The short form of the game has come as a mixed blessing for cricket.
It has attracted more people to the game and the increased action – the possibility of catching one of many huge sixes – is almost worth the price of admission alone.
The shorter, more accessible format has allowed cricket to expand its audience beyond those dedicated to the sporting chess match that is Test cricket.
But with this has come the loss of one of the most exciting aspects of cricket – strategically aggressive bowling.
To appeal to the crowds who want to see ‘bombs’ rather than flying stumps, wickets around the world have become flatter, harder, and remarkably lifeless. Bowlers from around the world turn up to T20 and ODI matches just to get smashed to all corners of the ground – to the glee and delight of the thousands of eagerly watching fans.
Bats are thicker, wickets are flatter, and the boundaries get smaller and smaller (in the name of ‘safety’, but why do they keep creeping inwards?). It has truly become a batsman’s game.
But somewhere along the line, curators and officials alike have forgotten that cricket is a game of two sides. Test wickets are beginning to become equally lifeless, bowlers are slowly becoming restricted, and the benefit of the doubt seems to be edging its way even further towards the batsman.
‘It makes the game entertaining,’ they will argue, but at what point does entertainment come to the detriment of the game? And at what point do the bowlers and fielders become so alienated that cricket becomes closer to a game of tee-ball than the sport that had so many entranced in the 1970s and ’80s?
This brings me to Mitchell Johnson, a bowler who only six months prior to today would strike fear into the heart of any batsman coming to the crease, regardless of whether or not they’d like to admit it.
His aggressive, fiery fast bowling recalled the bowling of the immortal West Indies attack of the ’70s and ’80s, disregarding the safety of the batsman and bombarding them with balls at the body until they would submit. Johnson destroyed the English batting line-up in Australia only two years ago, yet now he is playing his last day of Test and international cricket.
How does the best bowler in the world fall from grace so quickly?
Sure he has dropped a couple of yards of pace, and sure the death of Phillip Hughes has had a great effect upon the way he now plays, but how could a bowler who would turn games and tear batting line-ups asunder so quickly find himself bowling innings of 1-150 and 0-100?
It is the result of cricket finally losing itself in its own marketing.
The pitches prepared for the last two Test matches in Australia, at The Gabba and WACA respectively, have lacked the life of pitches in the past. They’re hardly differentiable. They are hard, flat and offer nothing but prime batting conditions.
The only reason the first Test yielded a result was on the back of a visibly underprepared New Zealand collapse. Fast forward to today and you have a Test reaching its fifth day, and it is only the third innings. Both first innings totals were upwards of 550, and nearly all of the bowlers have had their averages destroyed. It was a similar tale at The Gabba.
Johnson was close to the pick of the bowlers at The Gabba. Hell, if we were to compare the performances of all bowlers in the series so far, there would be a handful who should be retiring ahead of him.
Johnson’s retirement, although not entirely surprising considering his admittance that it is a thought that often crosses his mind, is not the result of a player who has become too old for the game. Rather, it is the result of short-form cricket finally usurping the competition of Test cricket to replace it with endless displays of batting.
It is the logical conclusion of cricket as ‘entertainment’.
Johnson’s retirement, as such, is not just the end of an amazing fast bowler’s career. It also marks the end of aggressive fast bowling.
You may ask about Mitchell Starc and his ability to perform on these wickets, but, ultimately, what must be realised is that he prides himself on swing and toe-crushing yorkers. He doesn’t rely on the pitch to provide some bounce and seam as Johnson so often did.
These dead pitches have provided nothing; bouncers have sat up, begging to be hit, and good length balls have played so true that it may as well be a Test match played down the road at the local syntho.
It is not entirely the fault of the curators. Some onus has to fall upon the ball manufacturers and officials.
The red ball is now unable to hold a shine, and is falling apart at a rate unprecedented. It may be a bad batch but, looking upon the scores of the past few series in Australia and abroad (excluding England, they use the Duke), it seems to be a bit more than that.
Games that showcase the worth of quality bowling seem harder and harder to find, and runs galore seems to be the ongoing meal of the day, and the progression of cricket is only promoting this further.
On the eve of the unprecedented day-night Test to take place in only a week or so, the Australian spearhead won’t be there to take part, he won’t be there to bowl with the pink ball, to have a proper send-off even. He will be on the sidelines, cheering the boys on, in the hope of another victory over the Kiwis.
But at the end of the day, this retirement marks more than just the end of a career. Cricket has finally succumbed to commercial expectation, and soon T20, ODI, and Test matches alike will become all variations of the same slogfest.
