By Spiro Zavos
January 7th 2010 @ 2:02am
Related coverage
Test cricket’s demise has been greatly exaggerated
Australia's captain Ricky Ponting celebrates after reaching 100 on the second day of the first cricket test match between England and Australia in Cardiff, Wales, Thursday July 9, 2009. AP Photo/Jon Super
The 2010 Australia-Pakistan Test at the SCG will be rated as one of the most incredible matches in the long history of cricket. All those doomsayers predicting the end of Test cricket have been exposed. Test cricket, put simply, can often be – and in this case was – the greatest game of all.
Australia was bowled out for 127 on the first day after an incredible misjudgment by Ricky Ponting to bat on a pitch so green it might have been prepared for a St Patrick’s day match.
Then Pakistan got 206 runs in front.
With two wickets only to fall, Australia in their second inning were only 50 or so runs in front with only two wickets to fall. Appalling captaincy by Pakistan let David Hussey and Peter Siddle put on the fourth highest 9th wicket partnership for Australia.
Then Pakistan were bowled out 36 runs short of the what would have been the winning total.
The bare recital of these facts does not do justice to the tensions and excitement of the Test as the balance of the match shifted from one side to the other, a bit like a weather vane in a storm. At times the excitement was so intense you could sympathise with the unfortunate spectator at the original Ashes Test who unwittingly gnawed his way through the handle of his umbrella.
On the last day at the SCG, each ball created its own tension as each run was eked out. Wickets fell just when it seemed that one of the side had gained a final ascendany.
I love the Monday column in the SMH that the brilliant and incisive Paul Sheehan writes. Invariably, it is the best thing in the paper. But last Monday he missed the mark, in my opinion, with his obituary on the future of Test cricket.
His argument is that the more popular versions of cricket, especially the Twenty20 game, will (and this is my metaphor not his) act like a fast-growing poison ivy destroying the willows in the grove of Test cricket.
Like the novel, Test cricket has been written off for decades. It survives and will survive because it is the most memorable form of cricket. Crowd numbers may be down, as Sheehan points out. They may even be subject to some massaging by nervous administrators, as he claims.
But as another SMH columnist Will Swanton points out, the cricket ground for any Test extends around the world.
The great Test at the SCG (in my opinion the finest of all cricket venues) was not only watched by many thousands at the ground, many millions of listeners and viewed ‘watched’ the Test on their radios and television sets. The world, or great chunks of it, is the stadium when there is an important cricket Test being played.
There are more people ‘watching’ Test cricket around the world now than at any time in the history of the game.
The beauty of the cricket game is that all the different formats have their audience and their particular appeal. Twenty20 cricket is the game’s pulp fiction. The one-day 50 over format is a sort of detailed magazine article.
And Test cricket is the equivalent of a novel.
As we saw at the SCG, Test cricket allows for characters to establish themselves. The plot lines of the Test were as intricate as any that Charles Dickens could have devised.
And sometimes, if we are lucky, we get a denouement, again as we had at the SCG, that even Agatha Christie would have been proud to devise, so astonishing and unlikely was the final outcome until the last few minutes of play.
After the first day’s play I wrote a piece for The Roar suggesting that it was time for Ricky Ponting to declare his captain’s inning closed. To be fair to him, he captained most effectively on the last day, especially his use of Nathan Hauritz.
But his decision not to put Pakistan into bat exposed a flaw in his strategic thinking in this and other areas of play (and not for the first time) that some strong captaincy does not wipe out.
The second point to make is the team to contest the Ashes series in Australia later this year is being moulded into shape. The weak spot in the team right now is Marcus North at number 6.
I was an advocate of North being selected in the first place. Initially, he justified his selection. But he is losing form and needs to be replaced by a younger player.
My theory of selection is that teams should always have components of growth in them. Someone on the Channel 9 commentary team mentioned the possibility of Philip Hughes replacing North.
I think this is a good idea.
Shane Watson and Simon Katich need to be kept as the opening pair, at least until the Ashes series. Hughes is a gifted young player who is still finding his way at Test level, but has tremendous potential. Playing him at number 6 gives the side a player used to facing the (second) new ball and a fine player of spin bowling.
It also him to find his feet in Test cricket the way Ponting did.
