It is the MOST important issue in all forms of cricket. If pitches are prepared like yesterday’s first day pitch, then viewers would have to be pleased. I read elsewhere on the sight today about another collapse. 230 – 250 was a good effort on a tough pitch. 130 in Sydney last year was also not as bad an effort as people made out. Viewers are just so programmed to see 500 as par in the first innings.

The last two Ashes series in England have been a disgrace. In the vast majority feather-bed pitches prepared for batsmen with poor technique and minimal foot work. India is always going to be low and slow; but, then in rags square on the last two days. The Oval used to be a runway, with pace and bounce. Anyone who remembers Devon Malcolm’s spell to Michael Slater in 1997 will agree. On the last two occasions it has been a highway, prepared to avoid a repeat of the 2001 series in which Trescothick nicked off 6 times (5 times to Gillespie).

There also appears to have been a predeliction in recent series involving India in Australia to prepare very non-Australian pitches. One can only speculate about the reason for such pitches. To ensure that games go for 4 and 5 days and that the visitors were not humiliated as was pretty much teh case in 1991 and 1999.

The idea was that the public got an extra session for their daily ticket, and the match would be completed in 4 days. The flip side was that play would commence at 9:00am (still finish at 6pm), the 1 hour lost for Lunch & Tea would be replaced by 2×15 minute and 1x 30 minute breaks at the 3 session intervals.

This certainly solved the problem of tests running into the 5th day seldom attracting crowds, and the extra cost of hiring grounds and staffing on the final day. Channel9 would also get a day back.

An issue would be that players would need to be ready for action by 9am and be able to handle 4x sessions in a day…but they’re professionals hey. And we’d finally get rid of that infuriating 11:00am start time (when 1/3rd of the day is over).

Wins all round but needless to say I got a polite ‘not interested’ letter from Graeme Halbish.

And yeah, over rates isn’t the best dinner party conversation piece in the world, but if we don’t do something about them, we’ll suddenly be lucky to get 80 overs a day, and then 75, and then….

It’s just got to be fixed…

Also talking about slow over rates is almost as boring as watching slow over rates.

Your point about Taufel in that scenario is well made, but let me ask this. Why do we concede that this scenario would have been heavily magnified if it was an Australian umpire in the Bucknor/Symonds scenario, but it was widely accepted up until the inception of neutral umpires that tours to India would have to deal with “local” umpiring, and indeed, that was one of the main reason why neutral umpires and the Elite panel were introduced?? Anyway, I do concede that the perception of neutrality lessens the issue in the most part, but I still maintain that the Elite umpires are highly trained, fully professional, and as such impartial by default.

Just on your night Tests point, again you’ve hit it on the head by mentioning TV rights, but then the longeivity of prime time Test Cricket will come down to TV ratings, and doesn’t actually address any of the so-called problems with Test cricket. Can you imagine Ch9 allowing primetime Tests to continue if it’s being out-rated by The Biggest Loser or City Homicide?

Perhaps what we’ll end up with is D/N Tests in countries where it will rate well, with the status quo remaining where the ratings fail? And again, that hardly addresses any issues anyway…

You are dead right that neutral umpires adress the PERCEPTION of impatiality not the reality. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Imagine if it was Simon Taufel that made the same mistake as Bucknor on the Symonds caught behind decision in the first inning in Sydney in 2008. The Indians’ OTT reaction would have been magnified 10 times. This is in no way condoning the behaviour of the BCCI but neutral umpires is really a small price to pay to avoid/lessening potential flare ups like that.

Night Test cricket is relevant to this discussion to the extent that it can increase the TV rights fees host boards can charge thus making them more financially resistant to the charms of 20/20.

The future tours program decided in May 2006 is done on a six yearly basis now, previously it was five. The exception to this is the “iconic” fixtures such as Aus V Eng and Ind V Pak that are scheduled on a four year sycle. That boards such as BCCI and CA now schedule fixtures between their teams more often and outside of the FTP says more about their financial priorities than anything else. If Australia became consistently uncompetitive in Test cricket I have no doubt BCCI would cancel the extra series as they wouldn’t generate the cash required.

