans. Just because Test cricket may not draw in the same number of fans into the stadiums as T20s, it doesn't mean that no one will watch it. Two World Wars, the Great Depression, Bodyline, Packer, terrorist attacks- Test crciket has survived it all, and I'm confident that it will survive this.

Test cricket can survive only under two important conditions :
a. The media has to back it. Even today the media says we had a successful series down under. Why? Because we won the ODI series. We lost the Test series. Who remembers the moronic deliberate padding that Dhoni did to Symonds to hand the series to the Aussies.
2. We need powerful opinion leaders continuously endorsing test cricket - forget the likes of Gavaskar etc, they are discredited already. We need the likes of Kumble, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid endorsing Test Cricket in every forum.

what a shame that such an article is published at the same time that there has been a couple of excellent series of test cricket. eng v nz and sri vs w.i have been great examples of test cricket, as indeed has the current india v s.a. series.

just because india have lost the last test doesn't mean test cricket is dead. nor does the fact that odi's are more popular in india mean it is the same elsewhere, far from it. many people in australia and england see odi's for what they are, pointless money grabbing affairs, which go on too long and serve no real purpose outside the world cup.

as for the comment that future nations should only play odi's- drivel! look at some of the recent intercontinental cup games for good competitive cricket if you want it. besides which, what would you rather watch, a bore draw which contained sehwag's 300 or a bore odi (most of them these days) in which one team gets annihilated?

Actually the Indian team was all agog about IPL even when they were in Australia, nobody mentioned it as a distraction then because obviously India won the ODI series and it solved all the problems.

This is the root problem of Indian cricket: winning is paramount, even if it means berating an excellent South African bowling lineup's efforts. So Ashok, you are deep down no different from the average cyber-nationalist or Mr.SMG who jumps to conclusions and loses no opportunity to question the commitment of the same bunch of players he showered praise on in Australia.

As Kumble has himself admitted in a newspaper column today, too much cricket is being played and the players are tired. Problem is, it is not a problem as long as the team wins but one mistake and heads begin to roll. Winning is not some panacea for these problems and a systematic basis of rotating the players must be devised .

Physios must also prevail over adamant players and in this the selectors must back them up.

@jim ribbans:
1) Which generation's players? Quite a few players have opted to either retire earlier and join the ICL, while others like Scott Styris have retired from Tests to concentrate on ODIs. Test cricket takes a greater toll on a players body. As the game becomes more commercial, can you be sure that kids playing today will be drawn towards test cricket rather than Twenty20s? Twenty20 was invented in England after the alarming wane in interest of cricket. As the public withdraws from the sport, so too do the next generation's players. They will play or entertain based on the sporting concept of the hour.
2) Of the five days a test can last, it is quite likely that only 2 days actually garner significant viewership, unless the game takes place during the holiday season. A television station will most likely attract more viewers and charge a higher premium for advertisements for a 3 hour game held after working hours.
A final counter - Timeless Tests, aren't they the ultimate test

I think the way forward for test cricket has been richly detailed in your article.I completely agree with your view that two or three test series is a travesty.But your arguements are falling on deaf ears Mr.Malik.Already the bcci is planning to trim down a three test home series against england to two test series citing a "cramped schedule".

I just fervently pray that we get administrators who care for the game and its great traditions.However we get a Lalit Modi who blatanly oversteps all norms of decency in money making.He has sold pretty much everything there is to be sold in Indian Cricket(including its soul).Test cricket is dying and we need to protect it.

And just another suggestion:any venue that gives a first innings total of five hundred or more should not be allowed to host a test match for a minimum of three years.

I support any sentiments to preserve and improve test cricket, but longer series is the worst possible idea. The Ashes whitewash was boring, and those were supposedly evenly matched. Imagine a 5-test Australia v West Indies series! And imagine going 5 years without test teams meeting.

Go the opposite way. Establish two pools (6 teams each) of test teams. The top six teams play a six month rolling roster (sounds complex, but I can explain - I will post a follower comment)of a test cricket league(keeping IPL happy), playing 1 home and away test each year against each other team.