Now that Australia has pulled out an astonishing victory at the SCG, the series with Pakistan has been won. The selectors can chance their arms a bit, you would think, by picking Hughes to replace North.
The rubber is dead but the Ashes series is looming up as the great challenge of 2010. The time to find out the right Australian team is now, not later this year.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(73)
John said | January 7th 2010 @ 5:06am | Report comment
Sorry Spiro, but I cannot share your view of Paul Sheehan the right wing journo. I would rather Paul Sheahan who played 31 tests for this country.
Michael C said | January 7th 2010 @ 5:18am | Report comment
I find it crazed that the technically deficient Phil Hughes is so highly regarded (in Sydney and by NSW journos), – - heck, even at the expense of the forgotten Phil Jacques, (btw – technical deficiency was an argument used to unfairly treat Brad Hodge…….where should the ‘technical deficiency’ line be drawn).
but, for ‘growth’ – we have a couple of far more sound fellows over in Perth with the surname “Marsh” as well as a young fellow developing fine leadership skills in Tassie called George Bailey.
I’ve been suggesting for several months that Marcus North is on shakey ground, and certainly Hughes’ 0 and 37 was very unconvincing (SOS S.Katich asap).
Haddin’s keeping has been the best he’s yet produced, just a shame his batting is so irresponsible.
Siddle desperately needs a ‘lucky’ day at the bowling crease…Bollinger got 3 of the ‘cheapest’ wickets in the first innings meanwhile Siddle bowled one of the best overs you could wish to see against a rampaging Umar Akmal for no reward.
Full credit to Nathan Hauritz – the ‘hard word’ was put on him and he’s since taken 2 bags of 5 in the 4th inn’s of tests to ’spin’ Australia to victory.
Harry said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:10am | Report comment
But wait Michael the Sydney mob would also have Steve Smith in to replace North if Katich is still unfit.
Totally agree with you about Hughes … you won’t see a worse duck than his first innings effort, and he could have been out many times in his 2nd dig for what was a very unconvincing 37.
If there has to be a change, I would pick George Bailey for North.
Ken said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
The anti-NSW sentiments are a bit cliched. Over many years the NSW team has been invariably competitive despite putting out basically a reserve side due to the amount of internationals cherry picked from their ranks, the NSW-laden Australian sides have also done pretty well just quietly. Whatever the reason (I expect having by far the largest population might have some bearing myself), the results don’t suggest a bias. It’s worth noting that none of the current national selectors are from NSW
On your other point though I mostly agree, Steve Smith is a young bloke with huge potential – often a dirty word although hopefully not in this case – the best thing would be let him develop for a couple of years and then see where he is. He’ll still be young and hopefully some of that potential will be realised. There’s many better contenders for a batting postion right now than him or Hughes – Bailey, Jaques or Shaun Marsh all have been mentioned above and could be argued for, although I’d prob plump for Dave Hussey myself.
Justin said | January 8th 2010 @ 5:32am | Report comment
If you want to talk about lucky then look no further than M Hussey. 3 absolute sitters go down and then he only had 7 on the boundary for most of day 4 when he was facing.
Cheap wickets? Hauritz got plenty of those when Pak bats just tried to slog to victory. Yet to see him get a bag against a decent lineup.
North should go, he was fortunate to get in to start with but he has got worse and worse. If Katich is not fit then Hughes stays. On a green top
first innings and then facing a 200 run deficit in 2nd no easy task. Played the foil role while Watson asserted himself.
D Hussey should almost be dropped from Victoria in 4 day cricket he is battling that much.
Dave1 said | January 10th 2010 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
NSW players go straight into the side under the ‘brown paper bag’ rule its like comparing the opportunities had to the opportunities ‘Boof’ Lehman had.
Its last year when bracken has the one of the worst strike rates in shield cricket in NSW he should be in the test side. Stuart Clarke has the worst average in the Ashes but in NSW he should be in the test side.
Drop North and bring in Cosgrove.
agga78 said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:46am | Report comment
Test cricket is dead everywhere except Australia, England and to a lesser extent South Africa, all the other countries don’t care for it. India where cricket is king, Test cricket can hardly get a paying customer, but give them T20 and you will get 80k to the game. It is unfortunate as test cricket is the best form of the game, but in reality it is a 19th century game played in the 21st century and T20 is the 21st century style of cricket suited to modern society.
