The state of Indian cricket is shaped by the circumstances of international cricket, and, over the last two decades, the financial health of world cricket has become increasingly dependent on the Indian hunger for the game. The critical challenge before both is the secular decline of Test cricket and the likelihood that it will become ever more marginal. As David Runciman wrote in the London Review of Books, the extraordinary Ashes series this summer wasn’t a new dawn, more like a last hurrah. The reason, he explained, was the fact that cricket’s centre of gravity had shifted to the subcontinent where the one-day game was hugely more popular.

I’m not suggesting that the quality of Test cricket has declined. It has never been more competitive or more exciting. Its run-rate is exceptional, the draw nearly extinct. But for the viewing public it is no longer the default form: it’s been replaced by the one-day international. The evidence for the dominance of ODIs is everywhere. One of the most exciting Test series in recent times was the one played out between India and Pakistan in Pakistan. It was a closely fought contest which ended two-one in India’s favour. Nobody came to watch. There were more visiting Indian fans in the terraces than there were natives. India isn’t Pakistan but it isn’t far away. The attendance at the ground or the lack of it isn’t Test cricket’s main problem: the problem is the preferences of cricket’s electronic audience. To adapt the words of an eminent Victorian, a spectre is haunting Test cricket, the spectre of television.

Television has done more to educate and popularize Test cricket than any other force. The nuance and subtlety of Test cricket has become available to all of us thanks to increasing sophistication of television coverage. Not only does the television camera record and relay cricket, it also regulates it through the third umpire. ESPN and Star Sports have treated us to archival footage for which no thanks is enough. But it is also true that all cricket now is paid for by television revenues. And the brute fact is that the world over, but most especially in the subcontinent, there are more eyeballs available for ODIs than there are for Test cricket.

Recently, in the course of a cricket discussion in a television studio, the main cricket producer for a sports channel told me that it was much easier and more profitable to sell commercial time for ODIs than Test matches. He loved Test cricket, but as business, it was a no-contest: one ODI could raise more advertising revenues than whole Test matches. Commercially, money made from ODIs was effectively cross-subsidizing the cost of covering Test Match cricket. During that same show an official from the Delhi cricket association defended his preference for ODIs. It was what the public wanted, he said, and whatever else I thought of his arguments, there was no contradicting that.

ODIs are no longer tacked on to Test match tours. Increasingly India tours and hosts other countries for the sole purpose of playing limited-overs cricket. The current South African tour is a case in point. Players increasingly make their international debuts in ODIs and then leverage their performances in the short version of the game to push their way into Test cricket. Celebrity and the commercial endorsements that accompany it are increasingly the prerogative of those who represent India in ODIs; being in the Test team is an optional extra: Yuvraj Singh and MS Dhoni are outstanding examples of this tendency. VVS Laxman in an instance of the process in reverse: how being dropped from the one-day side can lead to instant eclipse, even for a player of extraordinary gifts who has played one of the greatest Test innings of all time.

When Greg Chappell is asked about his goals for Indian cricket, the first and most important target is the winning of the next World Cup. And India agrees. Runciman is right when he observes that “Most Indian cricket fans would far rather their team win the next World Cup than that they become the number one team in Test cricket. When India beat Australia in their epic three-Test encounter of 2001, the visitors then stayed on for a five-match series of one-day games, which threatened to overshadow what had gone before (especially since India lost 3-2), and gives a good sense of where the Indian administrators’ priorities lie.”

A couple of earlier posts — one by Harsha Bhogle and another by Ashok Malik — suggest that the BCCI, despite its incompetence, its shamateur officials, and its opaqueness could help the cause of Indian cricket by getting out of the way of progress. Progress here is cast in broadly laissez faire terms: the decline of government sinecures, the rise of the call centre worker bee, the new television channels constantly snouting up talent, are together meant to have created a new climate of performance and reward in which the rigorously meritocratic ideas of Chappell & Dravid and the raw talent and total commitment of young provincial players will flourish even without sensible leadership from the BCCI.

This is reasonable — if we’re talking about the health of limited-overs cricket. If cricket is to be left to the logic of the television market, Test cricket’s share of the Indian calendar will dwindle into insignificance. The BCCI in the era of Dalmiya has done everything possible to maximize television revenues by promoting the one-day game at the expense of Test cricket. There have been years when the Indian team has barely played half a dozen Tests. The dodginess of the BCCI’s procedures and its squabbles with television companies shouldn’t obscure the simple truth that the coffers of honorary officialdom and the balance sheets of television companies both stand to gain hugely from the ascendancy of limited-overs cricket.

(The laissez faire thesis is based on an implicit generalization about economic context and sporting performance that might be hard to sustain. We might find ourselves arguing that Wadekar’s great team of the early Seventies owed its success to the dirigiste economic climate created by planning, or that Gavaskar and Viswanath owed their work ethic to the bureaucrats who worked the license raj.)

For Test cricket to survive and prosper, we need an interventionist board that at once harnesses the market and tempers its profit-maximizing logic to create a stable environment for Test cricket. The cricket boards of England and Australia have nurtured the longer game by keeping Test cricket front and centre in their calendars, by doing everything possible to ticket, schedule and market Test matches efficiently, by making sure (in the case of Australia and, till recently, in England) that Tests were telecast free to air so that they reached the largest possible audience. Sustaining Test cricket in India might be harder because ODIs have been such a large part of our television diet but it needs to be done, for reasons that needn’t be detailed to those who love the long game, but for conservation’s sake, for those who don’t. Think of Test cricket as a tropical rain forest that nurtures a diversity of things bred out of the monoculture of one-day cricket.

