The Future of Cricket Part 1

Hello and welcome back to my blog

Over the next few days I will post my analysis of the question of the year: what is the future of cricket? This refers to all three forms of the game and I have been working towards this since June. I thought it wise to wait and allow the topic to develop before commenting (in order to avoid the mistake of writing off tests or ODIs before they had a chance to prove themselves). I'm glad I did because both showed their value in the last 5 months and a few commentators/writers have appeared foolish as a result.

Today Part 1 deals with the future of Test Cricket:

The history of what we call Test Cricket stretches back to 1877 when England and Australia played at the MCG and grew to include 3 teams by the turn of the century, 6 at the out break of the Second World War and now 10 in the 21st Century. The rules have hardly changed beyond new LBW laws, field restrictions (to combat body line) and no-ball rules; the game is played in the same structure. Only now in 2009 does it face a real threat from a three-hour, carnival version of itself. In the face of that history, I think not

However, in 2009 there are issues that need to be addressed if Test Cricket is to continue in anything like its present form:

• With 10 teams playing each other according to the ICC Future Tours programme an inevitable wedge has formed between the top teams and the bottom teams - a difference in skill and funding that is growing. England, Australia, India and South Africa play each other in long, tough series and collect the sales and hardening of skills inherent to such match-ups while the rest struggle to catchup.
• On the other hand the top nations are also becoming the most defensive and least flamboyant with fewer risks taken and none of Strauss, Ponting, Dhoni and Smith will appear in the Top 20 Captains of All time. The energy of a competitive West Indies, a talented AND consistent Pakistan, the unique Sri Lanka or the underdog achievers New Zealand are missing from the mix of competitive Test Cricket. F0r the longest form of the game to survive there must be more of a balance between the teams.
• A large part of the problem is the Future Tours Programme itself. With 10 teams to fit into a 12 month period, the year has become full of meaningless series and one tour on the back of another; two tests here and three ODIs there. The advent of 20/20 has filled the international calendar to its limits. There is no pattern, no progression and no real sense to any of it - just a filler between World Cups. It is difficult for the public to follow their team when there is no end goal or point to it all

The issue is relevance. What role do we want Test Cricket to fill in the 21st Century so that people can identify with and find/make time to watch it. With the success of the IPL and 20/20 World Cup this year, the question needs answering NOW. Suggestions and possible solutions have been expressed across the globe - some more realistic than others - it is useful to discuss some of the more common ones:

After the success of day-night ODIs some feel that Test Cricket could also benefit from playing it when people aren't at work. This could encourage more people to attend the matches but would not solve the other problems mentioned above. Other issues include the way the air changes as night and how this might affect the ball (personally I don't have a problem with this because it gives power back to the bowlers) also the colour of the ball itself would need to change to be seen at night.
I would advise against this idea because Test Cricket, for me, is a sport to be enjoyed during a hot sunny day - a lethargic experience rather than a chance to be crammed into a seat for SEVEN hours. Thus I support New Zealand Cricket's move to hold tests at smaller grounds rather than stadiums; the atmosphere is better and much more comfortable for enjoying Test Cricket's slower nature.

Splitting the test nations into two tiers has also been suggested in order to avoid one-sided contests. Thus the likes of Australia, South Africa, India and one other nation would play each other while West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh would play each other (the place of England, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe would depend on their performances when the split occurs. It is suggested that the new structure could function similar to the English County system with relegation and advancement.
However the obvious problem is that each nation does not have the same pool of potential players or resources to draw on. The top nations will improve through competition with each other far further than the bottom nations could (aided by the large resources available through the inevitable ticket sales and advertising etc). In the end it would simply make the top teams better and the bottom teams would almost stagnate. And that is just if Test Cricket were a stand alone form of the game, the lure of 20/20 competitions would surely suck the players away from the bottom nations more than ever before (more about this in Part 3).

There is a much better way to structure Test Cricket to improve its appeal and that is to create a proper Test Championship. This would involve a re-imagining of the Future Tours Programme in a way that across one year a top Test nation could be crowned. This gives a goal and purpose to each series as points are accumulated and semi-finals and finals decided before the tally is wiped clean for a new year.
The idea floated around for a few years and gained momentum this winter (summer in England) with the likes of Ian Chappell and Adam Gilchrist supporting it. Martin Crowe even organised a presentation to the ICC that would have had a championship set up beginning in October (when there are 4 series being played involving the top 8 nations) as a trial.
The only major issue that concerns me with this system is the role of key series like The Ashes, Border-Gavaskar and Frank Worrell Trophies etc, which still draw large crowds and prove to be profitable. Any championship would need to accommodate these before it could find votes to pass.

During the winter the idea of 4-day test matches gained great attention and every commentator/writer/blogger/player had something to say about it.

• Javed Miandad suggested 4-day tests as a good way for minor nations (Ireland, Kenya etc) to play - which is how New Zealand entered test cricket - but to shorten tests for the top nations may hurt the standard of that form of the game.
• The Indian Express asked 'would 4 days really be more exciting than 5 or would it just feel like a domestic game'
• A Daily Mail cynic sarcastically suggested that we should just shorten tests to 20 overs each

This hits the nail on the head really, Test cricket is a long game and to shorten it would hurt the fundamentals. During his Cowdrey Lecture this year, Adam Gilchrist expressed doubts over this idea too. One Geoffrey Boycott though, pointed out that you could have the same NUMBER of overs in 4 days instead of 5 thus increasing the over-rate per day and speeding up the game (although I'm not sure every captain would be pleased with that threat)

Conclusion
For me Test Cricket is still the best form of cricket and its popularity is somewhat explained by the recent Ashes contests:

• In 2005 we witnessed the best test series in decades: competitive, played in the right nature, great atmosphere, a close result and involving the best players and teams of the time. However this standard was unrealistic and proved a false rebirth for test cricket (except in England)
• In 2006/7 Australia thrashed England 5-0 in a display that was brilliant but ultimately lacking in drama due to the scoreline
• In 2009 two teams of less quality than those before, fought a tough battle for the urn and in doing so set a far better standard for others to follow

For me Test Cricket involves bringing balance back into the game. The contest of wills, player to player, bowl and bat must be as equal as possible for this is what drives the sport. Less is more in a test match, scores of 500 should be urned not a natural event on a flat pitch, therefore pitches must become greener. I agree with Ian Chappell who said the number of test matches in a summer should be reduced (to one good series if possible). This way a cricketer could play 50 tests instead of 150 a goal expressed by Adam Gilchrist during his lecture.

The question over the future of Test Cricket will not be answered in this blog, nor by any other. A sport must continually adapt to maintain its appeal and relevance. That task falls to the players, officials, administrators and even the fans, just as Sir. Richard Hadlee said 'we are all custodians of the game'

Keep an eye out for Part 2 which I shall post in a few days time