Dave1 said | January 10th 2010 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
India packed ground tfor the world Cahmpionship test game between Sri Lanka and India. Packed grounds in India last year for the England series.
Bay35Pablo said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment
This was a great Test because the pitch was a zinger. The habit has become to prepare a flat track for Twnty20 and ODI, to allow the batting spectacle all the punters allegedly come to watch, which is a bowler’s nightmare. This habit has spread into Tests, which then become boreathons.
When the groundskeeper is allowed to prepare a pitch that brings out the natural strengths of the locale, rather than the generic flat track that could be anywhere in the world, then we get great Test cricket.
Rickety Knees said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
I too love test cricket and hope that it will survive. Games like this one will keep it alive. Yesterday’s win will paper over the cracks in Ponting’s captaincy. I still contest that he is a brilliant bat and one day captain (on lifeless flatbeds) but makes strategic blunders/oversights in tests. His reading of the pitches in Edgbaston and Sydney were clearly wrong. He seems to be befuddled when confronted by anything other than a flatbed. Ponting was fortunate that the young Pakistani side imploded in their run chase which has taken the heat off him – for the moment. He may have won more tests than any other captain but he is the first to lose the Ashes twice.
Brett McKay said | January 7th 2010 @ 7:57am | Report comment
It will certainly be interesting to read how the various papers record the victory, particularly those who went for the jugular on Monday morning…
Roebuck in the SMH today has summed it up nicely with “The SCG hosted a struggle between a side unwilling to lose and an outfit afraid to win.”
Tifosi said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Have to agree with Roebuck’s assessment.
Seems the pakistani players have little patience to play tests anymore. They had plenty of time to graft out the win but seemed unwilling to do so.
Even in the first innings, the tail end batsmen were giving their wickets away.
The captain was probably right, 20/20 cricket has made the players this way, however his captaincy should seriously be under review for his mind boggling decision to let the batters settle in at the start of the day.
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Spiro..agreed a great advertisement for Test Cricket and credit firstly,to Parker for the Pitch. This is the starting point for good Test Cricket.The players were forced to play their best. This was a contest between bat and ball. I disagree the shorter forms are a “poison ivy” The three forms properly managed and scheduled can be complementary. I know for a fact that Cricket Administrators are aware of this and are struggling with suitable windows. The Big Bash played concurrently with Tests is not an ideal situation as some of the best Australian players are on national duty.
It is wrong to suggest that India does not care for Test Cricket and it is somehow intent on sabotaging it. The fact is that indians dont have the same leisure time as Australians,Saffers and the English.Many businesses work 7 days a week and there are factories that run three shifts 365 days a year. The Twenty20 is a nice fit for timepoor spectators,whether at the ground or in front of TVS.Poor administration and the politics of vested interests(broadcasters and administrators) in India have contributed to the erosion of interest in Test Cricket. But the punter still follows Test Cricket on the mobile phone and on the news bulletins.
How administrators schedule and the context of games along with pitches will determine the future of the game. Administrators need to talk to players and spectators and listen to their concerns. These two are important stakeholders.
Gibbo said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:04am | Report comment
interesting post vinay. following on from one of points, although off on a tangent – as a time poor aussie i’ve been surprised how exciting it can be watching an internet browser refresh! Those live score websites are unreal. who’d have guessed?
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
You are right ,Gibbo.I too have to resort to that when I cant access live TV. The Sri lanka India Test Series was a case in point. Indians follow Test Cricket on their Internet and also cable.There is always some cricket on 24/7. The Indian fan would be the most updated in the world. We can illafford to ignore the indian spectator or cricket lover. Forget the mony in India the passion is bigger than any broadcaster would imagine..and they are savvy..they will not watch mediocrity.
Jay said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Agree vinay – Im also a Indian supporter and the cricinfo is my of my favourite websites. Could you please tell me where I can access commentary for Indian games? The South Africa – England series is also coming along nicely.
About your earlier comment about Indian passion, I agree they absolutley love their cricket, but the passion for tests have waned among the youth for Twenty20 – given it is esentially Bollywood meets cricket, Indian two biggest passions. Even Sachin has pleaded with the BCCI to allow free entry for school students to educate them on test cricket and build a passion for the game from the ground up.