As cricket’s yellow bible might well have said but didn’t: “For what does it profit a fan to gain the World Cup but suffer the loss of his game’s soul?”

Mukul Kesavan is a writer. He teaches history at the Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi.

The real question is , 'Should any inordinate efforts be made to save Test cricket'? Or, should it be laid to rest / metamorphose with the times that are a changing. For most working folks and students, watching an entire ODI on a weekday is difficult enough, let alone a five day test. Are we trying to preserve a dinosaurus because we look back with rose coloured glasses at the days gone by when we sipped tea at the gymkhana and took in a game of cricket. While we are at it lets bring back polo to it's original glory too. I maintain that in today's fast paced world of work, travel, achieve and then over-achieve, sustaining Test cricket at it's original pace may be untenable. As a proponent of the free market, I say, let the market decide. If there is less interest there should be less Test cricket. After all the game is being played to be watched, right?

1)I think test cricket is far more popular now than, say it was in the 80s - when the average day in India produced 220 runs in 80 overs( ...even when Vishwanath batted!). So what you are really bemoaning is the popularity of ODIs rather than the downfall of Tests. An analogy is in music...where I feel classical music is more popular than it was 20 years ago...except that other forms have also hit the roof thereby creating an illusion of a waning popularity for the classical.

2) Sometimes we twist facts to suit arguments...true we played only 5 tests in the world cup year - 2003, but we played 16 in 02, 12 in 04, will play 8 this year, and at least 12 in 06. So we are not doing too badly

3) Runcini's observation on the 2001 series is again debatable...a convenient comment to boost an argument I clearly remember, that that was one ODI series where the general feeling was that the result doesn't matter...we had already beaten the Aussies at the real thing

4) Don't think anyone remembers what happened in the 03-04 VB series...Adelaide will not be forgotten though

5) We played only tests against Aus last year...remember?..and I saw 4 days in Chennai...pretty good crowds. And SA is here because we didn't do the ODis last year

So not to worry....casual sex may have got more popular...but that doesn't mean people will not get married!

Well in the midst of all this "strategising" and "goal setting", I have a very simple albeit naive question - Can you win a world cup by planning for it 2 years in advance? Does the macro picture really play that much of a role. As i see it one day cricket is all about getting on the field on the appointed day and doing whats required according to the given ground conditions, weather and percieved capabilities of the opposition.Im sure its surely not like trying to achieve Rs100 crore turnover by the 3rd quarter of 2007. I feel we are missing a point here by overly stressing on the preparations for 2007 Cup. Its just about being a better, more adaptable team in the centre on tne given day.Two years is too long a time to be worrying about especially when one considers the current state of physical resilience and form.
But then like i said - This might sound very naive.

PS. I remember similar grooming exercises before the last two Cups and i can swear that our success in the last edition was more due to some mauled egos and a spirit of retailiation rather than any long term planning.

I'm sure test cricket still has a bright future in India and in the sub-continent. One of the problems I think is that test cricket isn't marketed properly. If test matches can have packed stadiums in England and Australia, where life is equally if not more fast paced, there is no reason why it cannot do so in the cricket-mad subcontinent. The practice of rotating venues and allowing small towns to host tests need to be reviewed. Matches have to scheduled when the weather is hospitable to both playing and watching. Tests can be scheduled around major holidays as well like the Boxing Day Test. Day and night cricket is also a possibility, so more people can attend after work. Pitches need to be sporting and fast paced. That would lead to faster action and more excitement. No one wants to watch teams grind it out on dead pitches where the ball keeps below knee-height and bowlers are rendered useless. That, coupled with inhospitable weather, roofless concrete stands, remote venues etc. will only lead to empty stadiums.

Well, I for one, think that we need more than a short term plan to promote Test Matches. What we need is an exercise in standardization.
Lets say, on a short term basis, for, say 3 years, the ICC and the boards decree that there can be no ODI-only tours. And all tours should consist of 3 tests and 3 odis only and you can throw in a couple of first class games for the visitors to acclimatize (which obviously the home team does not want, but anyways). That way, Tests get more prominence.
Now if we want to have ODI only tours, boards and the ICC set the rule that it has to be atleast a tri-nation tournament. I think these steps would increase Test Cricket's visibility and not reduce the impact of ODIs as well.
If marketed well (and played on true pitches), Test matches are going to as lucrative as ODIs. Feel free to correct me, but in India I don't think centers like Chennai have had problems with poor crowds. As far as I know, this condition is only true of the smaller and newer Test centers where the populace has grown on a steady diet of ODI games on TV! So that adds a new angle to it - Should we limit Test matches to the older venues only (plus Mohali since it would be a shame to let those facilities stay unused) and let the newer/smaller venues take the ODIs? Thats a point to ponder... hmmm...
As for TV coverage, for Test cricket's sake, we could go the Aussie way and prevent the TV channels from showing the game till the ground's full. So let's say the game begins at 9:30 am and lets say the tickets get sold out (which they will if there is no coverage on TV) at 11:00 am. Then local TV telecast begins at 11:05!
Or maybe the local board decides that "ok, 80 percent tickets have been sold, lets go ahead and show it on TV". So that would be a win-win situation for everyone concerned.

