- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
With another cricket season well under way, the problem of which of the crickets deserve our eyeballs rears its ugly head.
As one set of Australian cricketers battle South Africa in the 50-over game while simultaneously tussling for a spot in the upcoming World Cup, another set gears up for the impending Test series by clashing in the Sheffield Shield.
Meanwhile, some of the country’s best dancers do their stretches in preparation for the Big Bash League. Therefore, it behooves us to try to determine, once and for all, what is, definitively, the best form of cricket?
It’s a much-argued point, and has been since the eighteenth century, when Enlightenment cricket tragics debated passionately over whether the game was better with two or three stumps.
The discussion moved on, from disputes over whether eleven versus eleven was better than eleven versus eighteen, to wars of words regarding the pros and cons of timeless Test matches, until finally we arrived in the modern era and the ferocious philosophical brawls sparked by the ever-more-abbreviated modern game.
So, with so many different forms of cricket to choose from, so many flavours of Willow and Leather Soup to slurp up, how do we decide which variety is objectively the best?
Let’s perform a rational and fact-based assessment of the pros and cons of each form to arrive at the ideal solution.
Test cricket
Pros: Test cricket is the ultimate all-round test of cricketing skill. Testing not only a batsman’s strokeplaying ability, but his powers of concentration, judgment, defensive technique and temperament, only batsmen of supreme ability and commitment can scale the greatest heights in the Test format. Likewise, a Test bowler has his stamina, discipline, patience and guile put to the test – along with his skill and competitive fire.
The Test match provides the greatest variety of possible outcomes, the greatest potential for unexpected comebacks and defiant rearguard actions, the greatest likelihood of truly monumental individual feats of skill and/or courage, and the greatest amount of drama and compelling narrative tension.
Cons: Well it does take five days, which might have been fine back in the days when people contracted cholera just to break the monotony, but in today’s go-go world of instant bluetooth and on-demand Minecraft seems ridiculously elongated. Even when a Test match ends “quickly”, it takes about three days, which is long enough for an entire Messiah to be resurrected.
Also everyone plays in white, which is incredibly dull, and there are four innings, which is kind of a weird number and makes the whole thing feel a bit messy. And although it can be thrilling to see probing bowling force batsmen into desperate defence, it also can occasionally be not-thrilling.
Plus, standing around in the sun for so long is pretty bad for the skin.
One-Day cricket
Pros: One-day, or fifty-over cricket, eliminates the possibility of tedious draws and gets the whole thing over in one day, making it an excellent outing for the cricket fan and his or her family. It is a fun day out without the frustrating lack of closure provided by a day at a Test.
There’s a whole lot less defensive batting, with the need to keep the scoreboard ticking over ensuring the batsmen will continually try to generate scoring opportunities even when the bowling is tight. At the same time, the 50-over format allows enough time for consolidation in a crisis, making it perfectly possible for a resolute batting side to recover from early disaster, providing stirring scenes such as those often generated by the great Michael Bevan.
Big hitting is always a feature, as well as the crucial ability to pace an innings.
On the bowling side, the ODI provides an opportunity for bowlers to showcase a range of skills. Attacking, wicket-chasing bowling is encouraged early on and when the batting team is struggling, while the need to clamp down on scoring and bowl defensively has forced bowlers to become creative in coming up with variations of pace and length that have enriched the bowler’s art.
Overall, ODI cricket is a game of sufficient brevity to ensure frequency of action, without sacrificing the myriad skills that make cricket the supreme sport.
Cons: In between the bash and crash of the early overs, and the wild improvisation of the late overs, tends to come a stultifying middle period in which dull medium-pacers and barely-turning spinners bowl to rigid plans, batsmen play safety-first strokes into gaping holes in the infield and stroll singles as outfielders casually gather up the ball and toss it lethargically back in.
At these times fifty overs can seem a painfully long time – a hundred overs in a day is ten more than you see in a Test day, without the grand overarching narrative of the longer form to make you feel it all means something.
The downsides of the ODI are best illustrated by the amount of rule-tinkering that goes on in this format. Power plays and shifting fielding restrictions and free hits and Ian Harvey are just a few of the innovations used over the years to “spice up” 50-over cricket; each one a tacit admission by the authorities that the format just isn’t interesting enough on its own merits.
Twenty20
Pros: T20 cricket is fast, exciting, action-packed and over in three hours. The perfect version of cricket for the modern time-poor family, it provides a thrilling spectacle that showcases the skills that punters lover best: big hitting, creative strokeplay and fast bowling.
Spectacular shots into the crowd are the norm, as the abbreviated format means batting teams need to go hard from the get-go. Twenty20 cricket has changed the way teams think about the limits of fast scoring and the possibilities of improvisational batting.
From a bowling perspective, facing batsmen intent on thrashing every ball to the stands means a leather-flinger must be utterly on his game at all times – no margin for error. A bowler who can execute correctly can be the hero, and the short game has elevated the arts of the yorker and the bouncer, and demonstrated the value of a crafty spinner.
Twenty20 is more than a game – it is an entertainment extravaganza, and the atmosphere and excitement packed into the brief running time makes it an experience other, more stately formats fail to match.
Cons: It’s so short that narrative twists are rarely in evidence. A batting team cut down early has no time to consolidate and rebuild, as they have to keep hitting; and the side that gets the early jump more often than not cruises to victory.
Batsmen are tested on their ability to hit the ball a mile and come up with weird and wonderful ways of flipping the ball about; but not tested on concentration, technique or the ability to judge the time to attack and the time to defend.
Indeed, since all-out attack is the only real option, the tension of a batsman risking catastrophe in the quest for glory is absent. The delight of big hitting against the dictates of prudence that the longer forms provide is no part of T20.
Bowlers are essentially cannon fodder. The yorker and the bouncer may be usefully deployed, but there’s little sophistication beyond these required of a T20 bowler. If a bowler does happen to rip through a batting line-up, it’s likely to be as much the luck of a series of mishits and blind swings as a demonstration of bowling brilliance.
In the end Twenty20 is the most disposable of formats, results forgotten almost as quickly as the matches are complete. And the commentators talk to players on the field during the telecast, which is the worst innovation in the history of cricket.
Indoor cricket
Pros: You can take catches off the netting, and when you get out you don’t actually have to stop batting. Also you don’t have to run as far to score a run so it’s pretty good for guys like me who are bad at running.
It’s a good game for when you feel guilty leaving your family for more than one night a week.
Cons: You don’t get any fresh air, and the court is so narrow that it’s really scary fielding in close, and the ball really stings when it hits you on the thigh. You can hit sixes, but they never look very impressive and you’ll probably just get caught off the netting.
French cricket
Pros: It’s really easy and you don’t need any pads or stumps or a pitch so it’s cheap too.
Cons: You look very weird playing it and the stumps are your legs, which means you get some nasty shin bruises.
Cricket on ice
Pros: Holy crap it’s cricket on ice!! Just look at it! It’s cricket on ice! How awesome is that?
Cons: It’s a lot easier to fall over than in other kinds of cricket, and if the ice breaks you are in danger of drowning or being eaten by a leopard seal.
The board game ‘Test Match’
Pros: You can pretend you are a giant controlling a group of tiny little men.
Cons: You have to iron the field or the ball won’t reach the batsman.
So, what do you think is the best kind of cricket? Answers will be collated by Cricket Australia and used to determine which versions of the game will be outlawed in time for the 2015-16 season.