In regards to cricket administrators, its always been a mess. People here think that selectors favour the blues batsmen, but the debate about state players making the Indian squad has always been a hot issues. However, it is promising to see the Lalit Modi saying that he wants test cricket to remain number one, and he has introduced measures to prevent freelance cricketers in the IPL (foreign players need a certificate of compliace from their national boards to play in the IPL, even 2 years after retirement).
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Jay,I followed the India Sri lanka game on cricinfo. I believe Fox may show the SA/India Tests. Both Sachin and Dravid want more Test matches. Even Harbhajan wants more Tests. The BCCI needs to start listening to its players. The idea of letting school children in free is a good one and should be encouraged by authorities the world over. Not so sure about the NOC for players. Modi has been known to be flexible when it suits him.
Terry Kidd said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Nice article Spiro and originally I agreed that Ponting had seemed to have made an incredibly wrong decision to bat first, however we were all speculating without having heard any justification from him. Well we got it yesterday evening at the press conference.
Punter said that he gambled that they could score more runs on a batting first on a tough wicket then they could score batting last on a tougher wicket.
Therefore your statement … But his decision not to put Pakistan into bat exposed a flaw in his strategic thinking in this and other areas of play (and not for the first time) that some strong captaincy does not wipe out ….. is wrong because he was thinking strategically.
Very good points in both posts Vinay.
Shahsan said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
“Twenty20 cricket is the game’s pulp fiction. The one-day 50 over format is a sort of detailed magazine article. And Test cricket is the equivalent of a novel.”
My comparison would be that rugby league is like the shorter forms of cricket ie strip away all the subtle nuances and just give the viewer the obvious end bits ie runs and wickets, while rugby union is like Test cricket ie lots of “boring” bits to the uninitiated, but when it is good it is unmatched.
Jay said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Poor comparision.
Shahsan said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I reckon it’s spot on. T20 is cricket without the complexities; easy to understand and watch but unsatisfying. Same as league vis a vis union.
Ken said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:36am | Report comment
It’s a poor comparison because you’re arguing that your personal bias to league vs union is the same as an unbiased comparison of 2 forms of cricket.
It’s a poor troll because you’ll get far more bites in one of the many union vs league threads that already exist on the site. Of course, I guess you got me….
Shahsan said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment
I’m writing not just to elicit a response — I dont need the kind of cheap thrill that trolls enjoy — but to make a point about the inconsistency among many who watch both cricket and the rugby codes, esp those who fail to see the parallels.
Ken said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
OK, well as a cricket fan and a fan of both rugby codes I am one of the ones that fails to see the parallel because I personally find league more satisfying than union. You obviously feel different and good luck to you but that’s a personal feeling of two different games rather than comparing full length cricket to a limited overs variety.
Anyway, that disagreement aside, I actually had a similar view of T20 until recently. I was entertained by the skills shown but, regardless of domestic or int’l, I didn’t care about the result and couldn’t remember the score a couple of days later. Must say though that I’m actually getting into the domestic T20 this time around. Not sure why exactly, maybe because it’s been around a few years now – before it was a novelty to all, including the players but as that has worn off I think the competitive element has picked up. Still detest any suggestion that it will take over from test cricket but 50 overs seems destined to be put on the scrapheap in the future.
Jay said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
A better comparision would have been Rugby and Rugby 7’s. League and Union run for the the same time, same field, different rules and are different games in their own respect.
Mick of Newie said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Too much has been made of ponting’s decision at the toss. Ponting’s (brave or stupid decision) made the test. Ponting rightly identifed Aust’s poor batting as the cause of the poor first innings score rather than his call. As plenty have said, it was nice to see a wicket where the skipper who won the toss agonised (or should have) over what to do.
Ken said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:53am | Report comment
In hindsight I reckon even Ponting, despite the results and as stubborn as he is (a trait I don’t mind BTW), would bowl first if given the choice again. I agree that too much was made of it though, bowling first – and batting last – is a descision that can backfire badly. Although I would have like to see him take the chance and grab the ball, batting first is the conservative safe option and I don’t think you can bag a pro sportsmen too much for playing the odds.