Test cricket is dying and we should all rejoice. The embarrassing images from yesteryear of overweight bank-clerks masquerading as test players in ill-fitting white flannels waddling in a few steps as a dolly catch dropped in front of their noses are no more. Instead we have sleek athletes with incredible physiques hurl themselves into the air to pluck a ball out of the sky before mortals can even discern its trajectory. ODI's have taken cricket to levels of skill, athleticism, professionalism and spectacle that would not have been conceivable a couple of decades ago. Traditionalists complain about its "monoculture" and predictability". The recent ODI beteen SA and India started with a fast bowler bowling to an umbrella field, continued with two spinners bowling in tandem with close catchers galore under the batter's nose, and ended with spectacular big hitting and wonderful catches in the deep. All this within 50 overs! The advent of power-plays, super-subs (with some tweaks), fielding restrictions, etc have made ODI's just as strategically interesting and varied as test crciket. All it takes is sporting pitches and willingnes to experiment a bit more with the rules to ensure that all the yearned for situational excitement of test cricket will be possible within the confines of 100 overs. With the exception of a few die-hards, most people don't have the time or energy to follow a game over five days. Let us make the right modifications and tweaks to ODI rules and playing conditions to preserve the best of test cricket. As for the five day game, rather that letting it die a slow and tedious death, let us place metaphorical pillow over its face and smother it to ensure a quick and painless end. Declare the end of test cricket- perhaps with a final test series to mark its passing. Let it rest in peace. Invest in the future!

To "the wise one" I have this to say: To call test cricket a dinasour and all the talk of letting the "market forces" decide is like calling a Hyderabadi biryani a dinosour and living our lives on a diet of McDonalds and burger king. And I chose Hyderabadi biryani because of Mr Kesavan's example of VVS.
Let the market decide - burn all the books and libraries. Isnt it just easier to watch the jazzed up, glammed up telivised versions?
Lets shut down the newspapers - lets hear all the news on the box, never mind the 5 minute adverts every 3 minutes....
Nothing against free market and all that it has given us, but unless we're alert to its shortcomings, we'll all be living in a homogenised world, tenuously patched together by instatnt-gratifications that could fall apart any time........
enough said

I couldnt agree with you more, Test match cricket was the first here, and here it should remain. If we do away with test cricket, and make odi's supreme. Then technique will go out of the window, staying at the crease will become a moot point. And you'll see an increasing abundance, of shirtfonts. Batting will no longer involve any skill, since people come to ODIs to see the ball getting belted, not to see wickets tumbling. It will a sad day for cricket fans in general, when test cricket is laid to rest.

really?? things are that bad in India?? i never noticed! personally i love my test matches.. havent missed one in ages in chennai and each time we have had excellent crowds. nothing can beat the sheer drama and protracted emotions of the 5 day variety... if anything, in my opinion, crowds, atleast in the main centres, are much larger than in the mid-90's.

Agree with lots of points Prakash wrote above...I think Test cricket is alive and more exciting than its ever been. ODI is always going to be more popular or sale-able but even there interest is waning and 20/20 is going to soon take over. Fans will follow cricket in any form as long it remains an even contest between 2 teams, between bat and ball, between Lara & Warne. The only deterrent is mis-matched, one-sided contests and truly weak teams like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and more recently WI who would fail to beat first-class teams from England, Australia and India. For Test cricket to thrive we have to make sure we don't triviliaze the contest, the suspense and drama. The Ashes introduced a whole new generation to cricket precisely due to those reasons. Like Prakash said...most don't care about the VB series in 2003-04 but the Adelaide Test or the 2001 series will forever be talked about.

I absolutely loved the casual sex vs getting married comment! The wise one - take a bow!

Needless to say - I quite agree.

Lalit Bhatia, I admire your passion. There is but one flaw in your argument, There is a DEMAND for hyderabadi biryani. Despite the advent of MTV and it's clones, bookshops are thriving, people are reading and buying books, newspapers sell. Thus they justify their existence and if Test cricket continues to be marketable [perhaps with the judicious use of guilt and nostalgia] then so be it, let it go on. However for one die hard fan of the yesteryears to decide what the majority of others should watch reeks of narcicissm. Is there any room for moving on, in your plans?

First off, congratulations on creating this site. This has been one of the most high quality discussions I've seen on cricket, and a welcome contrast from the ranting and raving that goes on elsewhere on the net.

Regarding Tests versus ODI's, I'm torn. As part of a generation that awoke to cricket with Visvanath's debut hundred against the Aussies in Kanpur in '69, I love the longer version of the game, and have a hard time recollecting any details regarding the all-too-many ODIs played all over the place these days. I recognize the market imperative, the need to put bums in seats, and the sheer anachronism of taking out 5 days of your life to watch a single test match. However, I think there's a terrific compromise that will let us have our cake and eat it too. I propose a 200-over test match played in four innings over two days. Each side has a first innings of 60 overs, and a second innings of 40 overs. Everything stays the same as in a current test match, except that its a limited overs test. With lights it should be possible to play out the 120 overs of the two first innnings on a Saturday, and then the 80 overs of the second innings on Sunday - ending the test well in time for folks to head home for dinner and get ready for the workday week.