All I’m waiting for is the free hit to be introduced to the Test format, and for the bouncers to be further restricted for ‘preservation’ of the batsman. We will see a new era of fast bowlers, an era of players like Starc who all bowl yorkers and full tosses.
Maybe we won’t even need a pitch, and maybe we could even make the batsman run in a diamond, and have the bowler stand on a mound and get rid of the needless run-up.
Wait a second, doesn’t this sound familiar?
Johnno
Guest
Entertainment: This is what confuses me, with the so called bubble-gum fans who are new to the game. How is batters smashing endless "meaningless" 4's and 6's all over the ground again and ageing, with bowlers treated as cannon-folder exciting. Sorry, I as a consumer didn't watch barely any of the WACA-Test, as I don't find scores of like 5-500 exciting. I prefer scores of anything over 300 as a bonus, and 400-max a huge score. And with T20 I find the endless 8-runs/10-runs per over games, boring. I enjoy wickets, lots of defensive strokes e.g. Geoff Boycott type batting,and gritty test cricket exciting. Not a bat athon, that we saw at the WACA. I must be in the minority of the new breed of cricket fans. I'd rather watch Geoff Boycott/Geoff Marsh/Javed Miandad/Micheal Atherton, gritty types who can bat for hours with lots of defensive strokes, than watch Dave Warner or Kieren Pollard bat. It makes you realise how far ahead Viv Richards was in his time, if he were around today, with all the mod-cons of modern bats, bouncer restrictions, protective gear, he'd be batting better and faster than how Dave Warner or AB Devilliers are batting.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think the issue is the ball - ABC radio were discussing this during the WACA test. The Kookaburra turf balls that are used in test matches have virtually no seam compared to balls used at lower grades. As to why this is the case I have no idea, but if you want to see more for bowlers, put the seam back on the ball and make it proud, and firm. That way even if there's no swing on offer you still get plenty of seam movement for those bowlers who are skillful enough to hit the seam. Sideways movement is what stops batsmen from just plonking the front foot down and having a heave.
offsider
Guest
Are the pitches made docile to satisfy the tv networks who want the games to go the full 5 days to maximise advertising dollars.
my2cents
Guest
I think one thing cricket Administrators have forgotten is that In Limited overs Cricket Batting = Attack while Bowling = Defense. However in Test Cricket the reverse is true. The Goal is to Take 20 Wickets. so Bowling = Attack and Batting = Defense. While most other sports evolve their rules to encourage attacking play and let defenses adjust to the new status quo. Test Cricket is a sport that is actively making it more difficult to play attacking and interesting cricket. Obviously seeing Australia getting bowled out for 60 odd in England sucked but it made the game much more interesting as you always felt like Australia's Bowlers were a chance to do the same. Then in the next innings the tension was built on weather England would need to bat again Test Cricket is still poised to be one of the most interesting sports of the next millennium. Its essentially a perfect TV sport. Given its duration. But Administrators need to stop tying its hands behind its back PS. I love Indian Dust bowls. They give spinners a chance and showcase batsmen with deft footwork and elegant strokeplay. The Biggest thing test cricket needs is fair pitches that assist bowlers with Variety.
Bob
Guest
But the West Indies probably won't last 3 more years as a test nation. They are soon to be broken up into their component parts, none of which will be of test quality.
Andy
Guest
Totally agree with the lbw law and that bats have to be smaller, the edges on some are stupid nowdays. A nick is meant to be a nick not go for 6.
Sir Tony Abbott - Ambassador to Russia
Guest
Test cricket dying is a bit of a joke as a comment. It is actually expanding. Ireland is vying to become the next test cricket nation in 2018 if they win the Intercontinental Cup.
Cheese
Guest
I'm a bit sick of this. People have been saying this for as long as I can remember. Test cricket has not died yet, and we have seen periods where that balance has been reversed and great fast bowling has impacted series. Did we also decry the loss of the bouncer as a weapon during the period where bowlers like McGrath, Gilespee, Wasim, Waqar and co were dominant? I'm sure people were gnashing their teeth that we would never see fast bowling like the West Indies again. And here we are doing the same again.
Matthew Tomczyk
Roar Pro
Good call about the World Cup match. We'll see what pitches Melbourne and Sydney throw up. Hopefully something for the bowlers. I think the article is a bit of an overstatement. The success that the aussies had in the Ashes a few years back was on the back of a superior bowling attack. The Poms won back the urn with their five pronged attack. The resurgence of New Zealand is mainly due to Southee and Boult.