It’s been pointed out that Steve Waugh did it on a number of occasions when the situations suited, but he did have McGrath, Warne + backup bowlers who would be royalty in the team if at their peaks now like Gillespie, Lee, Kasper, MacGill. It’s not a big surprise that he backed them more often than most captains
Shahsan said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
I’d be interested to hear what the Pakistanis, in fact non-Australians, have to say about yesterday’s match. Was it a “classic”, as Australian coverage says it was, or was it a disappointing display by the Pakistan side? Did they blow it? Their anwswers will give teh real picture as to whether Test cricket’s demise is exagerated or not.
mzee said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Shahsan you make a great point. My opinion is that this was a disappointing display by the Pakistani side. This result does not do any favours for cricket. I will not watch the next game coz we all know who the winner will be
True Tah said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Have to agree that Pakistan really lost this match as opposed to Australia winning it, they just arent producing test quality batsmen and they are playing silly shots and giving their wickets away cheaply.
Don Sachin said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
I am an independent cricket lover and I am convinced that this match was fixed. Now, before any Aussie fans here gets heated, they played well. But really, did any Aussies bowlers break the back of Pak batting with an inspired spell? No. They plugged away manfully on a good wicket and held their chances. Everything else was done for them by reckless Pak batting, poor feilding and suspiciously timid captaincy.
On the 3rd day, Kamran missed 4 easy chances – 3 catches off Hussey alone in a hour. In the last hour, Pak eased off to let Siddle and Hussey score 29 runs. Then the big giveway was the deep set field on the 4th morning – anyone knows that you have to attack the bats in the morning, even if Bradman was striding out to take strike, as its the best bet of taking wickets. What was Yousuf doing with 5 fielders in the deep from ball 1 to even Siddle. Very suspicious. Then Kamran fumbles another easy catch off Siddle (his 4th miss).
I watched the Aussies players at the end of the match. After an initial 15 minute period of euphoria, even they were muted in their celebrations. It was a hallow win unlike against RSA last year or India in 2008.
Fisher Price said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
20-20 is speed dating.
Jameswm said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Ponting was wrong, despite the win. The pitch was not tough yesterday, on day 4. It was not crumbling. They won despite the decision to bat first, not because of it.
The pitch on day 1 was a day 0 pitch. The pitch on day 4 was a day 2-3 pitch.
True – the Aussies batted poorly on the first day, and that was more to blame than batting first. But why bat when the conditions are tough? Why not go for the jugular and back yourself to bowl the opposition out? It was defensive thinking.
Terry Kidd said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:42am | Report comment
I’m a New South Welshman living in Qld and I agree that Steve Smith should not even be a glimmer of a thought in the selectors minds as yet, certainly he should be considered for development opportunities but not for the national teams. He needs at least 2 years joined at both hips to S Warne on one side and T Jenner on the other to properly learn the art and psychology of spin bowling, both actual spinning of the ball and setting fields to ‘think’ batsmen out. Then if he is consistently producing the goods he maybe considered for national selection.
Thats my opinion anyway.
Incidentally, the high proportion of NSW players who get picked for national teams may have a lot to do with the strength of the Sydney grade competition. So much so that even NSW teams missing many leading players to national duties still performs very well.
True Tah said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Terry
most promising cricket players in Victoria are also promising Australian Football players, given the status of the sport as a religion in southern Australia, which sport are they going to choose? Hell Warnie was even a potential star for St Kilda as a young man.
Ken said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
While it’s undoubtably true that many Victorian up and coming athletes choose AFL over cricket it’s a common scenario across the whole nation (just the football code changes). Talented kids are often good at and play many sports, and cricket often comes out poorly since there’s far better chance of having a career and making good money in AFL or NRL (although this is changing a bit with T20). I’ve seen plenty of interviews with league guys who were also the stars of their cricket teams in their teenage years before making a choice.
I’ll take your Warnie and raise you an Andrew Symonds who I think actually had a tryout for the Broncos in the early 2000’s from memory when his cricket career was stagnating. Of course both of those guys are the reverse of what we are talking about since they chose cricket over football.
Jay said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Pat Richards from the tigers was an opening batsman and bowler in grade criket and from what they say, a very pomising allrounder before he committed to RL as a young man.
You are correct in that Cricket Australia’s new plans for a expanded domestic Twenty20 has a view of stemming some of the flow that is lost of the football codes.. Time will tell, but if you have an IPL contract and state contract, you may be better off in cricket these days without even playing for Australia!