This way, a lot of the strategy and planning of Test match cricket will stay on, while the athleticism and urgency of one-day cricket will still be center-stage.

Cheers, Krishna.

Nothing can kill Test cricket simply because it is real cricket. One day matches have proved a boon for cricket in that they revived popularity for the game, increased the bar in terms of fitness and athletism and has led to a more aggressive attitude to Tests as well. But in the end Tests win out because it encapsulates the very essence of cricket: patience, concentration and dedication. Cricket requires those thirty hours to express itself, to bloom in its glory. A tense final session of a Test Match is infinitely more entertaining than that of a one day match simply because the Test match has a longer and more fasciating story behind it.
Finally, if Test matches are done away with it, the essence of cricket will be lost. Much as I hate to say it, better to do away with the game itself than to tolerate one dayers being paraded as the real thing.

Many a times people say that test matches are boring. Let us list the reasons.

1.Blame it on our pitches.
The strips many times neither help the bowler nor the strokemakers. Sometimes they help only the prodding batsman. Even at times first innings of both teams donot complete. Thus many of the tests end in aimless tame draws. Who will dare to come and see such BORES.
THEN LET US PROVIDE LIVE PITCHES.

2. Blame it on weather.
Its too hot and humid. Under these trying conditions ther is no legroom to relax. Even at times thanx to security reasons you cant get water bottles to drink.
THEN LET US PROVIDE BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE.

3.FIVE days seem too long. Let us cut it short. Let us make it fri..sat..sun...mon.A possible innovation can be LIMITED OVER TEST MATCHES. Let us play each day one innings restricted to 90 overs. Result is guarenteed and hence the excitement.
THEN LET US INNOVATE.
Test cricket and ODI are two different form of the game and should be complenting one another. No way one can replace the other.

Great Article Mukul...it’s thought provoking. There is just one consideration missing. Test cricket will not win the modern youngster. The 20/20 format might. The challenge is to convert the young. I am happy to provide my kids with fast food outing from time to time but my ulterior motive is the hope that one day they will prefer to "fine dine" with me!

One day cricket is boring.. There I said it. It is boring and insignificant. How many of you can remember the scores of the VB series in Australia when India toured there. Not many. Now, how many can remember the scores and events of the test matches there. Well I can even remember the individual shots of Laxman at sydney, Dravid at adeliade etc. Similarly anyone who say the Headingley test match between India and England will never forget the 100 of Dravid and Sanjay Bangars 60 odd. It was probably the slowest we ever played and still it was one of the most exciting. I wonder how many matches from the Natwest series from the same series we remember.. barring the shirt waving match.. :)

The point is test matches are interesting. I have never seen a test match in India that has less than half the spectators on work days and is usually full on weekends. We were turned away from the fourth day at Bangalore even when India were certain to loose that day.

However, the fact remains that one day matches attract far greater people and I wish I could change that. I am doing my part by explaining to people as to why test cricket is so exciting. I believe that if all test cricket lovers do the same, it would become more and more popular and hopefully one day beat ODIs.

Hey guys,
I am a 19 year old student in America, and let me tell you I am no more interested in ODI results than in Test. In fact, Test results mean more to me because it shows the hard work of 5 days. I think that these days there are more results in Test cricket which is making it more popular.
However, I agree with the 'dinosaur' idea above. If you are going to rant and rave about old habits, then why bother to innovate. Why create ODIs instead of just keeping on with Tests? Better still, why is Twenty20 being played now? Isn't it correct to keep on innovating? Or is it something like, "our ancestors thought it was a good idea to play for 5 days, so it's a sin to change it to something else"
And anyway, as much as I like Test cricket, I don't see why it is 'superior' to ODIs. If Tests supposedly show us how gifted, persevering or whatever the cricketers are, then ODIs are when they can show how they can use their talent. It's all about performance isn't it? If Tests are like studying and hard work, then ODIs are like exams, arent' they ? Like, how you perform on a given day. However talented a guy is, if he can't deliver it when required, what's the use of the talent?
Moreover, I think ODIs will make cricket more popular in non-cricketing nations as well.
With this, I sign off. Just my ramblings when I was half-sleep.

I think we should all pay heed to Mr. Kesavan's words that you don't judge the fortunes of Test cricket in our country by seeing that 50,000 seats are filled in a stadium. It's all about television viewership. I must admit that I am overly pleased with Test and ODI crowds alike; they are great in India- nearly always jampacked. But the hundreds of millions who watch at home are key.
Cricket has to be broadcast free-to-air, yet we loathe Doordarshan.
India has to play lesser ODIs and more Tests, yet before April 2006 (including the recent 9), we'll have played about 35 ODIs.
What is encouraging is that unlike Mr. Kesavan, I think the interests of Test cricket is safe within the Indian viewing public. It is not fair to equate us with the dwindling Test-viewers in Pakistan, and couple us together as the subcontinent.
While most Pakistanis I encounter are indifferent to Test cricket, call it boring, even laugh at it's not-so-obvious virtues, most Indians I meet acknowledge the values of Test cricket and indulge in the longer variety more than the ODIs.

