“Other people might feel different.” Such were Nasser Hussain’s ominously heartfelt words the day after the announcement of the Champions League. He was referring to the notion of Test cricket as the game’s pinnacle. All-too wisely, he expressed the fear that future generations, of players and spectators, could well disagree, that the appeal of a five-day ballgame might soon dwindle even more quickly for players than it currently is for spectators who prefer bucket seat to armchair. It was difficult not to share his fears.
So much has happened to cricket over the past year, at such a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it rate, that keeping pace with developments is becoming akin to plotting the emotional graph of a teenager. One thing, though, must be clear to anyone who holds the game dear: we have reached a crossroads. The past and future will soon be considered the modern equivalent to BP and AP (Before Packer and After Packer). Enterprise, player power and Mammon sit in one corner, fear, loathing and rose-tinted nostalgia in the other. The prize is cricket’s future – and its soul.
That soul lies not in cricket’s so-called “spirit” but in the way that, at what is perceived to be its highest level of expression, ie. four-innings matches, two elements above all combine to benefit humanity: second chances are possible and artificiality barely intrudes. You can redeem yourself. Bowlers are not restricted by over-counts, nor captains by fielding circles. Tests are novels, ODIs short stories, Twenty20 cartoons. All are equally valid, but who has time for short stories? Either you want the depth and escapism of the full Monty or you prefer to flick through the pics – or both. Cricket is unique in offering two such disparate options. Long may it be so.
Accepting that the game’s loudest format is going to form an increasingly large portion of our cricketing diet is the no-brainer bit. It makes sound financial sense to all the major parties concerned: boards, players and broadcasters (since when have spectators, increasingly marginalised as the less affluent are becoming, been able to vote with anything other than their feet?). The trick is to decide whether there is a will to protect Test matches, which attract good attendances in only a small minority of nations and will become increasingly less attractive to players if the alternative is sufficiently profitable. Why worry about how Wisden will evaluate you in 50 years’ time if you can earn a bundle now? Given the choice between posterity or financial security, what would YOU do? The “others” Nasser referred to may soon be the majority.
And if that will exists, which it appears to, the next two steps are reasonably straightforward: 1) forge an organic, umbilical link between Twenty20 and Tests by making the former a four-innings affair, and 2) giving us the bonafide World Test Championship so many have craved for so long.
Encouragingly, the ICC have confirmed that they are examining the possibility of the latter. In which case, the first step is plain: scrap the Future Tours Programme. And the World Championship table, which has served as an accurate barometer but is so non-punter-friendly that the latest table can only be worked out with the aid of a press release. The FTP was also welcome and well-intended, but fatally unwieldy and too often observed strictly in the breach. How often do Bangladesh play England or Australia? How can New Zealand play two Tests in a year when 12 are stipulated? What, pray, is the point of a best-of-two series? All these mooted windows for IPLs and EPLs and Champions Leagues will make it unworkable anyway.
Better, surely, to devise a biennial or even annual World Test Championship and leave all other fixtures in the lap of the individual boards, as it was for more than a century. Which will probably lead to a preference for one-off games rather than series. Even the long-running rivalries may shrink and lessen in frequency – anyone for a three-match Ashes clash? On the other hand, the less you play, the less prepared you will be when the WTC comes around. One-off engagements in Bangladesh and Ireland, say, might well prove attractive in terms of providing practice while earning funds for the hosts and stimulating interest for the game there. But the chief means of opportunity for the lesser lights should be Twenty20, which by its very length reduces the gap between stars and amateurs, and hence the possibilities for embarrassment and diminishment.
So how would the WTC work? Tricky one. Ideally, we would rule out home advantage by playing knockout games on neutral territory. Imagine Australia v Pakistan in Mumbai, Sri Lanka v West Indies in Durban, India v South Africa at Lord’s, England v New Zealand in Sydney. Each tournament would have to have a designated venue for the final, if only to allow the hosts sufficient time to prepare a worthy pitch and marketing campaign.
