Of course, that changes priorities for a sportsman and it may lead to stronger performance since performance is more clearly linked to reward.

As for structures and policy, truly chaotic sporting structures, as in Brazilian soccer, and nasty regimented concentration camps, such as in China and the erstwhile East Germany, have delivered equally excellent sporting results. So I don't know if running the game more professionally would necessarily deliver improved results, though it would make life easier for fans.

With regard to Mukul's post, I'd say that the one-day international has become a game of very rich strategic content. It now requires a far wider range of skills than Test cricket. An ODI player always has to keep an eye on the equation, and also on nuances like powerplays, super-subbing etc while delivering on core competency -- whatever that is.

A Test player simply has to deliver on core competency, though he must do that at higher standards, perhaps, than in a one-day international. Of course, Tests require a deeper knowledge of a more narrow skill base, and they are more "forgiving" and allow everyone two chances to showcase their talent. Also, there is the option of playing to draw, which requires a different mindset.

So they are different games. Why is there a problem in two (or more) forms of the same game co-existing? This is the case in several sports (chess, bridge, rugby -- hell, I keep thinking of strategic games!) and it's possible that Test cricket will also evolve and become more interesting strategically, and thus hold viewer interest, circa 2020.

Interesting point! I do not believe test cricket to demand a narrower in visage/ depth in content sort of a mindset. On the contrary, the super sub is pretty much a bonus and teams should aim to play one dayers like they always used to because that gives them the best chance of victory in the current circumstances.

There is tremendous nuance in test cricket, of a kind unknown in one day cricket. the new ball and when to take it, particularly in the subcontinent; Or, the night watchman and when or whether to use him; or declaring an innings to set a competitive total; setting up a game from scratch.

In many ways, test cricket is extremely unpredictable compared to one day cricket. The predictable nature of one day cricket is that of the middle overs, which the power plays were supposed to help counter. though that has not happened, it is still a move on the right direction.

Coming back to test cricket, the demands on a player's physique and mental ability are enormous in the test match arena. Granted, maybe the last over of a tantalising one dayer might provide a similar challenge; but the drama of two great players duelling in the last over of a one day innings are becoming rarer. COmpare that with the test match arena, where the best bowlers are on when the best batsmen are at their peak. That cannot be true of one day cricket where sehwag bowls to atapattu on 98, because of some overs to be made up.

Test match cricket, as the ashes showed us, is of vital importance and is a tremendous entertainer that is the equivalent of reading war and peace, compared to squint-eyeing an archie comic (one day game). there are so many archie digests and none of it is unique in style or character but the best novels are often like tasting wine. They are all the same grape in preparation, but they taste so different in the end.

Well, maybe i am too romantic for this FREE MARKET globalised economy - whatever that is!!!

China has a world class sports planning. Their level of sports planning is not just professional, it is super professional. That's why they have come in such a long way to become the top 2 or top 3 teams in olympics.

I heard that they have even hired foreign cricket coaches and have a ten year plan to improve their cricketing infrastructure.

Professionalism helps beyond doubt.

Nobody says that chaotic sporting structures can't produce excellent results. The thing is that the probability is lower than an organized one. In a chaotic situation, more depends on talented individuals to pull the rest through. In the absence of some truly great sporting personalities, those institutions will be exposed for their ineffectiveness. Organization doesn't mean you'll have excellent results all the time, but it means you'll have the best chance of performing upto your highest standards most of the time.

Pratik
http://yorker.wordpress.com

Saving a test is like trying to save a dodo, a game unsuited for the environment. Let us not fight to save the inevitable. Given the times, people are increasingly having lesser and lesser time to spend on leisure but more money at the same time. Which means they want to see more action but in lesser time. That explains why soccer, basketball etc are gaining so much popularity. I do not think test cricket has it in itself to cut it in today's times. Very very few people can swear on the Bible that they find test cricket viewing as actually more interesting than a day and nighter. As far as skills are concerned, to be honest with you I do not want to be a judge on whether it is more skilled to leave a ball outside your off stump or to hit a last ball for a six.

You have rightly pointed out Brazil's case in being an excellent football nation, without having sufficiently proffessional management. But I think, even though the absence of a professional setup might not harm a particular sport's level in a country, having one greatly increases the chances of an increase in success. I, however do not advocate sterilizing a team by making them too professional, like Woolmer's South Africa in the middle to late 90s, as that takes away from the unique character of the side.

I think it is require to change with time. If Gavaskar and Viswanath are playing today, they would have done same thing as current players. Cricket is getting more and more competitive every day now and it is good for the game too. Good players may cash there talent but it also keep them on their toes to perform on consistent base to stay in competition of being in team and at professional level. This is good for any cricket team.