Dave1 said | January 10th 2010 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
Was Pat Richards that good of a cricketer?
I cant remember any talk about him when he was a junior
bever fever said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Ken said
“I’ll take your Warnie and raise you an Andrew Symonds who I think actually had a tryout for the Broncos in the early 2000’s from memory when his cricket career was stagnating. Of course both of those guys are the reverse of what we are talking about since they chose cricket over football”.
Mark Taylor, from the epicentre of the Australian sporting universe in Wagga played reserve grade footy for the Swans, was a good centreman by all accounts.
Made the correct choice with cricket as he had great hands but his athleticism might have seen him not go a lot further, probably a similar type to Greg Williams from Carlton.
True Tah said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
I thought he played for the NSW Universities rugby league side?
I cant recall Symonds ever playing for the Broncos, sure hes been spotted getting on the piss at Broncos games, Im sure that attitude would have gone down well with old man Bennett.
Springs said | January 7th 2010 @ 8:11pm | Report comment
Symonds never actually played for the Broncos but rang Wayne Bennett about a switch to Rugby League in the early 2000s. He also played a game for Wynnum Manly this year and has trained with the Broncos for most of the year.
Jay said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
Are you sure he played for the Swans. I know he played in alot of junior Rugby League Rep teams and is mad St. George supporter. Never heard of the link with him and AFL. If its true, looks are certainly deceiving!
bever fever said | January 7th 2010 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Jay.. could be wrong, i did hear he played for the Swans reserves, i do know he made the teal cup (NSW under 17 squad) so i stand corrected on that account.
bever fever said | January 7th 2010 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625152690.html?from=storyrhs
Although proud of his AFL background, former Australian Test cricket captain Mark Taylor insists he will not be giving the Swans any pointers when he attends their training session today, saying his aim is to turn himself into a good-luck charm.
“We had a charity dinner on Tuesday night for cancer research and Barry Hall turned up. I had never met him but it was great of him to come so I’m just trying to reciprocate,” Taylor said last night.
“When I came to Sydney in the late 1970s, I was very unfashionable because I loved AFL and not rugby league. I had actually played it till I was 20, made the NSW Teal Cup squad once, too.
As he was from wagga, its not too hard to believe he played all manner of sports especially some different footy codes.
Ken said | January 8th 2010 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
I suspect Warnies athleticism might have stopped him making top grade too, also I don’t think those little AFL shorts would have fit his durries
bever fever said | January 8th 2010 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Have to agree Ken, great hands like Taylor but getting up a gallop might have become a issue.
Also far easier to SMS in the outfield than during a footy match.
sheek said | January 7th 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Spiro,
You ought to know better – one swallow doesn’t make a summer. Cricket might need these types of matches every game test for test cricket to survive.
Test cricket is under severe pressure from changing lifestyles, more variety, clutterd lives, & the attitude of players themselves. TC simply won’t survive unchanged from it’s current format. Nor is it guranteed to survive even with changes to its stucture & style.
Ponting shouldn’t get smug. His team got lucky against a mostly young, inexperienced & naive Pakistan. With the game there to be won, the Pakis lacked the self-belief & smarts to grab the game by the throat.
It was a great game, but today’s generation want eveything wrapped up in a day, preferably less. The attention span isn’t there anymore, irrespective of the quality & drama this kind of test match can provide.
Junior said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
agree fisher price. to extend the analogy one-dayers are like a one night stand and only test cricket is the real thing.
jameswm – how can electing to bat on a greenish pitch be seen as defensive thinking? he backed his batsmen (including himself) to overcome the tricky conditions. they (and he) failed miserably on day one and spent the rest of the match fighting hard to get back into it. sure he got a little lucky with pakistan’s overall inept play on day four (and dropped catches on day three), but any team has to make the most of its luck to be successful. moreso if it no longer has an all time great or two to call upon in a crisis.
Brett McKay said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Junior, Fisher – on my drive back from Sydney on the morning of Day 2, Peter Roebuck discussed the interesting observation during the ABC commentary that cricket nowadays is very much like music, and that all the various formats/genres could and should actually be used as to compliment each other, rather than compete.
It was suggested that where once it was feared that classical music was dying, it has in someways been revived by the new genres that abound, and in the end, there’s plenty of room for all types for all people.