On the other hand, staging all the games in one country, on a rotational basis a la the World Cup, would concentrate and heighten the commercial appeal. This, though, would mean flexibility in terms of timing: England in late summer, the rest in their most climactically clement month. And yes, biting the bullet on floodlights, with a pink ball if necessary, would be imperative.
As to who participates, there is an argument for going straight to the quarter-finals and drawing the eight senior nations against each other. Better, though, to invite the best Associate nations – according to results in the Intercontinental championship, arguably the ICC’s foremost contribution to the evolution of first-class cricket – to participate in a 16-team knockout. Sure, most of the first-round games would be over inside two days, but thereafter competition would hot up. Besides, we could always spice things up by giving the minnows home advantage. Who knows what terrors might lurk in Dublin or Amsterdam.
The last and most crucial trick will be to protect and promote the five-day fray in the way that we preserve and sell the finer arts. As a duty to mankind and future generations. Which means putting the emphasis on quality rather than quantity. Scarcity can become an asset. Test cricket should be added to the burgeoning heritage industry, hoisted alongside the Sydney Opera House and the National Gallery: as a living, breathing, vibrant slice of 21st-Century culture that also encompasses a sense of history. Benefactors and patrons will be needed. Creative marketing will be crucial.
As CLR James always maintained, cricket is an art form. And never more than in its first-class incarnation. Those hyphenated words, for all that they exude a top-hat-and-tailed snobbery and snottery, are not misplaced. We’re talking top-of-the-range here, folks, the Maserati-cum-Sistine Chapel of sporting endeavour. It may not always reap profits but it has value. It reminds us that life need not be frenetic, that winning isn’t everything, that a hard-earned draw can be every bit as satisfying, that second chances and redemption are possible. Name a sport that sends out a better message to children.
And yes, governments must be prevailed upon to play their part. Funding Olympic athletes hasn’t exactly done much for their credibility. Isn’t it about time they showed their supposed commitment to sport, not only by supporting one with a regular and loyal global audience, but one in which drugs are probably less help than hindrance?
It's always interesting to see just how far down the wrong end lf the stick Rob will grab. NO ONE is interested in one-off five day Test games leading to a final and a 'Champion National Team'. Test cricket is uncertain - the side that bats first may gain a massive advantage from a wearing pitch etc - and only a series can sort true superiority. The point is that we five-day fans (Hussain, Swing, Gower, Botham etc) are quite happy to go on playing series as we do now, but we obviously have to leave frequent windows for T20. No doubt every country will want a domestic competition and the IPL will have its annual creme-de-la-creme bore. There will have to be a national T20 competition once every three(?) years. It looks as if the 50 over game is for the chop.
Posted by: krishna vathyam on 06/10/2008
WTC based on football's Champions League i.e. two teams will play at home and away 1 or 2 tests each and the winner will be the sum of these series 2 0r 4 tests in case of a tie a 3 or 5 th will be played in a neutral territory to decide the winner. Like this the qualification will take some time so the WTC will have to be bi-annual and WTC final to be held at Lords one year, next at MCG, then Eden Gardens,....
This way you will have a FTP as well as WTC and also IPL, EPL,.....
Posted by: Marcus on 06/10/2008
Very interesting article.
I'm glad that you mentioned the Maserati analogy, because Test cricket to my mind is very analogous to another fine brand of car- the Jaguar. Very traditional, very English. Also relatively unprofitable (compared to other cars). Yet people still buy them (if they can afford them) and maunfacturers still produce them (in fact, they were bought by another Indian company earlier this year, I think). The reason they still exist is because there's still a market for them- sure they may not be as common as Hondas or Toyotas, but they still exist because some customers demand their presence.
As it is with Test cricket. I believe that players will still want to ideally play both Tests and T20. I believe that spectators will still want to watch them, and will still go to the grounds. And if the crowds aren't as big as those for T20, I believe Test cricket will still be able to sustain itself on only a fraction of its market- just as Jaguar has.