At the conclusion of the league, 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4, 5 plays 6. In the first tier, the top team is crowned "test champions", the bottom side is relegated. In the second tier (in which matches are given first class status), the top side is promoted to the first tier.

Each nation hosts 5 tests (against all nations) over about 6 weeks every year.

Test cricket needs higher stakes. No more pointless series

I can't agree more with point 3 in every regard. In fact I think the authorities should go further - 1/2/3 test series should be completely banned making the absolute minimum 4.

I am not from the old school (I’m a 21 year old university student) but for me Test cricket provides something that other sports (including great ones like football as well as not so great but still good ones like T20 and ODI cricket) simply do not provide – a very wide variety of skills on show, pure technique, patience, respect for opponents/officials etc. etc. (I guess the last point is true for lesser cricket forms as well)

Cricket is a truly great game and comprises a significant part of the modern culture of hundreds of millions of people. We should strive collectively to preserve its premier form...

The IPL distractions are really affecting India's perofrmances. However Indian have named a more complexed line up for the thrid test of which they should win. I feel the return of Chawla ,Powar and Sharma will give the attack more variety and power. I also agree with Kumble's quoate that to much cricket India are playing while Pakistan are struggling to book matches for this year.

according to yenjvoy "The Indian players are jaded and frankly need and deserve a break."
If they are so tired why were some of them doing IPL endorsements during the two tests?

Moreover, half the team (Dravid, Ganguly, Jaffer, Laxman, Kumble, RP singh)did not play in CB series and had time to recover from niggling injuries. so what they are tired from?

Rather the Indian’s are distracted by the IPL and its obscene amount of money unlike the South Africans who know where their priorities lie. For them a test series against India in India is of greater value than some 20-over silly knock about.

I think all of the points mentioned are good ones, but let's face it. South Africa are better than India

Hey Presto, Graeme Smith has already gone on record grumbling about the dryness of the Kanpur pitch. Indeed, from what I saw on TV, it is a grim sight with workers hastily covering cracks with mud, albeit a reassuringly familiar one for India watchers.

But I don't quite get the constant gripe of SA, Aus or Eng players about turning tracks: they are a function of the playing conditions, unless you paste artificial turf, this is all Green Park can give. And well, if you can have tracks like Barbados or Wellington which give or at least used to give outrageous assistance to seamers, why not a turning track?

SA had been quite confident Ntini and Steyn would extract reverse swing on dustbowls and that Harris and Peterson would be difficult to negotiate. Go ahead, Smith, don't flinch now when you have won our hearts, you did well in Karachi after all. I guess they did come prepared for dustbowls anyway, India's only giving them one in a three match series.

I think BCCI doesnt give too much thought on the scheduling of cricket. The players are playing way too much cricket and are being treated like donkeys. BCCI, unlike Aussies ans south africans, doesnt know how to nurture players. it makes them play too much cricket and they either lose their rythm, fitness, or their desire to perform at their best all the time.

Why Indian team plays so many ODIs, which are considered boring in top countries like austrialia, is beyond comprehension. more than 20 ODIs in a year is stupid from purely cricketing point of view. players like Dhoni havent got any rest for more than one year.

But things are not going to change as BCCI is full of greedy buisnessmen/politicians who dont understand cricket.

Ganguly, Laxman, Kumble, Dravid are all 30 plus. Jaffer is on his way out anyway. RP Singh was visibly unfit. Further, after bearding the Aussie lion in its own den, a certain loss of intensity is understandable. The Indian players are mentally tired, even if not physically. Yes, the IPL is a distraction, but that does not mean Test cricket is dead. With the gruelling calendar followed today, tired and injured players are inevitable.

John, It is not because India lost the test that Test Cricket might die, but it is because of the pitches they make in India these days. True, Sri vs Wi is a good contest. I definetly agree with the author that test cricket must a collecto's item. Space it out!! Ban and Zim do not deserve to play test cricket yet. Make them play 5 match series like the one in Aus, which will determine the real dominant side. Make Test cricket rare, it will make it interesting and the players will be hungrier.