What is paramount is how the BCCI deals with all this. We all know they are just trying to fill their coffers. The struggle we see before us (for the office of the BCCI) is not staged in the interests of Indian cricket, but rather for the interests of the people involved in the fight.

Here I would like to disagree with Mr. Kesavan. You cannot fault the Indian public for gobbling up ODIs. That is the main dish the BCCI has served up for us over the last 10 years (at least!), and so, simply put, we watch. I think rather we have to credit Indian supporters for keeping the interests of Test cricket alive. They DO watch, they DO support, and they do revel in Test victories more than those in ODIs. I would like evidence that proves otherwise.

One argument I hate to see is purporting that ODI cricket is better than Tests in any way. This is ridiculous, laughable, and almost obscene. Test cricket is the sport's ultimate form. It always will be, no matter what the media says. I like to think Test cricket is thriving. England beat Australia, Pakistan are beating England, India play both Pakistan and England soon. There is SL, SA, NZ too.

I strongly believe ODI cricket and 20twenty too need to be used as tools to market the game. 20Twenty moreso than ODIs. I hope the ICC can construct some sort of mechanism that limits the amount of ODI cricket, advertizes the virtues of Test cricket, and channels the positive, aggressive and thrilling encounters of 20Twenty to feed the ultimate format-Tests.

just wanted to say I agree with mukul kesavan on the importance of test cricket. But I also think it's a shame that the ODI game and Test Cricket have started to diverge so much. Before 1996, ODI and Test cricket were clearly the same game. After 1996, they have increasingly drifted further and further apart.

I have no problem with brilliant ODI fielding and energetic running between wickets. But I do have a problem with "lofted shot" bullies, players who rely on artificial fielding restrictions in order not to get caught. And I do think the ODI game changed for the worse when it changed from a 60-over innings to 50-overs. I don't think very much of day-night matches either.

Unlike tests, I don't think the ODI format has reached its optimal form. I think the ICC should encourage experimentation with different forms of the ODI game, like a ODI match without special fielding restrictions, or a ODI match with 55-over or 60-over innings, or a ODI match with no restrictions on the number of overs a bowler can bowl.

There's always 20-20 cricket for those who want a three-hour slog (and I like a good tonk myself). But I think these changes in the ODI game would produce more varied and genuinely interesting ODI matches.

I think the reality of Test Match cricket in India is more nuanced than the author seems to suggest. It's true that so far in the 2005-2006 season, it's been a bonanza of ODIs. However, the same time last year was a bonanza of Tests, and the stadiums were packed then as well. Even in Pakistan, the stadiums are full for the England series (aided by the PCB's free ticket policy, but still). I think Test matches are still popular. Two cases in point: one, when a Test is on in India, you may not find people gathered around TV screens unless the passage of play is specially engrossing, but you will find most TV screens on the streets showing the cricket, and every passer by will still ask "score kya hai?"; two, for all the home games (Tests and ODIs) since last year, whenever Rahul Dravid walked out to bat, he got an ovation which had till then been reserved only for Sachin Tendulkar, and that was on the back of his exploits in the Test matches in Australia and Pakistan.

Let's not insult the intelligence of the audience (as our filmmakers often do) and assume that they're not interested. They are, and they know what's going on. Test matches require an enormous time commitment from the audience; and in India, even those who cannot give that time will still make it a point to know what's going on. As for the World Cup - given that it's only one and a half years away, of course that will be the focus now. It would be self defeating if it were otherwise.

wicketmaiden.blogspot.com

Test cricket was dead boring in the 80s. It has become a lot more interesting, thanks to the one day game and the increased fitness and aggressive intent of players.

The reason ODIs are interesting is because they give a clear target and the match is often "alive" for a good chunk of the game. ODIs do have restrictions that detract from the contest. This is where tests score over ODIs.

Perhaps a 2-day test with each team having a max of 100 overs to bat (two 50-over innings) but without any restrictions on bowling or fielding is a possible answer? A score of 250 per innings would be very competitive under conditions that are more balanced. 75-over innings would extend this to a full three days. Basically a case can easily be made that the 5-day format can be reduced to 3 or even 2 days without affecting the quality of play that is associated with test cricket.

in addition to players who rely too much on fielding restrictions, i.e. "lofted shot bullies", players who are inordinately fond of mediocre, trundling ODI bowling are another thing I dislike about the current ODI game. Call them "5th bowler bullies"?

That said, I don't dislike ODI's. just would like it better with a few changes.

One thing is for sure, the kind of level of cricket that we have seen between India and Aussies and the last Ashes series, sure has revived cricket, not just Test cricket in motherland of cricket.
Test cricket is far more exciting these days because people have started playing attacking cricket again. I say "again" because it was very attacking before the dull draws of 1980's came into being. India itself tried to chase totals of 450+ on couple of occasions, falling just short. as long as both the teams want a result, the test cricket will remain attractive. and the only way to win is to bowl the opposition out twice. requires loads of skill!

I've seen too many undeserving ODI heroes shown up for the true frauds that they are in tests to even consider thinking that ODI's are better for the game. True, dead pitches don't always make for good television, but people who are really serious fans would consider a test series victory as the holy grail.. I've been wishing for years that India would play as many test matches as say the Aussies- and I'm only 20!I would gladly drop everything and attend a test match, if they were to hold one in my state. A test match on a sporting wicket, what more could a cricket fan ask for; especially the way they play the game these days- thank ODI's for that though!!