Posted by: Roby on 06/10/2008
I feel this article is misleading. Seeing the fast way world cricket is changing, its time for hard & fast steps, if they want to preserve Cricket the Game:
1. Restrict Test Cricket for the top 8 teams, (leave out Bangla & Zimb) Can allow the best of the rest to have a series, say in 3 years with the bottom team.
2. Play a min 3 Tests in a series. In every 4th year play series between the 1st & 2nd placed teams and crown a world Test Champ.
3. Make sure the Test venues are metros so that crowd will be there to see. Drop the idea, like in India, where it is given to small cities.
4. One day series should not be more than 3/4/5 with a 20x20 series of 3/4/5
5. Drop ICC World Champsionship one day trophy. World cup is enough. Instead have the ICC 20x20 in every 2 years (for 16 or even 32 countries!)
6. Drop all unnecessary tri series, Asia cup, Afro-Asia cup etc
7. Give window for IPL and a champ league
8. Revamp domestic cricket- less teams, more quality
Roby
Posted by: fred on 06/10/2008
absolute rubbish, as usual.
So crowds of people that aren't turning up to watch South Africa play Test cricket in Durban will turn up to watch Sri Lanka play the West Indies? You've got rocks in your head.
The test championship in its present or proposed form will never be of primary interest. The individual series- Ashes, Frank Worrel, Border-Gavaskar - is what matters.
20 over cricket will die as quickly of not quicker than 50-over stuff if it is flogged as mercilessly as ODIs are.
Posted by: Anjo on 06/10/2008
I wasn't keen on the idea when you wrote "Test of Will", and I'm still not convinced its the best way to preserve Test Cricket. In most countries its hard enough drawing crowds for a Test series, and no matter how good your marketing is I can't see matches being sold out (Imagine Sri Lanka for a New Zealand vs WI match). Next, traditionalists will never warm to the idea of knock-out one-off matches. If you must have a WTC, it might make sense to hold it every 4 years between the best two teams from the FTP.
The trouble with diluting Test Series, is it will wreak havoc with first class matches. Its no surprise that countries with strong domestic structures still draw good test crowds. The exception is India, where cricket dominates the sporting diaspora. The IPL, incompatible with the current Indian domestic structure, is now dictating terms to domestic teams in other countries. I have an impractical plan for Test Cricket's survival (cont)
Posted by: Anjo on 06/10/2008
(cont) Modi has demonstrated (banning the ICL, displeased with the FTP, IPL's preference) that he's not in it for the good of the game... its time for the other national boards to step out of their pussification stance and stand up to him. Sure they can make a LOT of money, but at what cost, the death of ODIs followed by the death of Tests followed by the eventual death of International cricket? If they ban their players from taking part in the IPL, the IPL will not survive. The consequences of this are enormous, and will most likely lead to India breaking ties with other countries, but there is an alternative... The ICL could become the new representative. Using this bargaining chip, the rest of the ICC must force Modi to stand down from his ridiculous stance on several issues and clearly demonstrate that his administration will work to preserve and promote all forms of cricket. Revolutionary... yes, Wishful... maybe, Possible... doubtful!
Posted by: Richard on 06/10/2008
I see Rob is still capable of comming up with some "off beat" ideas.
There is no doubt that 20/20 is here to stay, it is a money spinner and will change the face of the way the players are played. There is a need for thei, when someone who chases a silly round ball around a pitch for 90 odd minuets, falls down when the hair is out of place and is paid millions to so, cricketers deserve better pay.
There is room for improvement in this regard, howeveR , I can't imagine a player like Peterson. Ponting, Hayden et al wanting to play a one off test or even a three match test series. At the end of a players career they might play 300 one dayers, 500 20/20 games and remember about 10 of them, the public would have forgoten them by the time the next game is played.
