Gilly’s suggestion of cutting Test cricket is a no-no

Columnist

By Kersi Meher-Homji, 27 Jun 2009 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: adam gilchrest, Cricket, Sir Colin Cowdrey Lecture, Test cricket, Twenty20

Related coverage

Cricket news

Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting, left, runs-in to congratulate bowler Shane Watson after he took he wicket of Indian captain Anil Kumble, unseen, on the fourth day of their first test in Bangalore, India, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Gautam Singh)

Speaking for the Sir Colin Cowdrey Lecture at Lord’s on Wednesday, Adam Gilchrist called for a dramatic reduction in the number of Tests in a move he believes will preserve the five-day format in the face of the Twenty20 challenge.

“To preserve [Test cricket's] future, which we must – less is in fact more – we should go back to the future where there were fewer Test matches, but a lot more important ones,” Gilchrist opined. “And where the best cricketers of the day played closer to 50 Tests in their career, not 150.”

To me, his facts are correct but his interpretation is not quite on the ball. In cricket parlance, his line is correct but his length is a bit short.

Till 1928, only three countries were engaged in Test cricket: England, Australia and South Africa. Then came the West Indies, New Zealand and India. They were followed post-1950s by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and much later, by Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

And this is precisely the reason why more Tests are played today. Some of them are meaningless, as the last two countries are not quite Test class. Until they improve, Test cricket should be restricted to eight countries.

And here I agree with Gilly that “less is in fact more.”

More quality than quantity is what we should be looking at.

But in the past, Test cricket was the King. Not so since the 1970s with the first Fifty50 and more so since 2007, with the Twenty20 rules. Twenty20 is the rock concert cheered by 40,000 screaming youngsters, whereas Test matches are Beethoven concerts at the Opera House, watched by mostly sober 65-plus devotees.

A compromise has to be reached.

What Andre Rieu is doing for classical music, cricket organisers have to do for Test cricket. Make it colourful yet dignified.

In a way, Steve Waugh, Gilly, Hayden, Lara, Tendulkar, Pietersen and Warne are the Andre Rieus of Test revival. We need more of them now.

Also, I am all for day-night Test cricket starting at 3 pm, four-day Tests with 100 overs a day/night, no calling for drinks at the drop of a hat, and penalties for unnecessary field changes.

If a player is injured, no calling of masseurs on the field (with some exceptions). He should return to the pavilion retired hurt and come back to bat at the fall of a wicket, if fit.

Thus, I disagree with Gilchrist that Test matches should remain status-quo.

It has to move with the times, else it will become a dinosaur by 2030.

I agree with him that there are three times as many Tests now than before 1950s. But each major Test centre gets the same number of Tests a year.

For example, Sydney staged one Test a year in 1950s and still one Test a year in 2000s. Same for Melbourne, Mumbai, Barbados, Lords, Adelaide, Johannesburg, and Kolkata.

The only difference is that now there are more venues, such as Harare, Nagpur, Hobart, Chittagong, Colombo, and Mohali.

If the number of Tests are reduced each year, would Sydney or Melbourne, for instance, miss out on alternate years? Heavens forbid!

Or will the ICC pick and choose and cop more criticism?

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (22) | Page 1 of Comments

spiro said | June 27th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment

Kersi is right. Adam Gilchrist has tried to hit a six and has just skied a sitter. India, for instance, plays too few Tests. Kersi will correct me but there are years when they hardly play a Test. There is no side that actually plays too many Tests, not even Australia. The problem is that the T20 explosion has started to take great bites out of the cricket calendar. The answer is to start rationalising T20 and ODI, and get a better balance between this frivilous cricket and keep the real stuff, the Test matches, basically as they are.

Reply
Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 27th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment

On the ball, Spiro.

Not only are there fewer Tests in India nowadays but the pavilions are almost empty during a Test.

For instance, great rivals India and Australia with love-hate relations played four very exciting Tests last summer in india. And despite India doing very well and winning, there were barely a few thousand spectators every day. Even when Sachin Tendulkar went past Brian Lara’s Test aggregate there were few in the stadium to cheer lustily. True, there were fireworks aglow but barely audible cheers. And Sachin is a God in India.

In contrast the absolutely meaningless IPL matches packed in over 25,000 every match last year in India. High profile ex-Test cricketers like Adam Gilchrist should call for less T20 games rather than suggesting culling Test matches.

However, on one issue I disagree with Spiro. We cannot afford to keep Test cricket as it was in the past. We have to jazz it up a little. If the Beatles, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson are equivalent to T20 cricket we should do for Test cricket what Nigel Kennedy and Andre Rieu are doing for classical and semi-classical music.

Reply
vinay verma said | June 27th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment

Kersi–after a long time I have to differ with you on many points.But before doing that lets put Gilchrist’s comments into perspective. He has recently led his team to an IPL championship and this is the only cricket he will play for the next one or two years. Whilst on the one hand lauding the primacy of Test Cricket he asks for more windows for T20.In fact he asks administrators ” ..toradically alter and jettisson the future tours program..” He is having an each way bet.