The Strange Death of Test Cricket: You score points on almost everything you have said - the topic, though, has inevitably veered to the ungainly modus operandi of the India Cricket Management. We all know this - ODI makes business sense, & tests do not. We need no proof to this. But all is not lost. For a start, a prominent Indian cricketer who has been left out would go to all extents to be back into the team even as a mere player. The stakes are high - the sponsorships, the commercials et al. Now, where do we go from here? The players and the core team management have to take up the cudgel, so it seems! There is always enough unhoned talent around. The core Indian team has initiated this "process". Abu Ben Adam - May his tribe increase!

Test cricket is the real thing period. No ODI can even hope to compare to those magical three tests against the aussies in 2001 or even to the tests against Pakistan in Pakistan. Test cricket is a strenous test of mental and physical skills, it is chess on a field. Nowadays test matches invariably produce a result, but some of the recent draws have been more gut wrenching than many ODIs. I think there is enough support for test matches, i see good crowds in India whenever India plays, and the longer span also gives scope for more ads on TV

Prakash really came out with some good stats there, and also the parting quote on casual sex and marraige was good analogy.

Lalith Bhatia - aren't we, the lovers of test cricket, being premature in accepting that the market will trounce it. Maybe there IS a breed of us, large enough to sustain it? Although I do identify with your anger a little bit.

Rather than reinvent itself as the 5-day version of the ODI, test cricket should look at how it can draw more from its rich tradition. It can entice fans and viewers by weaving storylines that are richly rooted in history and tradition, that portray the individual and team struggles to preserve or overwrite that history in a way that only the longer form of the game can truly capture. The Mahabharata, after all, was not just an 18-battle series.

How about this for starters (some of this has been repeated by others):

1) Limit test matches to a small number of prime-time venues. Let smaller venues have ODIs. It's a shame that England can come and go without setting foot in Eden Gardens.

2) Establish predictable ordering and scheduling in venues. Build traditions for specific venues around holidays, like the Boxing Day test in Melbourne, or to mark seasonal milestones, like the last test of the season at the Oval. Don't announce schedules days before the series starts.

3) Preserve and enhance, rather than alter, the unique characteristics of each pitch. Let there be a raging turner somewhere for everyone to look forward to or fear.

4) Ensure that there are fans in the stands by enforcing TV blackout rules unless a certain percentage of seats are filled.

5) Schedule ODIs before tests, and use them to build anticipation and new storylines for the test series.

I don't think Test Cricket is dying. I think its popularity is increasing. The ODI format was changed recently to make it more interesting. Test criket was killing it. The attendence maybe low in pakistan, but its always been good in India. ODI will have a bigger auidence, comming continous 5 days to a Test match well i don't think my boss would like it.

To aNTi - I agree with your comments on how ODI's have taken cricket to great levels of skill and athleticism. I thoroughly enjoy the spectacle of ODI's. But ODI's will never have the same tension packed drama, the passion, the great displays of mental strength and determination shown by players in the test arena. Most of the great cricketing moments that spring to my mind are test cricket moments. I'm an Aussie, but I rate VVS Laxman's innings in Calcutta in 01 against us as probably the greatest individual display of cricketing skill I have personally witnessed. Dean Jones 210 against India in Madras in 86(I think) and then having to go to hospital to be treated for exhaustion. Flintoff consoling Lee after England beat Australia by 2 runs at Edgbaston. The sheer dissapointment on Lee's face would never be replicated in an ODI. Test cricket is TRULY a Test - of skill, and character. It brings out the best and sometimes the worst in its combatants. It's the greatest of sporting dramas.

For God's sake get Dalmia out of the cricketing corridors! The man has no qualms about raping the game that has given him whatever he has. And have no doubts that others who succeed his empire will follow exactly his path to act only for personal gains. Cricket be damned!

We need cricketers & ex-cricketers to be form a new board, an set a new constitution directly under the jurisdiction of the Sports Ministry - publicly accountable and no political allegiance. A dictator-like sabre is needed to reform the system. Throw the wolves to the dungeons!

In Australia local tests are not aired on free-to-air TV until the stands are filled. So, if you want to make sure that you see the test in your home ground, you have to go there. That could be one way to get crowds for test cricket.

Once people get to the ground in Australia they have a party, occasionally looking up from their beers to clap for a century or a win, not otherwise. That may be the secret to the revival of the longer game: People go to a Test just to meet each other, a picnic with the pleasant element of some cricket going on as well. We Indians can relate to that - a festival - that's what a test match should be, not serious viewing where we have to clap for every good return. (I am the serious kind, by the way, and I am only happy when India is doing well.)

My thesis therefore is that if we take the game less seriously, Test match audiences are likely to flourish and grow. In fact, if we have comfortable seats and serve beer we could have solid attendance for Ranji trophy as well. The only difficulty may be, on a hot day, to prevent the cricketers from joining the audience.

