Under the current economic and scheduling structure, Test cricket is dead in the water. Cricket skills, as in all repetitive sports, are the culmination of habit and it simply isn’t reasonable to suggest that the pre-eminence of shorter game forms can have anything other than a degenerative effect on the Test cricket.
I don’t doubt there are additional factors at work in Australia as in NZ, but nothing alters the basic tenet that you reap what you sow – the law of specificity guarantees that as cricketers play less long form and more short form their skills sets will adapt accordingly.
As an aside I think that the die was cast for Test cricket 20 years ago when the law limiting bouncers was first introduced.
Putting aside the reasons for having done so, the effect of this change was to remove one of the most dramatic and powerful elements in the game.
The new rule eviscerated the fast bowler and dramatically shifted the advantage to the batsman, much in the same way that raising the mound did for pitchers in baseball.
I doubt the long term consequences were fully imagined by the law makers at the time but what we can say now, two decades later, in the light of the rise and rise of short form cricket, is that the public demand big shots and don’t care particularly for the subtlety and nuance of fast bowling (and by extension for Test cricket).
I gave this a lot of thought a couple of weeks back and it’s my view that this is not an inevitable outcome – the tide of natural progression that can’t be turned back.
It is the direct result of the diet of possibilities having been dramatically and suddenly changed.
The future of Test cricket lies in moving the advantage line back toward the bowlers (in that form of the game) and in providing up-and-coming fast bowlers with something powerful with which to counteract 20 years of bat technology and increased proficiency for scoring sixes and fours.
Give the batsmen something to fear.
That’s what Test cricket used to be about, and that will be the only reason the public and revenue streams will flow back to it.
Johnno
Guest
Sheek i THINK YOU MISS THE CURATORS LIKE Les Burdett I know I do.
damos_x
Guest
42.4.1 Law 42.6 (a) - The Bowling of Fast Short Pitched Balls L aw 42.6 (a) shall be replaced by the following: a) A bowler shall be limited to two fast short-pitched deliveries per over. b) A fast short-pitched delivery is defined as a ball, which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease. Would any more than two bouncers an over get the job done any better though ? Do players hook & pull & therefore fall victim like they used to or is it because of the limit on bouncers that they don't ? I'm not sure that bowlers even use the two bouncers they are allowed effectively enough to suggest that a relaxation of the current laws would help. Far too often we see balls that are unplayable ( therefore a wide) or are mis-directed & allow the batsman to evade it. Yes there are very well delivered balls & wickets taken but as a saviour of the supposed ruin of Test cricket I am not convinced. The rule was also introduced as a safety measure & for that reason alone will not be relaxed. Our bowlers in particular would be better off learning to bowl a good slower ball & an accurate yorker.
sheek
Guest
In its heyday (for me, 1970s), Australian cricket had 6 distinctly different tracks. Here's a brief pitch report. Perth had a high but consistent bounce, providing an even contest between bat & all types of bowlers, for whoever was up for it. Adelaide was traditionally a batsman's paradise that turned on the last two days. Sometimes it would have spite in the first two sessions. Melbourne with its huge open grounds, was generally the slowest to score runs on. The ball often swung, making batting a tougher concentration task. Great contest between bat & ball. Sadly, the pitch went to muck in the 80s. Sydney gave everyone a chance, offering batters & pacemen early encouragemment, before letting the spinners into the game for the backend of the match. Brisbane was a cross between Perth & Sydney, offering good, high bounce for most days before turning on the last day. The weather often was a problem. Hobart struggled for consistency, & would rage from a batsman's track to a bowler's delight. Hobart, like Brisbane, was often hostage to the vagaries of the weather. Today, curators might be better qualified & more knowledgeable, but do they possess the same intuitive feel of curators past? I don't pay the same close attention to our pitches these days? Are they all tarred the same? Or does each venue still offer something different?
sheek
Guest
Coachj, Test cricket needs saving for sure. But if only bringing back the bouncer was the only cure, & so simple. Regrettably, it needs more tender attention than just bringing back the bouncer.....
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Regrettably, the ICC doeasnt see things this way. Remember, the Galle pitch, which provided great test cricket, was sanctioned and the Columbo pitch, that created a borefest where 30 wickets fell in five days, was thought to be an excellent pitch for Test cricket.
coachj
Guest
Ian makes a very good point. Whether by means of changing the bowling or batting conditions the ICC have to look at what appealed in Test cricket before the modern professional era. What did people love about the game? Something has changed and i am not certain its as simple as saying one day and 20-20 cricket is to blame. Test cricket was a very different beast - much more about survival than it is now, and that's what i think attracted fans to it. In any case, Ian is correct and the advantage line (for batting v bowling) must be shifted.
Brett McKay
Expert
Johnno, 1 per batsman per over, from memory...
Brett McKay
Expert
Ian's right, CoachJ. We need more Test decks like Hobart...
Johnno
Guest
Can you still bowl 1 bouncer per over i don't know the current ICC laws.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
The problem isnt bowlers being allowed to intimidate batsmen - the problem is pitches rigged so that batsmen cannot be intimidated by bounce, by turn or by movement off the pitch. Without the technical development of reverse swing, batsman would have no issues what so ever.