Now,Kersi I dont agree that the weaker countries should not play against the stronger ones. If that was the case India ,Sri Lanka Pakistan would not be as strong as they are now. You only improve by playing against the best. India in 1952 were decimated by England..all out for 50 something in a Test. Yet look where they are today. Sri Lanka in the 1975 World cup had three of their players hospitalised by Thommo. Yet they won the WC in 1996. So Bangladesh and now Ireland should be encouraged to play Test Cricket against the best.

Day Night Tests..will further erode the popularity of Tests. All it will do is keep the TV broadcasters happy because they can then have primetime TV Content in Australia. In India the matches would be televised at 11AM which is better than 6 AM. So let us not get fooled by the spin that is coming from administrators. This is being orchestrated by TV Broadcasters. If you talk to the current Test Players they are all for preserving the day Tests.
Lastly how will you attract the young kids if the matches finish at 10 PM .
The attraction of Test matches is just that. It is a Test. All the spectators sitting in the Noble and Bradman stands are happy to queue at 4 in the morning tp watch the Tests. And not everyone is over 65. There are a majority in the 25 to 40 age bracket. I have queued for many years but stopped last year as I cant run as fast as the forty year old and always get beaten to my favourite seat.
Enough points of difference for one day!

Reply
sheek said | June 27th 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment

Guys,

In essence, I agree with Gilly. I advocate the same for cricket & rugby union – no more than 10 tests per year. Tops! I can only speak for Australia, of course.

As a young bloke, I had plenty of time to savour a series just completed, & wait impatiently for the next series to start, in a few months time. Meanwhile, I could pour over the performances & stats which have since become seared in my memory.

In the modern era, one series morphs into the next, the previous quickly forgotten. As for performances & stats, it’s difficult to keep up with them anymore.

So yeah, quality over quantity. Less is more. The de Beers diamond ‘artificial scarcity/high value’ principle.

Is it too difficult to suggest each country play one home series & one away series each year? Of course, the number of tests per series would vary from 3 to 5, & everyone playing each other over a period of time, perhaps pushed out a bit. But at the end of the day, some sanity returns.

I’m also an advocate of day/night test cricket. People’s habits change over time. Moving to day/night will dovetail with these changing habits. The days when fans sat at a day test each day for 5 days are gone. The empty stands tell us so (Boxing day test & New year’s test notwithstanding).

Day/night tests adds a new element, makes it more social & family friendly. People can catch part of the day’s test, rather than the whole day. Of course, they can still watch the whole day if they want.

I would reduce tests from 5 x 6 hour days to 4 x 7 hour day/nights. A net loss of only 2 hours, or 15 overs. Not such a burden to follow a test match over one day less.

Okay, someone is going to say many wonderful tests were played out over the last 15 overs of the last day. But then again, when the Melbourne Cup went from 2 miles to 3200 metres, & lost about 150 metres or so, it’s still provided many thrilling finishes!

In any case, cricket is under severe attack from changing trends. Young guys can make a fortune from T20 cricket, without playing first class cricket. Why would they care for the longer form of the game anymore?

Education can help. Teaching young people the historical importance, variety & uniqueness of test cricket. And making tests more meaningful. Otherwise, test cricket will be lost. Which, regrettably, might be the case anyway.

Reply
vinay verma said | June 27th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment

Sheek- If you look at Golf and Tennis where tradition is maintained the crowds are increasing and not declining. Wimbledon has maintained its “white” clothing tradition and the crowds this year,supposedly we are in recession,are breaking all records. The golfing slams,granted Woods is a big factor,have the houseful sign.
Tennis ,golf and cricket have incorporated technology in equipment but essentially the rules have stayed the same. A round of golf can take anything upto five hours. A five set tennis match can go four hours. Tiebreakers are in force but not for the fifth set of a slam.
You can tinker with rules on the periphery but not with the basics.
Red ball,daylight Tests and speed up the overs. Make the pies and chips cheaper and the beer stronger. Let the crowd bring in the drums and the saxophone and be merry.
Philip Hughes is a young guy and has no qualms about declaring his prefence for Test match Cricket.
It is only the odd guy like Warner who jumps the process. But I fear he may be a one day wonder.
More Test matches and a controlled diet of the shorter form.

Reply
Kersi Meher-Homji said | June 27th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment

Vinay,

You have presentd excellent rebuttals for a lively debate. In retrospect I agree with some of your points. Personally, I also don’t want to see day-night Tests in colour clothing.

BUT, we want Test cricket to survive. Face it. There is strong opposition from T20. We cannot bury our heads in sand. True, in Australia Test cricket is still thriving with people like you and I (and youngsters) queueing up from 4am onwards. Also in England, especially for the upcoming Ashes, all tickets have been sold out. But in other countries, especially in cricket-mad India, Test cricket is slowly dying, thanks to F50 and more so T20. I hope I am proved wrong.