As far as ODIs are concerned, as much as I'd love to see a 3 finals for every series with 3 teams or more, it will totally eliminate the chance for the underdog to win, which will make it less interesting (for countries like Ban, & Zim) and will lose touch with the reality.

I don't understand why IPL is considered a "threat" to cricket and why test cricket must be preserved. Every thing undergoes change - we have moved away from 5 hour plays to 2 hours movies; not to mention 3 minute video clips on YouTube.

I am sure when the olympians started running with clothes on in ancient greece, many a stone tablet blogs were alive with discussion about preserving tradition.

As long as the core value of exciting competition between bat and ball exist, cricket lives. Test format sometimes kills excitement by ending the game in first hour, like the Ind SA game
Just because a long winded format played by lords of an empire is enjoyed by some today does not mean the same will be popular with their kids. Let the shells die out as long as the animal inside lives in a newer, brighter shells. Sure, keep some of the shells as momentos of a bygone era. But once you start talking about "preserving" you are talking about making it last a little beyond its expiery date

Mr.Malik, I agree with the sentiment but totally disagree with your plan.

What of the test fans in Bangladesh and Zimbabwe? The old Eng vs Aus series in the early 1900s were so popular because there was 1 series in 2 or 4 yrs and that is how test cricket should be played.

If test series are to be planned such that teams face each other no more than 1ce in 3 yrs then player commitment and bums on seats will not be an issue.

Teams like B'desh & Zim should not be allowed to tour unless they beat a better team at home atleast in 1 series.
Also, captains need to be penalized for drawn tests. Many test captains such as Kumble, Dravid, Shoaib Malik, etc are quite content with a drawn test match when only a little risk needs to be taken to win. 5 days for a drawn test will never fill up seats.

There needs to be a system of penalties for the captains and the pitch staff for every drawn test. On a pitch like Chennai or Eden gradens, no side will be bowled out twice. So why should one watch?

To the comments below... yes surely players enjoy test cricket and will keep it alive... but boards must find ways to do so with the public. To me, sorry Twenty20 is cheap cricket, perhaps something I'd introduce to my American friends. And concerning the India tired notion? Most of the test team DIDN'T PLAY the recent ODI series (which was tiring even for viewers), and besides the 4 test what else has been going on with the Indian squad? Ind-Pak? South Africa is more hungrier and know they have more to win in the present series and have had a busy test schedule if not busier... the Indian team was wasting too much energy on racial abuse and the IPL.

I agree with 3, 4, and 5. I think 1 and 2 are rediculous, to say the least. If test cricket is the real test, then all cricketing nations should get a chance to play it as long as they reach and maintain its high standards.

I do not think test cricket is dying. The BCCI cannot kill it! Their cash-cow, the IPL, will soon lose its appeal in terms of its value to cricketers who want to prove their worth and stake a claim in the history books. It is not just about money, although money is an important consideration. Any player who is worth his salt would tell you, that, despite its impact on them physically, test crciket is authentic cricket!

The ICC needs to be what it is the International Cricket Council rather than what it apears to be- the Indian Cricket Council. Whereas there should be a compromise re the FTP and the IPL, the FTP should take precednce (I admit that it should be revised).

International cricket cannot die on the altar of cahs-rich city cricket.

And why are we so ecstatic about a victorous Indian team. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the LOST the Test Series in Aus. Sure the Sydney game was a farce but even if Bucknor had remained NEUTRAL, surely, India did not show that they had what was needed to win!

Well observed and compiled, mate. Its a shame to see the Indian players not focused for this. Perhaps a bit of a break after Back to back series starting with England Triumph, Hisotric Twenty 20 win, Pakistan Thumping and Australia Conquests should have been better.

It's become a fashion to question the players' commitment and priorities every time the team does badly. Sunil Gavaskar has lost his mind. I'm sick of his tirades on anyone and everyone.