If you can’t find two good umpires who aren’t Australian or English in the whole world you have bigger problems than not having neutral umpires.

You do have a point on the home and away cycles being relaxed somewhat, and I think that may well have to be the case.

On Bangladesh, I take a slightly different tact. I don’t have too much problem with them being a Test Nation, but in the same period that Bangladesh have been a Test Nation, Sri Lanka had won a World Cup, and were consistently pushing higher-ranked nations in Tests.

Bangladesh have only just won their first Test series away from home, and that was against a West Indies team decimated by yet another contractual dispute with the WICB. Their best performance to date in ODIs is the Super 8s stage of the last World Cup.

How is it that little or no improvement has been gained in that time??

At the risk of being politically incorrect (as usually is the case), most Aussie cricket fans couldn’t give a toss about playing Bangladesh!

If we only played them in one series every 10 years, we would be happy with that. The problem with cricket is that there are only 10 test cricket playing nations anyway, & Zimbabwe’s a basket case, much is the pity.

I still don’t believe Bangladesh are ready for test status, but anyway, that’s just my view.

At least in rugby, you can have a top tier 10, secondary tier 10, & so on. But try that in cricket, & you would invite an unholy war!

Let’s look at it. If you divided the 10 cricket nations into two divisions, it would be thus:

1st division: Australia, England, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka.

2nd division: West Indies, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.

Guess the problem? As if West Indies, New Zealand & Pakistan would accept being in a 2nd division!

I think the 4 year cycles is too tight in any case, & should be relaxed to 5 or 6 year cycles. But hey, the world revolves on the twin monsters of politics & money.

To answer all your Hawkeye questions, I’d suggest “no”. To any of them? You’re just reinforcing my concerns of its inclusion in the referral system…

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/match/fixtures/index.html?days=365

One thing that’s keeping Test cricket low-key is that there just doesn’t seem to be the same number of stars that there were in past decades. Perhaps that’s a sign that I’m getting older or perhaps it has something to do with how mass media and society have affected sport, because the same is true for just about every other sport I follow. The only sportsmen who stand out these days are those who achieve a high level of excellence. There’s not a lot of characters floating around. I almost feel as though there’s too much analysis, too much planning and too much thought given to tactics. Everyone’s playing to a predetermined plan and you don’t see a true Test of character.

I just saw H Singh on the telly this morning complaining that India wasnt playing enough tests.

Umpires’ very purpose is to be impartial. My point is that at the top levels of the game, this impartiality is so ingrained by experience and professionalism that their country of origin shouldn’t even be considered when the appointments are drawn up.

What we’ll end up with is top quality umpires not wanting to progress to Test level, becuase they’ll never be able to umpire at home. Simon Taufel himself has often stated that he gives the travel component of his job massive consideration before deciding to continue each year. He’s also said that he’d have no hesitation in standing down from the Elite Panel if the travel becomes too much for him and his young family, instead happily remaining at home umpiring First Class cricket.

I do however disagree with your points about over rates. They ignore the very big role batsmen can play in altering the run rate. Look at the last day of the first Ashes test. Look at Tendulkar in India – in one single over in the first test at Bangalore he walked down the pitch or away from the crease some 5 times!

The advantage of Hawkeye/Technology is not that it is right but rather that, right or wrong, it is consistent.

The disadvantage of Hawkeye is that the stumps are now ‘wider’ as noted by yourself and Michael Holding.
How much of the ball has to touch the stump to consider that it would impart enough force to dislodge the bails? 5 mm, 20 mm? And will the speed of the ball be taken into consideration? Has anyone actually measured the force required by a ball to dislodge a set of bails? Taking it to another level, does hawkeye calibrate on the actual stumps in the ground or on a set of theoretical stumps?

It seems to me that the principle of ‘benefit of doubt’ has been or will be wiped out. Look at M Clarke’s dismissal in the 2nd innings of the last test. On my 50 inch HD 600hz widescreen i could not tell FOR SURE if he was out. Yet he was given out.
The game, like technology itself, has a margin of error.

