Test 2 Day 2 Lords

What to make of this?

Day 1 - 364 runs. 6 wickets.90 overs.

Day 2 - 217 runs. 12 wickets. 59.4 overs.

Yesterday's play was the first time in a long time that left me confused. Generally the end of the first day gives enough hints on how the match will pan out.

Yesterday was different.

196 runs without losing a wicket. 168 runs for the loss of 6 wickets. Bad bowling? Bad batting? And what about the England rune rate, well over 4 rpo. It just did not add up.

And at the end of today;'s play, I remain confused.

Yes, 156/8 represents England on the ascendancy but, is that really true? If the pitch continues to behave the way it has on Day 2, can England honestly put their hands on their hearts and say that they have the werewithal to perform better than the Australians did today?

Then there is the case for not enforcing the follow on.

Australia have a problem with their bowling. Hauritz is hurt, Siddle has a niggle, Johnson's radar
is all over the place. That leaves Hilfenhaus as the lone uninjured bowler in the ranks. Coupled with North, Katich, Clarke, Hussey and Ponting. If England bat more than 100 overs, how much will the injuries come to bite Australia?

Then there is the case for enforcing the follow on.

6 of the last 7 tests at Lords have ended in a draw. Teams batting last have scored 537, 214, 89, 282. 269 and 393 in the 6 drawn games. And with the wicket expected to behave as is or get slightly quicker tomorrow, England does not want to give Australia the advantage of a) getting back into the game by exploiting whatever little the wicket has to offer before easing up and b) let Australia bat last on a wicket with little or no assistance for the bowlers on Days 4 and 5.

Then there is the question of time.

270 overs and a bit remain in the game.If England bat long, it will impact Australia's bowling resources but will give the Australians enough time to eke out a draw. If England don't bat long enough, Australia get the benefit of time.

But long long is long? Strauss was extremely conservative with his declarations in the West Indies. If the same pattern follows, he will shut the game completely before inviting the Australians to bat. And even in that case - if 150 overs enough to get the Australians out a second time? 100? 170? And what about the score - 500?450? South Africa chased 413 to win in 119 overs at Perth. And the West Indies drew twice with their last pair at the crease against England at home.

So many permutations. So much to think. Who wants to be a captain.

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.

The Spirit of Cricket

Per the ICC rules, there were a minimum of 98 overs to be bowled in the stipulated period of time on the fifth day of the Cardiff Test ( to make up for time lost to rain).

So it is incumbent on the bowling side to get atleast those many overs in in the stipulated period to avoid penalties.

There is no binding on the batsmen to play any more than the stipulated overs.

That is the way it is.

The Physio and the 12th man made their appearance in the 102nd over of the innings ( the 94th over of the day). Australia bowled 3 more overs after which there were 10 minutes remaining in the days play.

No one defaulted on the overs - they were completed within the stipulated time. Which is exactly what the law ( as it stands today) stipulates.

Now here are the laws on time wasting -

9. Time wasting by the fielding side
It is unfair for any member of the fielding side to waste time.
(a) If the captain of the fielding side wastes time, or allows any member of his side to waste time, or if the progress of an over is unnecessarily slow, at the first instance the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball if necessary and
(i) warn the captain, and indicate that this is a first and final warning.
(ii) inform the other umpire and the batsmen of what has occurred.

(b) If there is any further waste of time in that innings, by any member of the fielding side, the umpire shall
either (i) if the waste of time is not during the course of an over, award 5 penalty runs to the batting side. See 17 below.
or (ii) if the waste of time is during the course of an over, when the ball is dead, direct the captain to take the bowler off forthwith. If applicable, the over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over nor be allowed to bowl the next over.
The bowler thus taken off shall not be allowed to bowl again in that innings.
(iii) inform the other umpire, the batsmen and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(iv) report the occurrence, with the other umpire, as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and team concerned.