I think the point everyone is overlooking is this - you don't have to watch an entire game to appreciate it!!! Even the greatest test matches have their ebbs and flows and if you catch parts here and there and tune in for the finish, you have got yourself a good deal! Cricket by nature is longer, so we need to stop measuring it against shorter sports!! It's pointless! Shorter sports have more games, if anyone has noticed! Baseball players play 160+games a season, sometimes even two a day!
Test cricket is fine as it is, I think - maybe something could be done to ensure that pitches everywhere are always sporting. Apart from that, why fix something that isnt broke? Crowds flock to tests in India, Sri Lanka, England and Australia. New Zealand doesnt have the numbers in their population to generate a flock! In S Af and the Windies, things dont seem dire! Please dont mess with the format - 60overs+40 overs etc etc..no siree!!!

There is little doubt that test cricket is far more interesting to watch than a one-dayer. In fact one dayers are rather boring with fairly predictable long stretches of play. Also, rarely do matches go to the wire, as compared to many recent tests where results have hung on a slender thread till the last minute. All this talk of five days being too long is bunkum-football games need to be played for 90 or 120 minutes and not decided by tie breakers after 10 minutes. Tour de France needs a month to finish. Both sports are enthralling, as is test match cricket with five days offering enough scope for twists and turns. And the wonderful possibility of exposing scamsters like "no footwork" Dhoni who pose themselves as Viv Richards on flat Indian tracks. There's something about the colour white that prevents you from hiding stains!

But Mukul's article begets a greater question. Much as we in India may be myopically obsessed with the sport, can cricket really hope to sustain itself with 5 or 6 odd countries playing it with any seriousness. And to be honest in South africa and New Zealand its a very marginal sport. And only nuts would pay to watch Sri Lanka outside of home. The ICC has paid little attention to the demise of cricket in the Caribbean- very much the soul of the sport- its akin to Brazil giving up soccer. Instead of trying to induce Scotland, Guam, Papua New Guinea et al., to play cricket, a concentrated effort to revive the game in the Windies is the need of the hour. Forget one day or tests, whether Cricket at all will survive anywhere but the subcontinent in any form in a couple of decades is a question ICC must now seriously consider.

This is the first good post that raised a valid concern in this wicket to wicket discussion on Indian cricket.

I worry about this as much as Mukul. Although Prakash makes some fine points (comment #2), the signs of Test cricket taking the back seat to ODIs in India have been apparent for some time. England, the Aussie beaters, are coming to India next year and we scrapped a test to make room for two extra ODIs? 3 tests and 7 ODIs. What a shame. I had blogged about this when the tour schedule was announced, and you can read more about it here: http://yorker.wordpress.com/2005/11/03/cricket-comes-first/
Particularly interesting is the link to Mike Marquesee's piece where he talks about the wonderful games of test cricket on show during the Ashes. How would've everybody felt if the Ashes had ended after the third test?

Pratik
http://yorker.wordpress.com

everyone's correct and everyone's wrong, all i wanna say is ONE DAYERS IS NOT CRICKET, IT'S CRICKET DESIGNED FOR PUNJABIS!! cmon guys gimme a fast, hostile quick blowing the batsman's nose bloody...and sissies like hayden getting bounced out. NOW THAT'S TEST MATCH CRICKET.

Let me make it very clear. You are crying about test matches, Just watch for next 10 years - 20-20 cricket will be big, followed by 1 day cricet. And test matches will survive because of popularity of these 2 versions.

Largely I agree to what Mukul is saying here. However there a few points I would like to make.

1. Test Cricket has always had a niche following and will continue to do so. I think one day cricket has attracted new followers but not really converted the old ones enough to abandon test cricket. So it can be argued that few of the new followers of the game could be and are being converted to being fans of test cricket.

2. As someone has pointed out earlier, to say that the one day series against Aus in 2001 overdhadowed the test would be wrong. Anyone who remotely follows cricket would remember THAT test series but not the one day series that followed.

However this is nit picking, the primary point you are trying to make is absolutely right, test cricket now is hostage to the greed of the administrators. One silver lining is that thankfully we still don't sell TV rights to test and one day cricket sperately. The TV rights if and when they are sold for indian cricket is for Cricket in general. Once sold it shouldn't matter to BCCI if they organise Tests or One days as the money is already in the coffers. Maybe this fact would save test cricket. Hopefully no one in BCCI would read this comment, if they did they might do just that. Till the seperation of the two property happens I think test cricket is safe.

Both India and Pakistan have fallen in love with ODIs, and may lack the appreciation that Australia, England and West Indies have for the longer version. However, this does not siginify the "death" of test cricket. What is popular now does not decide what will be popular in 10 years time. Sri Lanka have concentrated on their ODI game for a fairly long time, yet now, under a new coach, are turning back to test cricket. This may occur in India as well.

With regard to the Indian team benchmark for success, winning the world cup can't serve. Will the process of rebuilding the team be a failure if the players don't perform on a given day? Will it be a failure if Dravid, Sachin or another cardinal player is injured ahead of the competition?

Like all things, success will be measured over time. Should India improve its ODI and test form (and some signs have already appeared that this is the case) then the Indian team is clearly on the right track. It's enough to be at the top, where you can compete with Australia on equal terms, and no one able to rpedict the result ahead of the match. Whether you win or lose on a given day becomes far less relevant then. As an Australian I certainly hope this wil be the case come the World Cup.