Now to your other point that weaker countries should be allowed to play Test cricket. Go ahead if there are 565 days a year instead of 365. Else how can you fit in Tests between most of the countries, plus all those F50 and T20?

Also India was not that weak when it played its first Test in 1932. CK Nayudu was world-class. So were Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh. Soon came Vijay Merchant, Lala Amarnath, Mushtaq Ali, Vinoo Mankad and Vijay Hazare on the scene. I reckon that if India was given Test status earlier, Duleep and Pataudi (Sen) would have played for them.

Also Pakistan was strong when given Test status in 1952-53 with Hanif, Nazar, Fazal, Khan Mohammad, Maqsood, Kardar, Imtiaz… representing them. All quality players.

India’s Test record was poor till 1952 because they only played strong countries England, Australia and the West Indies.

You just cannot compare India in 1930s and 40s and Pakistan in 1950s with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh in 1990s and 2000s. They deserve encouragement but they have to show marked improvement if they want to play at Test level.

Reply
vinay verma said | June 27th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment

Hi Kersi-Abrief reply as I have to go out.
I am not going to discuss cricket in India prio to Independence because till then it was gane for the princes and the privileged Middle class who owed their participation to the indulgence of their rulers. Right through the fifities and early sixties Indian cricket was weak. The strength of a cricketing country is determined by the infrastructure at grass roots level and this has remained a bug bear in india till today. We have great academies or finishing schools but very little at the primary school level.
Further the democratisation of Indian cricket did not happen till Kapil Dev and now Dhoni. In the past it was a case of who you knew and not how good you were.
You have conveniently forgotten Sri lanka and they really are the success story of the last forty years. Similarly Bangladesh can emulate them. You cant give up on them now.
Our batsmen in 1952 like Pankj Roy and manjerakar were found wanting.To be bowled out for 52 was telling a story about the state of indian Cricket.
England and Australia are strong because there is a defined pathway from school to Test.

Reply
sheek said | June 27th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment

Vinay,

I’ll have to temporarily concede….. I too have other commitments to attend to. However, broadly speaking, I like teams wearing their national colours, even in test cricket. I think colured clothing, an ornage ball (?), etc can be added without losing the essentials of test cricket.

I agree the essence should neve be lost, providing changes & improvements are tastefully & sensibly done. Although I’ve probably answered some of my own doubts….. how often are things done tastefully & sensibly???

Reply
Brian said | June 27th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment

Lost of good points here. What I think Gilly is getting at is that maybe in today’s world you cannot ask spectators to watch a one sided contest that lasts 15 days e.g. An Aust-NZ Test series. Instead break Test cricket into two divisions
Div I – Aust, SA, Eng, Ind, SL, Div II – NZ, Pak, WI, Bang, Zim
and over a four year cycle have each team play 5 tests home and away each year for a total of ten tests. Australia would than be involved in 2 marquee series every year and no more. Of course promotion and relegation should be incorporated to allow the Div II something to strive for and the top teams something to fear. The other good benefit that a large part of Test cricket is records and these have been diminished recently, a good example is Hayden scoring 380 against Zimbabwe. By having only the top 5 teams it is ensuring the eveness of the contest and preserving the meaning of test cricket.

Reply
spiro said | June 27th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment

Sheek, I don’t like the idea of night Tests because it seems to be impossible to get a red ball that can be played with fairly under lights. I do like the idea of four 7-hour days. But only if a number of other changes are made. What about three two-and-a half sessions, 110 overs a day, two breaks between sessions of 20 minutes. This makes for a day, including breaks of 8 hours. Start at 10 and finish around 6.15. Be ruthlless with the over rate and punish the captain of the fielding side significantly, along the lines the ICC is proposing, big fines and the sanction of missing the next Test.
I would also look at the batsmen too. I think there is too much time chatting between overs. Those of us who are ancient remember a time when you only talked to your partner when he was coming to the wicket. Once you were there you batted on, patted the pitch at your end between overs and hardly ever exchanged a word.
There is a rule in cricket that the batsman must be ready to face the bowler, if he wants to bowl. I would encourage bowling teams to do this. Lance Cairns and Richard Hadlee were very successful in doing this for NZ in ODI, often getting through the first 15 overs in not much over 40 minutes. I can’t see why Test teams shouldn’t do this.
The real problem with Test cricket is that not enough balls are bowled in a ball. If a team bowls its mandatory 90 overs and has a bouncer an over on average in this, the batsmen are actually too few balls to make runs from, and hence a slow game.
Cricket was once famously described as being ‘invented by God to teach Englishmen the meaning of the word eternity.’ Unfortunately, the joke is on all of us with the often funereal pace of play.
In Bradman’s day, in England the Tests were four days generally. This did not stop massive scoring and long innings, and results. 120 overs in a day was the norm. Is it too much to expect the modern cricketer, who is professional and presumably fitter than his Australian counterparts of the 1930s, from achieving 110 overs in 7 and half hours of play?

Reply