I like all forms of cricket, but people need to understand that organised sport cannot be sustained by player interest alone. Test cricket just doesn't excite people the way LOI's do. Sure there will be people like us who could sit through 5 days of continuous cricket, but that is not how the world works.

If people want to watch LOI's, cricket boards will give them LOI's. Nobody likes empty stands. If you want to make test cricket popular you'll have to draw in crowds. I don't see how anyone is doing that. It's not like tests in England, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa are sellouts. Hell even the WI-SL series saw sparse turnout, and the people in the Caribbean love their cricket.

Indian players are bit tired(infact more) after hectic schedule,some players got injured jus coz of that.Our fast bowling seriously missing ishanth and zaheer.looking void without them,so a single loss doesn't mean players focusing on IPL,remember we lost only bcoz we didnt bat or bowl well and i do agree d points u mentioned,i mean the five fold path.

@drneilmukherjee:

Yes, but at least we would have got a draw and eventually squared the series, other things remaining the same. But even if we accept the Sydney result - as we ought to by now at least - the fact is that we won a Test in Australia and no other team - that includes SA, SL, WI, England and Pak - did it after we achieved the same feat in Adelaide in 2003. Anybody with realistic expectations of a team without bowling spearhead Zaheer Khan - after Melbourne - would be delighted with that result and so am I.

By the way, Bucknor was neutral alright, just that all his bloomers went against India. Considering that Aus were reeling on the first day, who knows how Aus would have reacted if a Bucknor bloomer had cut short Symonds's counterattack instead of extending it with multiple lives. Mark Taylor had mentioned poor umpiring after losing a test in Kolkata in 98 by an innings and we are supposed to be whingey, ha!!!

Well, I think there is a good possibility of merging 20-20 with test cricket. Give each team 2 innings to play on in a 20-20 match just like test cricket. Thus u can replace the one-day cricket with this form of 20-20 cricket and maintain test cricket as series by series played today's format

This is lame. Just gracefully accept defeat and hope that India comes back in the next test. SA don't only look to be the best side in the world, they in fact are. Australians are old and past their acme. SA has dominated the series barring one innings from Sehwag and they deserved to win.

Secondly, you allude to the age of the Indian test team, but fail to identify that it is the same experience that makes it good. They have their strengths and weaknesses and these excuses are unwaranted. SA has a very good bowling attack, the best in the world, and they might duly beat India at home.

India is a good one-day team at this point, but as a test team it hasn't shown the consistency to be rated as the best or the second best yet. If you analyze closely, in England a match that should have been won by England was rained out-- and that cost them the series. Against Pakistan(a very mediocre team)they won one close match but couldn't force a win in two matches after scoring 600+. Then this.

I agree that we should have longer test series. A four match minimun would be good as it builds the tension.

I would propose that not only should we play test matches at tradtional times. Each test playing nation should only be invloved in two test sereis every year. A home series in there domestic season.

An an away series in there off season.

Also bangladesh should clearly not be playing test cricket yet. They are simply not good enough.

They should perhaps be competing against first class domestic teams. e.g new south wales and Hampshire. when they are beating them regulalrly the icc should let them play some test matches.

I can't agree more with the reduction of ODI's. I know about the financial benefits for India but really, it is sad that India wants to play only 2 Tests against England but can fit in 7 ODIs! It is pathetic. Ok there is not enough time for four tests but they could have 3 Tests and 5 ODI's surely?

Still, I am not surprised by Indias poor form, they were saved a defeat in the first Test in England by one wicket, they beat their local rivals, who are desperately short of Test practise, at home (and would of faced the medias wrath if they had not) and the whole face of the series changed down under when they threw their toys out of their prams because one of their players was found to be racist and their board had to make all sorts of threats and posturing before the charge was dropped.

As for the 20/20, despite being great fun and a good victory, any of five teams could have won it......

Ashok, you make good points, but I would emphasize that the tiredness of the Indian players is merely a product of their lack of physical fitness and stamina. Ever seen an Indian national cricket team player in the gym? For a long time, most of these guys didn't even know what a gym was.