The yardstick that every player will measure themselves and the knowledgable public wil be on the test record. A test record shows volums about a players capacity for endurance and courage. 20/20 is here so are tests. Enjoy both
Posted by: Venkat Reddy on 06/10/2008
Really good article Rob.The only thing i would suggest would be the test champions to be decided over a 2 year basis. And two tiers.New ze Land and West Indies are an embarrassment the cricketing world.So let them make up tier two along with minnow nations. Then the big boys play in tier 1.The two year span would give ample time for marquee clashes on a home and away basis as well.Following this the top 2 teams can participate in a 5 match home and away test series to decide who takes the championship.One might then ask what happens to countries like new ze land who will only play Bangladesh and the like for two years and hence evoke very little interest.For this i suggest that all test matches like world cups and the champions trophy become ICC event with ICC pocketing tele money(very unlikely though).This way there could also be an equal distirbution of much needed funds for boards that are cash strapped and cannot negotiate hefty tele deals.
Posted by: Venkat Reddy on 06/10/2008
Though India and England will lose considerably big tele deals all member countries can set up a 20-20 league that will no doubt be a huge revenue earner.And then the tele rights from tournaments like the champions lague can be distirubuted between the boards state and county associations.I believe that this is a viable model.I would love to know the thoughts from other contributors on this.
Posted by: Josh on 06/10/2008
I second Swing's comments. No one who likes tests, the format you correctly say isn't burdened with artificiality, wants an incredibly artificial world test championship. In countries where tests do not attract big crowds, why would tests not involving the home team, i.e. an India v. South Africa test in Karachi, attract anyone?
Posted by: fromefrog on 06/10/2008
there seems now only a sporadic intreast in test cricket.if an ashes series is on its hype time if NZ are the oppostion who cares(nothing personal guys thats just the way it is)most England supporters are just marking time till SA arrive,& this is the major drawback with test series,if the sides are mismatched the punters switch off & to be honest in our "celeb" society we're only really intreasted when the big names(Eng.Aust.India,SA)are involved.therefore test cricket HAS to change & a WTC is a good place to start.
indeed as the rush to T20 continues at least test cricket can reinvent itself but what happens to ODI cricket. in the face of the T20 onslaught it looks rather out of step & this leaves the ICC with a large problem.the CWC. i don't see how it can survive.i believe its likely to be replaced by its T20 equivilent sooner rather than later & proberly on a biannual rather than a 4 yearly cycle with the new WTC (probably a 12 team event) filling the space inbetween.
Posted by: Major Turn on 06/10/2008
Captain Swing, Get out of the 19th century. Why do you think five (or more) Tests were played in one series to begin with? Because they SAILED! It took a month to get to Australia and a month to get back, so they played as much as could be had before they had to return. It now takes A DAY! Players can fly back and forth as much as they need to, just like any other sportsmen in any other sport.
And as for your point about "only a series can sort true superiority", which is more telling: five Tests over two months, ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS(the Ashes), or five Tests spread evenly over two years?
But Rob, seriously, inviting Asociate nations to Tests? They have to qualify for the relatively easy ODI's, and the few such games won have involved a great deal of short term luck. Tests aren't easily won on luck, primarily because of the two-innings-per-side safeguard built in. Associate countries would be gone in a day, two tops, and nothing would devalue interest in the WTC more quickly.
Posted by: brightonite on 06/10/2008
I think Test Cricket can be converted into a day-night affair with the last session being played under lights. This will also prevent a soggy ball since the dew factor comes into play only later in the night. Use a pink ball. First and foremost, the pitches must be sporting. There is no room for pitches like the one in Chennai for the India-SA test match where sehwag scored a triple. The more such matches, the more certain the death of test cricket. Second, the bouncer rule must be modified to allow 2-3 bouncers per over. my 2 cents.
Posted by: Major Turn on 06/10/2008
@Anjo: Lalit Modi is a whole other topic, deserving his own article, but I agree: the BCCI's heavy-handedness needs dealing with, and soon.