10. Batsman wasting time
It is unfair for a batsman to waste time. In normal circumstances the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his run up.
(a) Should either batsman waste time by failing to meet this requirement, or in any other way, the following procedure shall be adopted. At the first instance, either before the bowler starts his run up or when the ball is dead, as appropriate, the umpire shall
(i) warn the batsman and indicate that this is a first and final warning. This warning shall continue to apply throughout the innings. The umpire shall so inform each incoming batsman.
(ii) inform the other umpire, the other batsman and the captain of the fielding side of what has occurred.
(iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable.

(b) if there is any further time wasting by any batsman in that innings, the umpire shall, at the appropriate time while the ball is dead
(i) award 5 penalty runs to the fielding side. See 17 below.
(ii) inform the other umpire, the other batsman, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(iii) report the occurrence, with the other umpire, as soon as possible to the Executive of the batting side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and player or players and, if appropriate, the team concerned.

Now, if the bowler was not ready to bowl at the end of the over, how does what the batsmen ( or the substitutes did) amount to time wasting or contravening the laws of the game?

And speaking of laws, here is one

2.4 Public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official

And here is the Ponting quote

"It was pretty ordinary," he said of England's tactics. "They can play whatever way they want to play. We will do everything we can to play by the rules and the spirit of the game. I don't think it was required. They had changed gloves before, so I'm not sure they were going to be too sweaty after one over. I am not sure what the physio was doing out there. I think a few guys were questioning the umpires. I think a few guys were also questioning the 12th man. I am sure others will be taking it up with the England hierarchy as they should."

Furthermore, on Day 3, with Australia in the lead and with 5 wickets in the hutch, Australia were offered the light ( or rain) which they promptly took. England wanted to play on and yet play was suspended.

There were people in the ground and outside who had paid good money to watch a full day's contest. Who were denied because Australia did not choose to play on.

Wonder what happened to the spirit of cricket then?

Aww look..

Ricky Ponting delivered a stinging critique of England's gamesmanship after a contentious final session in which the hosts' 12th man and physiotherapist made multiple visits to the centre. The Australian captain's comments were tantamount to an accusation of time-wasting by an England side attempting to save the first Test, and will do little to defuse tensions between the two sides following a fractious day's play at Sophia Gardens.

Ponting of course is right.. The right spirit in which the game is played is this

88.6

Hauritz to Collingwood, no run, beautiful ball! Wonderful drift away then turns back into Collingwood who's rapped on the pads, but it hits him outside the line. The ball rebounds to Ponting at silly point who takes a blinder to his left, then appeals for the catch - charging the umpire, imploring him! Aleem Dar says no, and it's the correct decision

And lets not also forget the many bump ball catches claimed and Haddin gate. Yes indeed... Rebuke away Ponting, you are the right person to be admonishing all and sundry!

Test 1 Day 5 Cardiff

Given that Ricky Ponting is such a perfect gentleman with impeccable manners ( vide him spitting on his palms all match and then shaking hands with those very same hands), I will refrain from commenting about the Third day and that walk off for bad light when Australia were in the lead and in a commanding position.

That said, I wouldn't have dreamt of the day when I would say this - Ricky Ponting comfortably out captained Andrew Strauss. Couple that with some abject lack of discipline with the bat in the England second innings and a test that should have been, by rights, dead and buried on Day 4, was given a new lease of life on Day 5 with the artificial excitement of the possibility of a result thrown in for good measure.

Finally this - a lot of people will hold up this test as an example of why Test cricket is all that it is made out to be. I beg to differ. Cardiff is a prime example of why Test Cricket will die out in the next ten years unless the administrators seriously look at the wickets on display.

A Test match where even getting 3 completed innings over 5 days is a stretch is a blot on Test Cricket.

And a ground where 1361 runs are scored for the loss of 25 wickets despite rain truncating play, is a poor advertisement for Test Cricket.

If the Test lasting the distance is the primary concern of the administrators versus a contest ( and a result), then R.I.P Test Cricket.

I wont be shedding tears over the loss!