Ignatius M.
Roar Rookie
Good point. Looking at it that way, you can really see how much of a batsman's game it has become. With the addition of all these new shots (paddles, reverses and scoops galore), and the further bowling restrictions, it seems only a matter of time until you have the strike/ball system implemented in the short-form. Cricket has become too involved in its own marketing to the point that it has forgotten that it's supposed to be a contest... It'll be interesting to see how the day-night test goes too. It almost seems like the next step towards tests becoming extended ODIs.
Ignatius M.
Roar Rookie
I wouldn't necessarily say that short-form cricket is the culprit, rather than it is the manifestation of the ideals the officials want cricket to focus on - those of slogging and lots of runs.... I would definitely call my article an overreaction (i wrote it as a "food for thought" kind of thing, i wanted to see how people actually feel about it all), but it is becoming a more common occurrence in test cricket. Your last point is the kind of thing i would really like to see. I don't necessarily want a bowler-dominated format, but i would like a format that rewards good bowling as well as good batting. The way it is currently is just too skewed towards batsman to make test cricket engaging as it once was.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
I agree with your view, but I'm hesitant to call short form cricket as the culprit. I see that as a symptom rather than the root cause; the root cause being test cricket's incongruence with the way the mainstream watches sport nowadays. And that is centred mostly on the length of play. As you say, if we continue on the current path we could very plausibly end up with five day ODI type games. We may be over-reacting to two very batsman-friendly games in a single Australian summer, but the long run helicopter view points in this direction. In that respect, I think there is a massive opportunity for cricket administrators to do a little zigging to counter the huge zag which has taken hold in shorter form cricket: make tests deliberately about the ball over the bat. That way you have a differentiated product.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Not many people talk about this but with the bouncer reduction rules and the very narrow definition of a wide has given the game basically has a strike zone now. That strike zone is what allows guys like Maxwell and Maddison to take a big stride forward clear the front leg and hit with freedom. It has changed the game in a big way. Add into that in 20/20 cricket you only really need to bat for 2-3 overs for you team to be competitive and the whole thing is a new sport. Test cricket will feel the pressure to incorporate all of that given all the marketing CA puts into the big bash.
Republican
Guest
Couldn't agree more. I believe that only T20 will survive this eras devolution of the true Cricket, as a multi dimensional contest. Todays audience are prosaically dumbed down. They have a short attention span that demands instant gratification. Ours is a culture that is conditioned to the commercial illusions that compromise any substance.
Bob
Guest
Absolutely agree and the game is far worse for it. There is nothing better than watching a great bowling. A great batsman is a dime a dozen, but a great bowler is something else. All the best matches I can remember seem to be low scoring games. Just thank back to this year's World Cup. There were batting records broken left, right and centre, but the best match of all saw 19 wickets fall for barely 300 runs. Good bowler friendly pitches (not Indian types - they're crap) are the lifeblood of cricket. Now that those seem to be a thing of the past, it is getting harder to stay interested in the games. As a cricket tragic, I have to say this test was a waste of time and I barely turned it on after the first day. Next is Adelaide, which, without fail, provides four days of mind-numbing cricket and one day of good cricket at the end. Hopefully the day-night aspect will change that, but somehow I doubt it. A revamp is required. The LBW law needs to be rewritten such that the ball hitting the stumps is the only prerequisite assuming the batsman hasn't hit the ball. Free hits have to be removed from limited over games. Benefit of the doubt should go the bowler. In short form cricket wides have to be assessed far more leniently (just drifting slightly down leg should never be a wide). Pitches have to be juiced up. Bats have to be smaller and boundaries bigger. Balls need to be made that swing in all conditions. Have some gaps between tests so that bowlers get a rest (you might even see the follow on enforced once in a while then, too). Sad to say, but I think cricket in its current form is losing interest in its core supporters. Those who follow the game all the time. Once that happens support for ODI and T20 cricket will quickly evaporate and the game will die a slow death. Vale real cricket.
JoM
Guest
Have to agree with you. I heard an interview on the radio with Ryan Harris where they were asking him about Johnson's retirement. He was fairly surprised considering a week ago Johnson had told Harris he wanted to play on. Ryan was asked if he thought the pitches had played a part in the decision and his response was "absolutely" and he was quite scathing about the pitches. He also said he wouldn't have been surprised if Starc and Hazlewood decided to give it away as well, he was only half joking I think. The bowlers are being treated appallingly and a lot of batsmen are being made to look better than they are.