Cricinfo - Blogs - Rob's Lobs - Of necessary evils

Test matches have more than enough scenes and acts for close finishes not to be a prerequisite. A prolonged scoreless tussle between bowler and batsman, each preying on the other’s reserves of skill, guile and patience, waiting to see who cracks first, can decide a series, let alone a game. Limited by overs and options, the junior partner only breathes when both runners are in contention over the final furlongs.

Yet including today’s Anglo-Irish doubleheader, in the 436 ODIs between individual nations since June 1, 2004 where the contest has not been scotched as an edifying spectacle by the weather, a paltry 39 could be portrayed as having gone to the wire – three ties, 20 one- or two-wicket margins, and 16 of fewer than 10 runs. In other words, roughly 9% of the product can be said to have been dramatic. Which is pretty poor going even for something so often characterised as theatre. Especially since this has been a period rife with regulatory jiggery-pokery.

By contrast, in 15 bonafide Twenty20 internationals (one was heavily rain-reduced), we have already had a brace of two-run margins and a tie. Of the remainder, moreover, two were still in the balance in the final over. Which gives us a drama ratio of 33%. Which is only to be expected, given that brevity enhances the prospects of close-run affairs, and is still not good enough, but at least it’s over quickly and fairly painlessly.

One of the most endearing aspects of sport is that it is the one branch of the entertainment industry where plots cannot (barring the strenuous efforts of Hansie Cronje et al) be scripted, where flaws and/or unsatisfactory outcomes cannot be remixed or edited. The last business to attempt to flog its wares at three speeds was music. Tempting as it is, however, it would be inaccurate to liken our three formats to the three speeds at which we once played records (pre-CD thingy beloved by fiftysomethings).

Sure, Test matches can be linked to albums - 33-and-a-third revolutions per minute, widescreen and serious; a qualified snob might just as easily bracket 50-over games with singles - 45rpm, faster, dinkier and eminently disposable. The metaphor loses credibility when you remember that the fastest, the 78, came first and in aesthetic terms lay somewhere in between. And was duly sent scurrying into retirement by the so-called LP. If we must persist with this comparison (I must, I must), Twenty20 is the new 45 and Fifty50 the new 78.

For all that they brook few if any arguments, the ICC’s latest tinkerings have resulted in just one change, the belated extension of minimum boundary distances, that addresses the multiple Achilles heels of the 50-over brand. It achieved an inch when a mile – two innings per side - was wanted. All today’s antics achieved, for this less than dispassionate observer, was to underline why this town ain’t big enough for two necessary evils.

Wonderful article! Just a comment on cricket commentators and writers' continuous branding of Twenty20 as a batsman's game. I beg to differ over here as I believe when you're analyzing a bowler's figuue (or for that a batsman's figures), you need to raise the bar (or shall I say lower it?). What I mean to say is, when you analyze a bowler's econmy rate in ODIs, you would say 4.2 is an excellent effort; not so in Test Matches, where it would be branded very expensive. In the same vein, we need to apreciate an economy rate of 7 for bowlers and probably quarter centuries for batsmen. In that manner we would be able to enjoy the game a bit more and would stop crying about the domination of bat over ball in the shortened of the game.

I don't see your point, why do you keep going on about this. We already got your point of view. YOu might not like one-day cricket but a lot of other people do. Otherwise you would see test matches with full stadiums(bar in Australia and England) instead of One-day's. There's nothing wrong with One-day cricket as it is now, yes may be two innings thing would make it better but may be it won't so give it a rest. A lot of people including myself like one-day cricket more than test cricket, that may not be the case in England but for most places, plus going by you analysis exactly how test matches go down the the wire? Exactly how many test matches we tied in it's history. I'm not saying it's interesting but to say one-day cricket isn't and then to say test has a lot of drama, well it should or it would never survive plus it goes on for about 5 days so it better have some drama...but guess what so does one-day cricket otherwise so many more people would just waste there time going to watch them. And the out come being know through halfway the innings huh? well it could be said about any sport, soccer, football, basketball, anything...

As Anil Kumble said "Test cricket is real cricket." Both one-day forms are contrived and predictable and while they're better than nothing, they attract only casual fans and very few genuine cricket fans- anywhere- prefer them to Test cricket.

Rob's point is that test matches provide entertainment even whe the result doesn't go down to the wire. If you're the sort of cricket supporter who only considers boundaries exciting then you might not enjoy it.

The Sky commentators for the 20/20 matches literally told the audience every ball how entertaining 20/20 is and how it's great fun. It's not and they know it- it's contrived rubbish designed to attract an element that won't spend their money on real cricket.

I can remember, in pretty good detail, every Test match I've ever seen England play but I can barely remember what happened in one-day series five minutes after they're finished. One-day cricket attracts non-cricket supporters and it's contrived, formulaic and instantly forgettable.

Why do the so-called british cricket analysts,including Michael Holding,blame the present west indies team for its poor display during the test matches? Can you imagine what it is to play cricket at 10 degrees centrigrade,especially coming from the West Indies where the temp.is never below the mid-twenties? Under those conditions, the ball comes to you like a 100-pound rock. would you blame the guys for poor fielding,and catching? If you want to blame anyone,blame the west indies board for arranging a cricket tournament in very poor cricket conditions.are they really working to develop west indies cricket or the british game? The non-cricketing board should simply go home to great britain.