Wednesday, July 15, 2009

A modest proposal

Now that the MCC World Cricket committee has spoken, with recommendations ranging from a World Test Championship to day/night tests and pink balls, here are my two cents..

There is one and only one reason why Test Cricket is losing out to the other forms of the game - the draw.

In an era where attention spans are diminishing by the second, where the middle overs of an ODI are now considered tedium, a five day test that ends in a stalemate is hardly going to grab the attention ( or the eyeballs).

For those who consider me a heretic, let me say this - Cardiff may be the poster child for what a good test should be , but the only redeeming thing about Cardiff was the post tea session on the final day. T20 provides the same or more excitement in about the same period of time, maybe a tad longer. So why would I waste my time through 28 hours of tedium for the two hours of excitement that I can get anyway watching T20. And T20 assures me of a result, however contrived. 30 hours of play for nothing - how does that resonate in today's world view?

Better bats, better athletes, more sophisticated technologies, greater insight, intense analyses, all of which amount to nothing if after 30 hours and 450 overs of play, the landscape remains the same.

It is all fine and dandy to innovate Test Cricket so as to deliver a more pleasing product but, at the end of the day, all of that will come to naught if two basic concerns are not addressed

1. Over rates
2. Standardization of wickets

Plenty has been said about the over rates, I don't have much to add except to say that the monetary penalties imposed by the ICC ( on an ad hoc basis) haven't really arrested the problem. And that is because, as I read somewhere, most of the money that is paid in penalties comes from the sponsors, so the players are not directly affected anyway.

The second problem is a favorite bug bear of mine - the notion that the wise men in Dubai can conjure up the perfect Test wicket.

There exists "standards", if one may call them that, that determine whether the wicket is "good" or "bad". There are plenty of things a good wicket must be, and a lot more for the wicket to be bad, but there is no provision in the existing framework that regulates against roads.

Which is because roads are what the administrators want.

A test lasting the distance means 450 ad spots ( at a minimum) for the TV broadcaster. 5 days of gate money for the home board. Plus 5 days of sold out corporate boxes etc etc.

Roads are also a vindication for the ICC. Because roads represent the ultimate standard wickets. Every wicket, just like the other one. Geography be damned.

Welcome to standardized wickets, but are we doing anything to improve the quality of cricket?

T20 is being blamed for the "plonk your front foot forward and hit thru the line of the ball", but if the same is possible in a Test match, on the first day, where lies the difference between a batathon that is the T20 and the batathon that is Test Cricket?

What if ( and here is my proposal), Cricket Boards, before signing on to the new FTP, identify the venues that will be hosting Test Cricket in their respective countries. And also identify the nature of the wicket at each of the venues for the duration of the FTP.

That way, if Dilli is identified as a raging turner, then it is incumbent on the the BCCI to maintain that characteristic withing a prescribed delta ( The delta being for changes due to weather patterns). If the wicket deviates outside of the prescribed delta, the host Board faces a stiff penalty, including but not limited to, a ban for a duration previously agreed upon by all Host nations. Add a deduction of points from the Test Championship leaderboard and not only do host countries face a loss of revenue, but a loss in the rankings as well.

The side effect of this is that players will not only know the nature of the wickets beforehand, they will therefore have to adjust their games to suit and thus become more all surface players.

And if the Boards unanimously decide that all wickets, the world over, are roads, then pink balls or not, we can kiss Test Cricket good bye.

19 comments:

jrod said...

As you know I was at the press conference yesterday. After they had talked about re-vamping the format, I asked if there was any point putting an artificial competition in if every test is played on a slow tedious strip that no bowlers can get wickets on? Steve Waugh agreed with me, and said it had been mentioned in the meeting, and then Boycott took over with a rant against slow uniformed 5 day pitches, I was hoping the media would run with that rant, as it was brilliant. So far I haven't seen much about it.

Homer said...

