Indian cricket is treating the South Africa series with the same “let’s get this over with” contempt © AFP

Only India could have done this. Just weeks after one of the most rivetting, pulsating and action-packed set of Test matches in history, India is one part – the bad, listless part – of a Test series that is turning out to be a “no contest”.

This is not to suggest there isn’t good cricket on offer. The South Africans are playing brilliantly and imperiously, looking – at least in April 2008 – the best team in the world. Their fast bowling has been impressive and made its presence felt even on the tombstone wicket in Chennai. As for Ahmedabad, any team that bowls out the other in 20 overs in the opening session of a Test match – however helpful the pitch and whatever the state of the opposition – deserves accolades.

As of now, the South Africans are running away with the series. Other than the bauble of Sehwag’s 300, the Indians have nothing to remember it for. They look jaded and tired; their minds are on the IPL carnival. They are not Test match fit – and this is not merely a reference to the physical condition of individual players.

Indeed, the entire Indian cricket structure – establishment, officialdom, fans, media – is treating this series as some sort of a walk-on role, an interlude between the sublime concert in Australia and the rock star frenzy that the IPL promises to be.

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

It’s a question of priorities. More than once, after a long series down under, we’ve heard visiting or Australian captains say that they’re too tired by the end of the endless ODI tri-series that climaxes the Australian season. It’s treated as a tiring and tiresome sideshow, after the main event – the Test series – is over.

Indian cricket is treating the South Africa series with the same “let’s get this over with” contempt. From next season, Cricket Australia is junking the tri-series altogether. What if some smart Indian official decides Test cricket is a waste of time? Indian cricket’s focus – commercial and political, given there’re simply more matches to hand out to allied state/city associations – is on ODIs.

With the T20 fever at the cusp of turning into an epidemic and with IPL about to explode on us, the calendar is going to be even more packed. It’s a myth that the IPL franchise teams will play a tournament in India for 44 days and simply disappear for the remaining 321 days of the year. Already there’s talk of an “IPL exhibition series” in England. As the franchisees seek to strengthen their brands and clubs identities, they will inevitably lobby for more cricket featuring IPL teams. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

What does all this mean? Test cricket will be pushed even further down the agenda. The BCCI will speak about how it treasures the longest game, but do nothing to preserve it. Short Test series will be fitted in between T20 razzmatazz and seven-eight game ODI series. South Africa is playing three Tests, later in 2008 England will come to India for only two.

Is there a way out? I have a five-point route map for preserving Test cricket while acknowledging it will have limited appeal in the years to come. Even so, serious film festivals co-exist with multiplex blockbusters. Similarly, Test cricket must be given its due amid a plethora of 20 and 50 over events.

So here’s my five-fold path:

1. The ICC should formally announce that all future expansion of cricket nations is going to be in the ODI and, more likely, T20 formats. China, the United States, Malawi, whatever, whoever may someday take part in the T20 World Cup but will never play Test cricket.

2. To ensure quality it would be a good idea, in fact, to reduce the number of Test teams. Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should be derecognised as Test teams. They can continue to play as many ODIs or T20 internationals as they want, even set up IPL franchise clones of their own

3. No Test series should be less than four matches long. Six Test match series went out with the 1980s, but four or five Tests would ensure a fair contest. That length would allow a team to recover from a sluggish start. Imagine a fourth or fifth Test against South Africa, with Zaheer Khan and R.P. Singh back with the new ball and Sachin Tendulkar back in the order ... A three (or two) Test series is a shame, even a travesty.

4. Test cricket should always be played in the host country’s core cricket season. For instance, India must play home Tests between November and February, not in April or May. Sri Lanka must not be forced to host Test series in rain-swept August only because it suits the visiting team’s travel schedule.

5. Since the number of ODI/T20/IPL/IPL-style fixtures is only going to grow (perhaps exponentially), what points 3 and 4 would suggest is that a Test team may be able to play only one or two series in a year. Test series will have to be spaced out, as they once were before a frenetic ICC Future Tours Progamme took over. Nevertheless, fewer Test series are worth the sacrifice provided they are longer and, almost by definition, more engaging.

Make Test matches collector’s items. Right now, the ICC and the BCCI are leading a movement toward commodifying Test cricket. It worked for ODIs and may do so for T20, but is the kiss of death for five-day cricket. That is the lesson from the ongoing India-South Africa encounter.

Just read a piece by Harsha Bhogle in today’s Indian Express on how the ICC’s more sinned against than sinning. Not sure I agree with that. In fact the way the ICC’s made a mess of international umpiring is a case in point.

The first thing an economy needs is infrastructure – before the booming factories, you need to get the power stations running and roads ready. Cricket’s equivalent, I suppose, is the paucity of top-level umpires. The ICC’s Elite panel is woefully small and overworked, leading to, most recently, Simon Taufel announcing he’s had enough.

How has the ICC tackled this? In a very ad hoc manner. At its Dubai meeting, I expected a discussion – if not a blueprint – on upgrading umpiring skills across member countries leading to, say a doubling to the Elite panel strength in 15 months or 18 months. Some discussion on using technology to aid umpires or even take over decision-making to some degree would also have helped.

It’s all very well to say umpires are intrinsic to the game and cricket needs the “human touch”. These are fine clichés for a Sunday afternoon game – not for a multi-million dollar, serious sporting enterprise. If umpires have to take recourse to technology and replays more and more, so be it.
They’re not the stars on the field, the players are.

As the biggest economy/stakeholder, the BCCI should be leading the discussion on the future of umpiring. With IPL and with a very busy international programme for its team(s), India needs top-quality umpiring and umpiring solutions more than anyone else.

What the ICC has come up with is woefully inadequate. I mean, either Darrell Hair and Steve Bucknor are good umpires or they’re not. Either they’re good enough for all teams or they’re not. I believe Bucknor is no more a top-grade umpire, which is why he should not be standing when England plays Australia or New Zealand plays Sri Lanka for that matter. The ICC can agree or disagree; it can’t half-agree. To keep Bucknor out of India’s matches and keep Hair away from Pakistan’s games sets a very bad precedent.