Fisher Price said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:31am | Report comment
I hope so Brett. But I fear 20-20 is cannibalising first-class cricket.
vinay verma said | January 8th 2010 @ 8:01am | Report comment
FP,you can seeit .I can see it. Are the administrators blind?
Luke W said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:30am | Report comment
1 exciting Test does not a good form of cricket make.
Terry Kidd said | January 7th 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Luke W can you give me a synopsis of what happened in the last 2 international 20/20 games played by Australia? Probably not. Yet an awful lot of people can give a synopsis of what happened in the last 2 tests Australia played against the West Indies …. going back a bit so the history is not so recent.
20/20 … short game, short memory. Tests … longer game, more sticks in the memory.
Dogz R Barkn said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I think that’s certainly true – Test cricket involves a bit more of a voyage, and you can log in and out over the course of 4 or 5 days without losing the gist of what’s going on.
But – I do wonder whether this game, as good as the conclusion was for Australia, tells us much about the state of test cricket throughout the world.
From a neutral perspective, it’s actually just as possible to draw a negative conclusion as it’s possible to draw a positive conclusion.
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Gideon Haigh called the recent survey by the MCC on the demise of Test Cricket as “dodgy” The sampling of 500 in India South Africa and New Zealand was insufficient for a country of one billion people. Further as Gideon pointed out the survey in India was taken at a time when the Indian Team had only played two tests in 9 month period. If the survey had been taken after India became statistically number one the results would have been different. I question the motive of the MCC’s survey and release of the results. When there is no other news it seems handy to write the obituary of Test Cricket. There is more interest in Test Cricket now than ever before. Empty stadiums in India dont necessarily tell you the whole story.The Tests in Bangalore and Chennai are usually well attended. Kolkata’s Eden Gardens,currently under renovation,has not hosted the Aussies since 2001. A lot of politics there. The Kolkata fans have been starved of decent Test Cricket. When the context is right the fans will come. It is time administrators gave them more credit and better facilities.
mzee said | January 7th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
This was a great win for Australia but I think its also a reflection of the state of cricket the word over. Pakistan and the West indies are not up to the req standard. To loose from the position Pakistan were in is a disgrace. Australia can afford to make as many mistakes as they want and still win against such poor oposition. Any of the state sides could have been very competitive against this summers opposition.
True Tah said | January 7th 2010 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Yeah remember we have lost the Ashes and also lost a test series last Summer to the Proteas.
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
True Tah..This is not about Australia losing the Ashes. It is about the relevance and health of Test Cricket. Australia narrowly won against India at home and then lost to India away. Australia lost at home to the Saffers and beat them away. Australia lost 2-1 to England in2005 and thumped them 5-0 in 2007. In 2009 Australia lost ,again narrowly,to England. The interest in Test Cricket has been bouyed by these close series. Can you remember back to when the fans were getting tired of Australia winning all the time? And I dont buy into the tired argument of Australia has slipped. I believe the rest of the world have lifted and it makes for a very competitive scene. I would say the anticipation in India next month when the Saffers visit will be immense. So too the interest in the Ashes next summer.The last three SCG Tests have provided riveting cricket and we have seen some great and some very good cricketers in Dravid,Ponting,Tendulkar,Laxman,Smith,Devilliers,Duminy,Umar Akmal,Gayle,Barath and Roach.
So I am generally happy with the quality and health of Test Cricket. A few more pitches like the greentop we had this week and Cricket is a whole new ball game. Forget about lights and coloured balls.
True Tah said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
vinay
I do hope that there is a lot of interest in India in the Proteas tours and that this translates into bums on seats. I know that many Indians will be listening on their radios, but in the long term, T20 can only have a detrimental effect on the test performance of Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan players, especially batsmen.
Im talking as someone who has a lot more interest in test matches than T20, but I think generally as a population, people have a far shorter attention span and less patience than previous generations, and are after instant gratification in any sphere of life, and cricket is one of these.
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
True Tah,Test Cricket is the Holy Grail for me. But I still believe that Twenty20 and 50 overs cricket can coexist and complement Test Cricket. Yes,society is looking for instant gratification but this is a lifestyle choice. Some people do not have the time to watch Tests..even if they like it. I have found as the younger generation matures they do discover the joy of the longer form and come back to it.