The Indian cricket team, while ranked number two for a short time, doesn't have the physiological capacity to hold on to a top ranked position. India is a poor country where most people go hungry and this is reflected in the Indian cricket team with guys like Ishant Sharma, who got upset when some Aussie coach told him to drop by the gym and bulk up.

The only guy on the Indian cricket team with a half-decent/semi-solid build is Sachin Tendulkar; and he is so short, that he doesn't really qualify. What we need is a bunch of 1.85 meter/100 kilogram low-body fat Mercedes-Benz jobs who can really take a beating, and dish out an even worse one to the opposition. India is physiologically pathetic.

I think the problem in India is the lack of voice for the players. The players seem to have no say on their fitness or what would be good for them (mostly), unlike the other countries where there are player unions. The fact that India's captain is coming out to say the players are too tired to play just shows the BCCI is simply scheduling matches economically. Come to think of it .. you wouldn't expect anything else from a president of bcci that probably hasn't played a single match of cricket...

It's not the 'let's get this over with attitude'.In any profession, you need to rightly space up the employees busy working schedule with good breaks. Allow them to rejuvenate and come back fresh. The output and the quality would be good that way. I don't understand why the cricketer's can't stand up and say " We wouldn't play if BCCI or ICC schedules matches like this" instead of playing half fit or feeling exhausted.

When cricketers can't stand up against other matters( remember 2003 ambush marketing??), why not this?. I guess it's high time India have a player's association and speak collectively instead of all the senior members meeting the BCCI officials individually or vice-versa. The matter should be also be taken up by the International players association seriously.

Come on now..everyone wants to see good cricket played and the solution for India is very simple...'GIVE THE PLAYERS A BREAK'

Test cricket is the ultimate 'test' of a cricketers ability..Other than the final of the 20-20 WC how many peple talk about the other games. Everyoen remebers the 'Perth Test', or the Edgasbaston test- Ashes 05, or what they were doing when Sachin scored his 10,000th run or when Warne got no.700. Test cricket is the ultimate for every player. We can all buy cricket clothing, but how many of us can claim that we wore or earned that Test cap?? The BBCI has to promote test cricket like they do in Australia.

The cricketers spend years toiling, making sacrifices to be known as test cricketers we have to back it.

Mate, just because India got whacked and the Indian pie throwers got pasted, doesnt mean its the death of Test Cricket (if anything criticizing the pitch signalled the death of Indians' brain-cells). In fact, the game was a good advertisement for Test Cricket, showing exactly where the teams really stand minus the bullshit.

If you can, look out of your pigeon-hole i.e. India. You will see that the recent test series between England and New Zealand had packed houses. Its not the bling that matters, but the quality of the contest, and so far South Africa has kept the game alive...

Just to add my voice to the one or two others who've remarked that points 1, 2 and 3 are ridiculous and completely illogical. India may well treat Bangladesh with disdain, but most observers recognise that they have all the ingredients for success, and will most probably be a major cricketing force in 10 years, in both forms of the game.

At the moment, though, series of 2 tests are ideal for their development, and it wouldn't harm them if India deigned to play them once in a while.

Similarly, with regard to point 3, for many test series, 3 tests is an ideal length, until the contest has proved that it merits more - England at home to Sri Lanka in the early part of summer, West Indies away to South Africa, and so on.

But your comment that test cricket should at least be regarded as a snigle malt form of the game - and it will always mass appeal in England and Australia at least - is closer to the mark.

I agree with your suggestions; Zimbabwe and Bangladesh should be stripped of test status. Who can remember the last test Zimbabwe played? and well Bangladesh may be making progress but its still years off. The rest of the nations started playing cricket when the test format was pre-dominant in the game they fell in love with the true format of the game that is why in Pakistan, India, England, Australia, South Africa and the West Indies you have guys wanting to go out and spend five days in the field, the concept has never made sense to the Americans and never will they as a nation lack the patience to go to any game for five days and I don't think China or any other new face to the world of cricket will want to spend the time and groom their players for the longer format. Restrict it to the nations that have a passion for it and have at least 5 match series this ensures exciting competitive cricket amongst the true connoisseurs of the game.