I don’t agree, I think test cricket is getting more popular nowdays. Who remember ODI’s other than finals? but people do remember Laxman’s Inning at Calcutta against Assies. Sehwags ton against Pakistan in first test in Pakistan? Thanks to the new version!!! test cricket has more results now.

I propose a world cup of test cricket once in a 5 year. We can use our regular test series to qualify. Then top 6 can have knock out competion ( 4 day test on fast pacey wickets) . play each test on weekends the one who wins final will hold the trophy for next 5 years. How about that?

Just a point of view that may look a trifle stupid.
Cricket to me isnt just about Tests or ODI's . These are just the national teams of 11 apiece jostling for honours. For me the real spirit of Indian cricket is in the Maidans & gullies where it is played , often with a rubber ball , on pitches ranging from 22 to 11 yards.
Bowling is often underarm & when space is a constraint we have the wonderful innovation of french cricket.

As along as this is alive & well & the janta is having a grat time playing it Indian Cricket is in great health , even if they lose all tests or ODI's.

To me this is democratisation( may not be the best word but is all I can think of) of the game from a elite gentlemans game to one that is watched & more importantly played also by the street urchin.

I think that with serious audiences and lovers of the sport, test cricket is the ultimate experience. It is affordable to miss the middle overs of a one-day match, let it be even the final match. I think this entire predisposition in all fields with results has removed the fun of the journey, which test cricket is all about.
After all, what is the relevance of a 7 match one-day series and what is different in it from a daily soap opera or a reality show. If one-day cricket is to be made relevant, each match should count, as it does in a Soccer Premier League. Then the importance of Home and Away, and the ruing of a lost point due to rain will be felt. Till then, test cricket reigns supreme

Test cricket is on a renaissance precisely for the reasons mentioned in the post above. Australia have been credited with bring about the renaissance simply because they changed the approach to the game. They changed the packaging of the game itself and made Test cricket watchable. I mean before the great Waugh bunch came along teams literally played towards a draw because it was the easy thing to do. But not so much anymore. Captains are looking for results. Case in point Test 1 of Eng v Pak. That baby could easily have gone to a draw but a result was forced by the Pakistani bowlers and that's what made it so interesting.

I can see the logic behind having a soccer type of scoring of home and away games. I say that have an ODI series spread out across the two countries involved. Then start the series in one and end it in another. Of course a win away from home will count for more than a win at home and the trophy goes to the winningest team in the worst conditions. Hurray!

Also, I think a post by Dax earlier about the way to increase test cricket's visibility was very well thought out. I agree with trying to create new storylines, TV blackouts, tie-in test games with traditional holidays like the Turkey-Day bowl in the US, let's have a Deepavali Test on a turning pitch in Bangalore! To add to this I'd say put on day-night test matches as well. I think that will add to the excitement of the game as well as more spectators in the stand. I would love to go to a stadium and cheer on my team rather than go home and watch TV all night! Besides, the hours are more amenable to the working population.

These suggestions taken collectively and packaged properly could start a renaissance of amazing sorts. After all protecting the soul of the game is what it's all about right?

Test cricket is a dinosaur which is completely out of place in present day society. Yet, the pundits and, strangely ,quite a few casual followers of the game continue to make these outlandish claims about its importance as a "pure" form of the game. A form of game that lacks a decent audience and fails to provoke any interest among the majority of the game's followers is irrelevant. A few decades back when people lacked alernatives, test cricket may have made sense as a strange form of indulgence for people with an inordinate amount of time on their hands. It is extremely impractical to expect those "golden days" to return. The simple truth is that test cricket as a general rule has never been that interesting or critical to the advancement of the game. The advent of one day cricket was a huge step forward in terms of keeping the game alive and relevant. Future generations are bound to have even less patience. There may be some folks who insist on reviving this debate ad nauseum but it is time for the rest of us who are more pragmatic to move forward and let it die a relatively quick and painless death. How long do you want to continue watching mediocre batsmen batting through 3 or 4 days on dead and dusty pitches in the subcontinent? It is a mind numbing experience. That way resources can be directed to one day and other more exciting versions of the game. As someone said "Times... they are a changin'."

It's amazing how people know and understand the finest nuances of cricket. Someone up here calls Dhoni "no footwork", as if he is himself a cricket expert( maybe he is). I don't think Dhoni has called himself the new Viv Richards. His job in the match was to hit the ball and hit he did. So, India prepares belters of pitches, and then people (from India!) call their own batsmen scamsters. Is it Dhoni's fault that the Indian pitches favour batsmen? Dhoni plays the game because he loves it. An d if you have got it in you then go for it. Criticizing others' achievements isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
By the way, I love Team India.

Over the last several years we have been an ordinary team in ODIs and been a competent test team.Remember it took thirtyfive years and a rainy day in Chennai to defeat India in India.We have in the last series defeated Bangladesh,Zimbabwe,Pakistan,and drawn with Australia and England away from home.If the media creates a hype about a form of sport we are not good at, its difficult that that will remain so for long.The Test Match allows the television viewer to schedule his weekend/CL etc. for a day's visit.Similarly,I remember, scheduling my Test Match Watching by the hour on all the days.Such a convenience is denied in the ODI.ODI is all about results.How many Tied ODIs are remembered?ODI will remain a Television driven event.If your best bowler and a quality batsman cannot fit into an ODI team, the stuff is definitely not the real thing.