Hi,
This is Lokesh frm NJ. Some of the comments from Mr.Devangshu Datta abt the ODI game was really valid. But do you guyz really think that all the earlier posts would change anything in Indian cricket particularly its administration. I have been following Indian cricket as a fanatic for the past 15 years and no matter what journalists and writers opine, the state of rut eternally remains....So why bother guyz..., just channelize ur energies towards something else worthwhile n get on with life..... somethings will never change...The BCCI will remain the BCCI Period

I think that part of the problem in Indian cricket is that while the international stars are able to reap rewards and earn huge sums of money through advertising and sponsorship, the domestic cricketers usually get a raw deal. Over the past two years the situation has changed definitely with a better package for India's domestic cricketers but the root of the problem lies in the lack of spectator interest. As suggested earlier in Cricinfo, the only way of attracting spectators to domestic games is by switching to a club system where international players can take part . This would attract more spectators to domestic games and hence increase the revenues through sponsorship and tv rights for these tournaments. Although, the possibility of the cash rich BCCI swooping in to take a lions share of the money looms large!

www.foreversport.blogspot.com

Devangshu,

I would like to link your article to what Amit wrote a couple of days ago. I would attribute the turn of events to the liberalisation and opening of the economy. MNC's are willing to dole out unspecified amounts to players to keep their (companies) flags flying. The situation in the country is now where a professional cricketer need not know what a office looks like. All they have to do is keep playing and get better. This change is in the country from the mid 90's. It is not only relevant to players in the national level but to players in domestic level too. especially in the big cities.

Test cricket has lost its glamour in the fast paced life Indian are exposed to now. Values, traditions and practices in general are changing so, in terms of worrying about "degrading" Indians have more to worry rather than test cricket. However, test cricket if it needs to survive and interest people, I agree with you it needs a paradigm shift to suit the change. Something like power tests or fast tests should be initiated. If not tests in future will be have to be played in closed stadiums or inside hotel rooms.

It will be interesting what the pundits think and see to give test cricket a face lift. I enjoy test cricket but I simple dont have the time to spend 5 days watching it. I need to live among the people who are rushing with life at a unknown pace in India. Loosing 5 days in life might push me back a few years in life ... I'm thinking .........

Test cricket is really very different than the ODI - in terms of skills, strategies and attitude. To make Test cricket more attractive some changes are required.Besides introducing technology in a BIG way to cut out human errors,stricter rules to ensure good over rates and positive bowling need to be introduced.
Chucking (suspect action) should be severely dealt with.Wilfully tampering with the ball or pitch should be punished with banning the player for life.
If rain or bad light interferes with the game extra playing hours should be made mandatory to ensure that a minimum of 450 overs are bowled in the match. Drawn matches should be made an exception rather than the rule.
Stricter rules should also be imposed on the telecaster to ensure that he shows all the 6 balls in an over and carries the action replays in full. Commentators should explain the finer points of the game rather than politicking or describing what the picture is already telling.There should be, if need be, an ICC panel of commentators too. There should be a ban on betting through SMS during telecasts.
Finally. the Team should be selected by popular votes for every slot by the public rather than a group of selectors who are influenced by factors other than the skills and form of the players.
All these reforms even if introduced by stages will go a long way to make the game very interesting and will ensure it's popularity for decades to come.

I think you also need to acknowledge the fact that money/fame/trappings attract kids to a game. I'm told one of the reasons for the West Indies' decline is that the younger lot is now more interested in basketball. I can't think of a reason other than the fact that professional basketball (the NBA) is more 'big time' than pro cricket.

The sporting success stories in the chaotic world of Brazillian soccer or the concentraion camps of East Germany are exceptions.

The East German and Chinese cases have become more famous for the systematic use of performance enhancing drugs than the actual achievements. I am not sure whether any of us would even recommend that kind of a structure.

As far as Brazil's success is concerned, the Brazillians' love for and mastery of football is one of its kind in any sporting discipline. The fact that football is the simplest of all games in terms of the means as well as the rules is also a major factor. No other game allows so much room to the individual to perform without being inhibited by external constraints and concerns. In such situations, it is possible to overcome utter chaos in administration by possessing outrageous talent. Thats why you can have Peles and Maradonas in football but not in other sports

However, in general, there is no alternative to a professionally managed game.

Can't believe some of the comments ref test vs ODI crik. I think it reflects this obsession people now have with 4s, 6s...rather than appreciating the true beauty of crik. There is as much beauty in a forward defensive from Rahul Dravid as there may be in a 6 from Dhoni. How a bowlers sets a batsman up in the course of an over, a session, a test is fascinating. How a batsman keep his concentration over long periods...that is tough work. Test crik is a simple game and the amount of strategy involved is superior to that in an ODI. It gives all players an opportunity to showcase their talent(s). I admit its hard to watch all 5 days, but then again it lends itself to be followed by other means - internet, highlights, etc. Test crik is the real crik; ODIs are for people who think they know and love crik...but they don't and i am sorry to say that includes the vast majority of fans on the sub-continent. ODIs, 20/20 should be used to attract people into the game and then they will quickly discover what real crik is - TESTs. Also, almost all players will tell you what they like - TESTs.