@Venkat Reddy: Remind me how many tests India won in the 80's. Talk about an "embarrassment to the cricketing world"! For your information WI ruled the roost for DECADES. How long has India ruled?(Never) So don't be that willing to arbitrarily discard a territory with a relatively impoverished population of 6 million that kicked everyone's ar*e for a generation, including 1 BILLION Indians like you. Just you wait, my "doubting Thomas" friend, because everything comes in cycles. Remember Aus after Packer? They couldn't whip cream, or beat an egg, and yet 15 years later they beat WI at home. That was 13 years ago. 2 more years to go.
Posted by: Josh on 06/11/2008
I have an idea- leave tests alone, scrap ODIs and replace them with 20/20s for the people too dumb to appreciate the nuances of test cricket.
Posted by: Damith on 06/11/2008
The only change I propose is the Test Match Championship.
It should only involve
Aus
SL
SA
Ind
Pak
WI
Eng
NZ
With home and away series of 3 tests each. No not 2 or 4 but 3.
A test championship season will last 2 yrs because of the home and away basis.
If you do some simple math thats 42 tests in 2 yrs time. Which is around 21 tests a year. And according to current ICC regulations you have to play 15 tests a year anyway so I dont see a problem in an additional 5 or 6 tests per year.
Of course for this to be effective proper planning must be in place.
So every test you play will count for something. And competition will immediately increase. And for us fans it would mean more because each test will directly affect where we stand in the table at the end of the season.
There will be pts for test wins and series wins and draws as well
I think we should also encourage pts on an innings basis ie first innings pts etc.
Maybe even pts for batting and bowling separately.
Posted by: Damith on 06/11/2008
Something like what they use in the county system.
The problem with this setup is though, that the title might be decided way before the
full season comes to an end. Which would be really boring and will make us loose interest yet again.
I can think of 2 options to solve this.
1) Split up the 10 nations into 2 groups of 5. You can pick em out of a hat or something. And play round robin home and away 3 tests each and the top 2 or 3 from each group go the next round of round robin playing against each other and then the top 3 are decided.
2)Split the group of 10 into 2 tiers
Div1 Div2. This will be based on seedings and again we play round robin , home and away 3 tests each.
At the end of the season bottom 2 from div 1 are relegated. Top 2 from div2 are promoted and we continue on.
These two options would mean the competition is high and there is a bigger chance for the whole thing to go down to the wire. Which is what we all wanna see.
Posted by: Aditya on 06/11/2008
Have a Test championship, but organize it in the following way: you still have bilateral series, but every four years, instead of the ODI world cup, have three tri-nation Test tournaments of the top nine sides in the ICC Test championship table. They should be held in the home countries of the respective teams with the lowest ranking. Winners of all tiers will get three different trophies, and rank the championship table accordingly at the end of the tournament, with the winner of the top tier being ranked at number 1.
Posted by: Aditya on 06/11/2008
Have a Test championship, but organize it in the following way: you still have bilateral series, but every four years, instead of the ODI world cup, have three tri-nation Test tournaments of the top nine sides in the ICC Test championship table. They should be held in the home countries of the respective teams with the lowest ranking. Winners of all tiers will get three different trophies, and rank the championship table accordingly at the end of the tournament, with the winner of the top tier being ranked at number 1.
Posted by: Mohan on 06/11/2008
2 groups of 5 teams each. Each team plays the other four in their group home and away. So 8 Tests per team. And then the top 2 from each group play a semis and finals. Shuffle the groups every year.
Posted by: Theena on 06/11/2008
I usually find myself nodding in agreement to most of your writing, but tests being played in neutral grounds will not work. Perhaps in truly multicultural cities like London or Melbourne, where the probability of finding massive migrant communities from the other test nations is high, but a test match between, say, West Indies and South Africa in Colombo, Kandy, Chennai or Mumbai will have an uninspiring response.