Neither have I UJ.. Infact there seems to be a blanket ban on anything said about the nature of the wickets on which Test Cricket is currently played :)

Maybe it is because it does not play along the ICC narrative- namely, 4 day Tests, pink balls, day night cricket, the works :)

Cheers,

Tifosi Guy said...

Mate

While your proposal is good, the ICC boffins would never take up the idea . All they worry about is revenue.

I guess if they do ' think' a bit , it is possible to make the same revenue no matter what.

i.e. - if it's a raging turner - just hike the price of the ads/corporate boxes etc etc to account for a shortened match.

People would still pay and come to watch it, esp in place like Ind/Eng/Aus..

However, that is a pipedream, because hey it's a batsman game and come what may - batsmen should rule !

Homer said...

TG,

I dont expect them to either but thr fact of the matter is, for all the pontification about the "primacy of Test Cricket", it is the administrators who are hastening its demise.

Also, I beg to differ on the game being a batsman's game - it is all about the money. Batsmen are but the instrument for administocrats to piggy back on.

Cheers,

jrod said...

H, I think 20 over tests are the key.

I can't even get the English press to talk about an English player getting called a terrorist by the Aussie media.

jrod said...

H, I think 20 over tests are the key.

I can't even get the English press to talk about an English player getting called a terrorist by the Aussie media.

Homer said...

UJ,

20 over Tests - that should be fun :).

As regards Bilal Shafayat, a precedent has been set. And the English press will be hoisted by its own petard for having set the precedent.

Cheers,

cricketonblog said...

A man wants variety;T20 was the need for long life of cricket.So welcome any changes in Test cricket.We are not a traditional cricket fan;who understands the emotion of man which resist any change in the Test cricket?.

Kumar Narasimha said...

Homer,

Not sure if you read Great Bong, but he's a very popular blogger who also writes on Cricket (who doesn't?) at times.

Here's his take on the issue.

http://greatbong.net/2009/07/16/the-crisis-of-test-cricket-really/#more-721

Som said...

Weed out the parasites, streamline the format, get scheduling right, maintaining the local character of pitches (let dustbowls remain dustbowls and minefields remain minefields)and still it may not be enough.

adverbin said...

Instead of reducing tests to 4 days, how about preparing pitches to last 4 days only, so that at leat on 5th day bowlers will get some help.
Team batting first will have an advantage no daoubt, but team batting second can always put up a big enough score to run through the other side on fifth day.

Homer said...

cricketonblog,

Changes yes, but random changes do not serve any purpose, do they?

Cheers,

Homer said...

Thanks for the link Kumar Narsimha.. Much appreciated and a wonderful read.

Cheers,

Homer said...

Som,

I am not so sure.. There exists a market for Test cricket, a pretty significant one at that.

But the sameness of all the formats ( the difference being the duration) is off putting.

If the administocrats can address the root causes of the problem, all will be well with the world.

Cheers,

Homer said...

A sound idea adverbin. I like it.

Cheers,

Vikas J Yadav said...

Homer variation should be first tried in Domestic Cricket and then if it was appriciated
by fans then only this changes should be reflected from Domestic to international level.Finally it's in hand of cricket fans that they likes this changes or not.

Homer said...

Vikas,

All the Boards have to do is to declare the character of the wicket on which Tests will be played and maintained for the duration of the FTP.

And domestic trials don't necessarily translate to success in International cricket - vide the umpiring referrals.

Cheers,

Jonathan said...

And the over rates fines are the least ad hoc actions of the match referees...

Anyway, Homer, I think your suggestion about designated pitch types is wonderful, as long as the limits can be defined sensibly.

Homer said...

Jonathan,

They may be the least ad hoc but they remain ad hoc and therein lies the rub.
With the various institutes studying this and with all the different ground staff spread all over the world, the ICC can come up with standards.

Or the ICC can leave it to the different home boards to define the variance in pitch behavior per designated pitch.

In fact I would recommend the latter option bcause it leaves the onus on the home Boards to maintain consistency with the ICC playing the regulatory body ( a role that suits it better than being the center of power that it aspires to be).

Cheers,