I think test cricket should follow a "United Nations" format, whereby only members of the United Nations are allowed to field teams, thus excluding teams from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Kosovo etcetera.

Furthermore, this would delete England and the West Indies from the roster of Test status teams, bringing the total number of teams back down to eight from ten. Then strip Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of Test status, seeing as Bangladesh has an LG ICC Test rating of one point, versus everyone else, save Zimbabwe - which should also be stripped of Test status, having well over seventy points.

This would reduce the total number of teams even further, down to six teams, and then a new team representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Overseas Territories, including the British Virgin Islands etcetera from the West Indies team, all combined, can be added to the Test status roster; all of which will give a total number of seven for Test status teams.

The Gavaskar article was partly knee-jerky. IPL is an easy flogging horse right now, but I doubt it will have any long term impact on cricket. Its openly greedy, which turns people off. If it won't be free to view on Doordarshan in India, people won't tune in.

There is a myth that Indians love Cricket - in reality they love the Indian team winning at Cricket. If Sri-Lanka was playing Australia on Indian soil, the crowd would be less than half what would turn out for an India-Bangaldesh or India-Zimbabwe match. I doubt people will flood the grounds for IPL matches the way they do for international matches. The first season, yes, but it will quickly fade.

I find the author's suggestion of limiting test playing nationas forever really funny. If the same suggestion had been made 30 years back, India would also have been excluded. The immediate issue is the problem with Indian bowling - without Sharma and Zaheer, Indian bowling struggled despite playing 5 "bowlers". Where are the bowlers?

Many interesting and well thought out comments. Overall I agree with points 3, 4 and 5 (although I would be more open to 3 test series but never 2 test series). I can't agree with points 1 and 2 since they go against the idea of cricket development and actually make it harder to get rid of the crazy schedule of the Future Tours Programme. Currently there are 10 Test nations and so it doesn't take much for every team to play every other team (90 matches at a minimum over a year and a half to two years). If there were 20 Test nations it would take much longer for all the teams to play each other which would keep some novelty and variety to the matches. With 10 teams it can get pretty boring pretty quickly (England play NZ and then NZ play England again 2 months later). With more than 10, the ICC would probably abandon a tight FTP and have a looser programme spanning 5-10 years (meaning one team might not play another for 5 years at least).

Philip's idea has to be one of the stupidest I've seen yet and seems rooted in 1800s with its emphasis on as few teams as possible. Good luck getting a UK team with players from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland much less the territories (which shows a very simplistic view of the nature of the dependencies). And what do you have against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies and England? Football is one of the most boring sports precisely because it is inflexible on teams (I can safely predict that major European and South American teams will continue to dominate and only be challenged by teams from countries in Africa and Asia with large populations and interest - that's dull). If FIFA allowed a West Indies/Caribbean team and a Melanesian/Pacific team and a Gulf Arab team (as in rugby) those teams would probably do better than the individual countries who are currently heading nowhere fast.

Test cricket needs to be adapted for the modern environment not pushed back into the dark ages like the article implies. Here's my suggestions:-

1. Reduce test matches to 4 days - but increase the number of overs played. Move the start/end times as appropriate to include an extra hours play and ask teams to bowl 1 over an hour more than present. ie. 15 overs per hour is increased to 16 overs per hour = 96 overs plus an extra hours play = 112 hours in 7 hours. Why do this - to increase the action on each day and give the public more!. This can tweaked for local conditions but more people will watch!
2. Agree with the article play 4 or more tests - but play them back to back with 3/4 days break to keep interest going.
3. Take new ball after 70 overs.
4. Force teams to declare after 150 overs - makes teams score quickly if they start to use up overs and allows 150 overs in second innings to force a result by either side.
5. change calendar - give ftp 2 more years

Test Cricket can never ever be phased out.

The success of all other forms of the game depends on players such as Sachin, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis etc. to fill stadiums and watch TV.