The very idea of a test championship will never work in my view, partly because of the enormous logistical challenges and partly because the scheduling at present is too concerned about the marquee series: the Ashes, Worell Trophy and, of late, India vs. Australia. Two of those series have become tradition and even I, a neutral, am against the idea of tampering with them for the sake of a tournament. (contd)
Posted by: Theena on 06/11/2008
(Contd)
As long established test nations like Sri Lanka continue to be given paltry two match test series by Australia and England while these two countries continue to play 4 or 5 match series between themselves (while examining the prospect of offering India a similar privilege), the idea of a world test championship will remain just that.
I just hope that the ICC doesn't award test match status to any more nations in the near future.
Posted by: Jack Gloooop on 06/11/2008
"So how would the WTC work? Tricky one. Ideally, we would rule out home advantage by playing knockout games on neutral territory"
This is your solution to lackluster test crowds? Nobody will turn up to these games. The idea of this test championship is boring to me.
Posted by: Anonymous on 06/11/2008
Major turn, I want the West Indies to do well.Thats the only team i support when India does not want to win.You are absolutely right when you say India never won anything in the 80's.WI and NZ look silly and are a real poor advert for the game.And though i feel really bad for WI I don't see a recovery happening in the near future.The larger point i was making was as long as you have a two tier system for the test championship the intensity of the contests increases and everyone can be spared the misery of watching Australia thumping the WI.Everyone is saying that WI have improved and that they are taking Australia into the fifth day of a test.Is that what the West Indies teams of 70's 80's and early 90's played for?Frankly they are a joke
Posted by: Avin Deen on 06/11/2008
If test cricket is to survive,only the top 8 teams should play first division test cricket.
There should be revival of the 5 match test series within all these 8 nations. Even 4 match series don't serve the purpose.
Every Test nation should play a minimum of 12 tests every year, 5 at home and 5 away and a 2 match series either at home or away on a rotation basis. If Bangladesh or Zimbabwe are to retain test status, they should be restricted to play at home only. And other countries should just play a one-off test in that country which should be followed by 4 other one-off tests by 4 different opponents. That is Bangladesh will play a 5 test series but against 5 different sides. This should carry on till they display some capability of winning.
The highlights of a test match should be attractively packaged and telecast in the peak TV hours. There should be no repeats-which are boring. The city hosting a test should not get live TV coverage of the event to attract people to ground.
Posted by: Major Turn on 06/11/2008
Mr Reddy, I don't believe you when you say you support WI after India. I believe you think "they are a joke", and no one supports jokers.
Be warned, the first proposer for a two-tier system was Waugh, and only came after Aus had beaten WI and therefore could not be included in the second tier. Aus are relatively safe for a while; I'm afraid India are never far from a sudden fall, especially not with T20 pulling its young talent into mindless drivel. It doesn't help having Modi around either. So be careful what you wish for! you just might get it! And India might not be in your "top six".
Rob's article is trying to suggest a way to SAVE Test cricket, for all us purists, even if it means changes to what we consider traditional and therefore sacred.Better to make a few alterations to the organization of the game than to watch it slowly fade from view,unchanging to the bitter end. BBC news is already predicting the end on the lunchtime news.
Posted by: Satyajit on 06/11/2008
And now Rob is getting paranoid. I don't think his solution would work. It will infact kill test cricket. Why would you have 16 teams playing test world cup when barely 8 are competitive. That too in neutral venues. Imagine playing BD vs Aus in Multan. How many people are going to turn up? And how long will it go? If you want to have a test world cup have it among the top 8 teams every four years. And in a single country. Even then you have the problem beyond semifinal stage. How do you decide the winner if the match is draw. Do you throw the coin or have a bowl out (my god). I feel the tests are fine the way they are. People who love test cricket, enjoy the Ind vs Aus, Aus vs Eng or Eng vs SA anyway. Stronger countries better play longer series (no two match series). And the weaker duo of BD and Zim play shorter series just to check their presence make sense. Have many teams in the T20 WC (16 is ok) but not in test version.