As to neutral umpires, I am way for them! Back in the old days it was IMPOSSIBLE to win in some countries.
Warney says the umpiring is the worst it has been in 20 years. He could be right but it could just be that technology is revealing that umpires have never been getting it right.

As I’ve indicated to Sheek, scheduling is always going to be a tricky one.

I see Gideon Haigh has had a crack at this in The Australian today, and while he raises some very valid points on why these problems persist, even he has trouble outlining how to addresst the problems.

(Haigh article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25975428-16957,00.html)

Your point about too much Test cricket is an interesting one – in my research for this column, in discovering that there won’t be any Test cricket for the best part of three months now while we go into Champions Trophy ODIs and CLT20 modes, I also discovered that India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and Bangladesh actually don’t play Test cricket again before next February at the earliest. So there’s a perception that there’s too much Test cricket, but the reality of it is that it would seem to come in bursts. The next Ashes series is 15 months away (Nov 2010)!!

And I’m sure the four year home-and-away scheduling is ONLY to do with calculating rankings, but to be honest, there’s also a traditional element of “that’s how it’s always been” about Test schedules. Ashes Tours have been every four years for all of my lifetime, and I’d guess a fair chunk of yours too (I won’t be so rude to put a percentage on that!). It’s been roughly the same for the Windies, South Africa since their reinstatement, New Zealand, and even Pakistan. For some reason Tests against India didn’t seem to as regular, but that’s certainly changed in the last 10 years or so.

Inevitably, discussion about scheduling moves on to the required scheduling of what most will agree to be one-sided contests. As I said in various posts on this subject last week, I can’t see how we can have 9, 10 or X number of Test playing countries WITHOUT all countries playing each other. Bangladesh have as much right as a Test Nation to play Australia or India as any other Test nation does. Some ideas of multi-tiers and promotion/relegation have more merit than others, but this also diminishes the status of nations granted Test status. You’d hate to miss out on an Ashes series because England and Australia were suddenly in different divisions, and likewise for a rivalry like India and Pakistan.

I deliberately left scheduling alone, ‘cos there’s no obvious answers on that for now..

I think the ranking systm needs to somehow be used to plan the calendar… teams of similar ranking get to play each other more often, until you either move up or down the rankings. It’s hard to do, because the 4 year cycle is about revenue. Countries want the top sides visiting to help pull the crowds and advertisers.

And not that I’m using this as an excuse, but my original heading didn’t actually imply Test cricket was dying. Either way the need to make improvements is still inportant, several of you in comments referred to comps such as the IPL, as I did. Something I didn’t mention but easily could have, was the need for a stand-alone window for the IPL. Remove the need for players to choose between low-paying national side and rediculously-high-paying manufactured Indian franchise, and that problem goes away…

My argument is about value add. The risk you are suggesting to take on by using English and Australian umpires is large relative to the difference in umpiring quality between the number 1 umpire and say the number 5 umpire.

This series was exciting because it is the English and they stepped up to the plate. The South Africa and India series were also exciting as they were teams of an appropriate strength.

You’re right night cricket solves nothing, but what really needs to be on the agenda is a system that removes one sided games from test cricket and makes every series as relevant as the next. I shoudn’t have to wait several years for the next important series of Test Cricket…

Leave the prickly replies to me, thank you very much! I’ll bang both of Binocular’s bi-focals against each other for you!!

I’m one of those suggesting test cricket is in danger of dying primarily for two reasons – 1) Over-exposure & 2) changing societal habits.

There is far too much test cricket being played & frankly, most of it is rubbish. Consequently, the average sports fan doesn’t appreciate or value all the test cricket shoved in front of his nose. Ditto that most tests with most sports.

The idea that ALL test nations must play each other at home & away over a 4 year cycle might be well-meant, but it’s largely impractical. And if the only reason/principle reason is to service the rankings system, then that’s doubly stupid.