Pitches like the one we just add lead to attractive and engrossing cricket. Forget about criticising Ponting for the toss and Yousuf for being conservative. These two Captains produced a corker of a game and more power to them.
Dave1 said | January 10th 2010 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
And beat the Proteas in South Africa
John said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Win or lose, Test cricket is still the great game.
Mick of Newie said | January 7th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Ponting’s decision may also have been based on not wanting to be chasing in the 4th innings against Kanieria
Brian said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Test cricket is a great game but yesterday’s result will not change its result. The Gayle, Bond, Flintoff’s etc. will not change their mind because of a good test match.
Its not that boards will stop playing test cricket that will kill the game, its the money difference between the different versions. As the IPL grows the top players will further hone their skills for the T20 game. This could happen to the point where test cricket eventually becomes like Doubles in Tennis. Still played, still enjoyed by many but not the highest form of the game.
I suspect that if the Pakistani batsman had only ever known test cricket they would have got the 176. Thats not too deride Australia’s magnificent victory just to point out that test cricket is already suffering
vinay verma said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Brian,It is all about context and scheduling. A case in point is the current Big bash running concurrently with the Tests. The initial crowds at the Big bash show there is a demand for this out there. James Sutherland admits that it is not an ideal situation so that is heartening. I believe there is a place for all three forms of the game but they need to be kept seperate. Warne suggested recently that three forms of the game may confuse the punter. I think it confuses Warne more than the punter,who I know is a lot more astutue than Warne gives him credit for. The fifity over game may need some tinkering..Tendulkar and Greg Chappell have suggested two 25 innings a team. This evens out the advantage of the toss and also there are two new balls so that takes care of the ball not lasting the 50 overs. In a way you get two games for the price of one,as suggested by Wasim Akram. I believe these former and current players know a thing or two about the game and administrators should listen to them.
Jay said | January 7th 2010 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Three formats is the way to go. All that need to be done is reduce the number of overs in ODI’s to 40 per innings like the Pro40 in England. Initially, ODI’s were 60 overs an innings, evidence that the format can move on from a reducition in overs.
Brett McKay said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Jay, exactly my thoughts in Sep last year – http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/09/01/ecb-forces-one-day-cricket-rethink/
Dave1 said | January 10th 2010 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Bond and Flintoff dont play tests because of injury problems.
Flintoff hasnt manged to play a ODI since his test retiremnt because of injury
Spiro Zavos said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
I have just watched replay of the last hour of play of the South Africa-England Test. A more thrilling finish is harder to imagine. With 70 balls left, England had five wickets in hand and Geoffrey Boycott in his commentary was rather condescendingly counting down the balls. Then the wicket began to fall. And with the last couple of overs, England had one wicket to fall to lose the Test. Each ball had spectators biting their finger nails. England supporters cheered each delivery that was surivived. South African supporters lept to their feet when appeals were made. In the end Graeme Onions, as he has in the first Test of the series, played out the last over and England escaped the defeat that would have squared the series.
Lazza said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:53am | Report comment
That’s why I find T20 a bit tedious, very few games are tight, absorbing contests. With only 20 overs you need to take risks and the further you fall behind the more risks you have to take. The result is usually one team collapsing in a heap and the game finishes with an anti-climax.
I’m not sure what the answer is but I don’t think this format is going to appeal to your general sports fan. It’s more for cricket fans who have become bored with the traditional, and much better, forms of the game.
Dogz R Barkn said | January 8th 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
There does seem to be a bit of a trend in that direction – but at the same time, let’s not kid ourselves that every test match is a cliffhanger.
vinay verma said | January 8th 2010 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Spiro,this is an important piece in the current context of where Test Cricket is positioned. I wish more journalists would highlight the pre eminence of Tests. Everything flows from this. The other shorter forms could not exist without the grounding in the first class game. Many young journalists are seduced by the bright lights and discount the traditions and history of this great game. I do not decry Twenty20 or the 50 overs mutant. I would like to see a balance and it is encouraging that james Sutherland accepts the scheduling of the Big Bash is “not ideal”.
Test Cricket needs its own window,a bigger one,than Twenty20,and this is the scheduling jigsaw that should be sorted ot.
When is an onion not a turnip? When England hold out for a thrilling draw!
ian said | January 8th 2010 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
umm its michael hussey not david hussey.