Posted by: Satyajit on 06/11/2008
@Roby: Your idea of playing test cricket in bigger centeres is the right one. Eden Garden sees 40K to 50K attendance even in 2nd or 3rd day of a test. Other Metro's may not be equally enthusuastic but still Chennai and Mumbai will be better off than Kanpur. Give the smaller centers ODI and T20's. Quite a few other points you mentioned are good and practical as well. If ICC is looking for a sensible advisor, they better employ you rather than Rob :-)
Posted by: Captain Swing on 06/11/2008
It pains me that an officer of field rank should display such ignorance of the difference between winning a battle and winning a war. Major Turn feels that a single Test victory is enough to judge between sides. Well, NZ won the first Test of the six just completed against England so he would then accept that NZ are the better team. That's not for me. The summer of 2005 would just have recorded the usual Aussie victory - think of what we would have missed.
And Mr Reddy, I know India have never really lost a single Test - they've always been cheated out of victory by racist umpires etc. Despite this remarkable record they might face second tier status one day, and then no Indian fan will be interested.
Posted by: Major Turn on 06/11/2008
Captain Swing, nice to hear from you! I'm afraid my field rank capabilities are more akin to that of the Colonel from Fawlty Towers!
Anyway, Old Chap, I never suggested that one match would be sufficient to determine which team was better! Nor did Rob! Remember, what's proposed is a round robin scenario similar to what is employed by the Counties. You don't see them playing five matches on the trot against the same opposition , do you? Think GLOBAL. Imagine England were the half the size of the world and the Counties were scattered across the face of it. Would you object to County Cricket then?
Yes, it would take longer than a County season, because Tests are five days and adding the extra travelling involved, but that has already been factored into the equation. A county season lasts, what, 5 months? This WTC will last 24 months of continuous summer weather.
Oh and Rob, why do you object to my calling Modi a Moron? You edited it out of my last post. Journalism or fear?
Posted by: Captain Swing on 06/12/2008
Now look here Turn, promoting the major from Fawlty Towers to Colonel and then disparaging his military record is going a bit far - even for fellows of your stripe.
The fact is that series are best. The 2005 Ashes are admittedly the apogee but the Border-Gavaskar Trophy and the George Headley Trophy are not to be lightly discarded.
As for thinking global, it will destroy us. Some prize chumps are trying to get the Chinese and others to start playing cricket, which would certainly lead to separating the Test nations into tiers.
Just leave Test cricket as it is but, even I admit, it will have to be crammed up a bit to make room for T20. On the other hand, the popularity of the 50 over game may fade enough for us to get rid of that and just be left with the long and the short of it. I haven't heard or read of anyone who is concerned about keeping 50 over cricket.
Posted by: Major Turn on 06/13/2008
Well spotted,Swing. That was a test to see if we were singing from the same hymn sheet, and I'm glad to see you found it.
As for the value of series, you are preaching to the choir. Because of Test series, Worrell showed his dignity and Botham roared like a lion. I know what is being proposed something has to be done to maintain the allure of Tests in the minds of the teen generation or else, soon , it will only be officers who attend real cricket.
I imagine that soon novices of the game will think cricket is about a giant of a guy swinging a five pound bat at a fluorescent pink ball on a football sized ground, with a rave going on in the background, and ads everywhere. A bit Blade Runner, I know, but I'm feeling maudlin.
Posted by: Aussie dinks on 06/19/2008
To all the people out there that can watch 5 days of cricket - GET A LIFE.
Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at
the University of Brighton whose books include biographies of Desmond
Haynes and David Gower (1995 Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and
500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His 2004 investigation for The
Wisden Cricketer, Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?, won the
EU Journalism Award For diversity, against discrimination. Sports
Journalism - A Multimedia Primer, his latest offering, will be
published by Routledge in August.
Web Feeds