These players would NEVER have achieved Star Status without TEST CRICKET.

As For the Indian/SA series.
That is a case of serious case of Butt Kicking if i've ever seen one!

In regards to your first point, the whole purpose that anybody involved in cricket development wherever it is going on outside this cocoon of Test nations is to eventually field a quality Test side such is the importance of the format of the game even to those who do not as yet have permission to play.

One may cite Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as examples , and not incorrectly to kill off the idea of expanding Test status but sure in the case of Bangladesh what on earth were the ICC expecting throwing a nation which at the time had virtually no FC cricketers into Test status in a time when all other Test teams had first Class cricket at the very centre of their cricket sructure and it would be crazy to expect good quality cricket from Zimbabwe any time soon considering the state the country is in.

In my opinion what these two countries represent is not an inherent inability of Test cricket to be played by nations other than the big 8 because I feel taking such a stance is defeatist.

The idea you have to limit test cricket would destroy it. Look at what happened with American Cricket when the Imperial Council started up, and excluded them.

The way forward for cricket is to let more teams have test status, but to create some form of tier system so that one sided affairs are taken out of the equation. This system works well for the associates, why can't Australia only take on 4-5 other teams in Tier A, and leave SL, WI, ZIM, BAN and here's a new idea, SOME NEW TEST TEAMS in Tier 2 to hone their skills and foster growth, both economically and through development.

Development occurs when sides play quality opposition, and are constantly practicing their art. The idea of "old money" seems to have washed into cricket, which is horribly narrow minded and will inevitably kill the game.

So what do you have to say about the Indian team's commitment to Test cricket now, Ashok? An 8-wicket team over the 3rd ranked team in 3 days. Sure the pitch suited India, but batting was by no means easy for India on day 2 and then, hello, Ishant had more wickets to show for his efforts than either Steyn, Ntini or Morkel individually, what's that got to do with the pitch? Indeed, what's Sehwag's curling offbreak to bowl Smith got to do with the wicket, he did it to Gilly at Perth, so Perth's also a dustbowl I suppose. There will be ups and downs for both teams and if SA had not crossed 100, their scorecard would have looked suspiciously like India's at Motera. Both teams revelled in conditions that suited them more than the other respectively and fought out a stalemate at 'neutral' Chennai. In the final analysis, a good series, despite IPL and the rather exotic variety of pitches. Bottomline: don't jump to conclusions, hope you do better with the next article.

[Ashok responds ... Dear Madan. Thank you for your match report. I never questioned the commitment of the Indian team. I merely questioned the commitment of the Indian cricket board. April is no time to play Test cricket in India and punctuating a Test series with promotional events for another tournament is never a good idea. I hold true to that conclusion irrespective of whether India wins or loses.]

Here you go then: "Frankly, only one side is treating this as Test cricket – hallowed tradition or hard sport, whatever it may be. That side is not India."

I think interpreting this as a reference to the Indian team is not off the mark at all. I agree that a home series should never be played in April nor should the players be promoting the IPL in between matches, but it is the timing of pointing out these things - right after a debacle - that looks rather reactive and leaves a bad taste.

Rajesh:

"I don't understand why IPL is considered a "threat" to cricket and why test cricket must be preserved. Every thing undergoes change - we have moved away from 5 hour plays to 2 hours movies; not to mention 3 minute video clips on YouTube. "

"As long as the core value of exciting competition between bat and ball exist, cricket lives"

Should we have chess replaced by checkers as well?

I mean, as long as two people are intellectually contesting on an 8x8 board it's the same thing, right?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The IPL is like securing the best footballers in the world for a keepy-uppie championship.

T20 is garbage.

The perceived threat of the IPL is going to be severely blunted if Allen Stanford sorts out a viable EPL. Considering the boycott of the IPL by the media houses, (because of Modi trying to kill the golden goose) it is quite likely that by next year the most profitable twenty20 league will be based in England. Then the IPL/ICL issue will be a moot point.

I think the pitch played a major role in this match.South Africans didn't expect this type of pitch as their was only one spinner in their side.