Society is changing. Our attention span is much shorter these days, & there’s so much more to distract us, in both sport & life. Add to this the fact that young players can earn ridiculous money playing T20 without ever playing first-class cricket, so why would these young guys bother developing the skills for the longer game?

Cricket is lucky perhaps it has other forms of cricket that can make money, which in turn may see test cricket consigned to history (an unintentional consequence).

As an aside, with all the arguments raging about what type of rugby union we want to watch, & R7s about to get the green light for the Olympics, might also R7s &/or R10s eventually replace the 15 man game?

But back to the cricket, I abhor the technology, which somehow still gets it wrong, simply because human input is still required somewhere in the process.

However, since all sports are now shown on TV, & the media is naturally keen to use the latest technology to enhance its broadcast, it is unfair to have umpire’s/referee’s decisions, torn apart by modern technology, if they themselves don’t have access to it.

With umpires, I thought the one home/one neutral umpire system was quite effective. Umpires still like to adjudicate in their home country, & their local knowledge would be of assistance to the neutral umpire. Merely having one neutral umpire gives the impression of impartiality.

There needs to be less test cricket (the De Beers diamond artificial scarcity principle) but it also needs to be more lifestyle friendly. This means replacing 5 x 6 hour days (30 hours) with 4 x 7 hour day-nights (28 hours). There is a net loss of only 2 hours cricket, but a saving of a whole day.

The attraction for both families & day workers, is that they can take in part of a day’s viewing at the ground, instead of a whole day. Ticketing can be made flexible to reflect this. National coloured clothing would add to the appeal, while finding an appropriate coloured ball would also be required.

But at the end of the day, I do fear for the future of test cricket, simply because it’s too easy to make money now from T20 especially.

After having to put up with the behaviour of those attending the Gabba during the last Ashes tour (both Australian and English), I remarked that I wish Test cricket would once again become less “cool”. I love the generally slow pace of test cricket, with its sudden bursts of fury, and the quiet knowledgable crowd.

What I think your headline really says is”How do we ensure we keep filling stadiums with people who find Test cricket ‘accessible’ enough, so that we generate enough advertising revenue and ticket receipts, so that players are paid well enough that they don’t run off to a year long IPL?”

The fact that Test cricket has survived for centuries and has changed and developed with each new era of players without too much tinkering is a testament to game as a “form”. I think pitch preparation is the greatest threat to that “form” and its balance between bat and ball. It must be a contest that looks likely to have a winner. I remember as youngster in the 70′s and 80′s feeling like an outcome in a Test was a rarity. We dont want to get back to that again.

I’m not adverse to technology, however the predictive powers of Hawkeye are suspect. I’m happy to use it to show what “has” happened, but not for what “might” have happened.

And playing under lights is such a stupid notion. It isn’t lights that got people into one-day cricket or now into 20/20. It is the easily digested format that has a definite result and doesn’t require too much time to be invested. It’s the “simple” form of cricket. And that is great as it serves a purpose. However we shouldn’t be fooled into believing that its the lights that bring the crowds.

1. The very best umpires in the cricket world have got to where they are by doing exactly what you suggest, “divorce themselves from the emotion and sentiment associated with a Test Match”. They are fully professional, and paid well to do one thing: adjudicate on the circumstances in front of them. Host country or even home support does not and can not enter the equation for these guys. In questioning “How is this possible if the umpires are highly likely to support one team[?]“, it would seem you’ve joined me in the naivety stakes..

2. I deliberately ignored Holding’s comment about two day tests becuase he was being a little dramatic, but his central point about Hawkeye use in LBW referrals still stands in it’s original context. If Hawkeye shows any fraction of the ball hitting the very outside edge of off or leg stump, it will have to be given out if referred. It doesn’t matter if this happens on the first or second referral, it will still have to be given out. Further, once all referrals are used up, you can be assured that there will be LBW appeals which get turned down onfield, but which Hawkeye will show to be hitting a fraction of the outside of off or leg stump. So even with the referral systm, the inconsistency is going to remain.