Recent Major League Baseball pace-of-play reforms serve as a shining example to Test cricket of a sport that is raging against the dying of the light.
That Test cricket and baseball share so many parallels – right down to shrinking popularity – only heightens the value of the lesson on offer from the other side of the Pacific.
Both core bat-and-ball games, these sports represent traditional national pastimes occupying a throw-back cultural space.
As stop-start sports with downtime aplenty, Test cricket and baseball have always relied heavily on statistics, commentary and acting as a sort of backdrop to social interaction. Yet both are now clinging to relevance in a contemporary context where fast-paced, action-packed sports are king.
Despite these similarities, the fundamental difference between the two sports appears to be the relative urgency being shown by their administrators in confronting this challenge.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
MLB recently announced the introduction of a number of measures – including capped visits to the pitcher’s mound and reduced innings break times – aimed at combatting slow pace-of-play, which the league has recognised as being central to the slide in interest.
Compare that to Test cricket, where continued cries for change have seemingly fallen on deaf ears.
Minimum over-rate rules have always felt toothless and more designed to curb bowling side shenanigans than provide any real benefit to the viewer.
Even day-night Tests, which are admittedly a fantastic innovation, have been played sporadically since their inception and more worryingly do not appear to have been embraced by cricket’s kingpin, India.
Further suggested reforms (some even echoed by greats of the game), such as four-day Test matches and visiting teams electing to bat or bowl, have gained little traction.
That such relative intransigence is being shown by the administrators of such an obviously bleeding dinosaur of a sport is staggering.
After all, we have just endured an underwhelming Ashes and now a (thus far poorly attended) Australia vs South Africa series confined to pay-TV in what had loomed as a showpiece summer of Test cricket.
Not to mention the unseemly scrap between South Africa and (unsurprisingly, as I have written about on this site before) Australia engulfing the first Test in Durban, which has reignited the futile ‘crossing the line’ discussion and underscores Test cricket’s ongoing identity crisis.
Yet, the question remains as to what change can properly address the most significant modern-day flaw in the game – the captive dead-time between deliveries.
Watching a fast bowler’s interminable stroll back to the top of his mark has become nigh on unbearable when taken against a contemporary backdrop of relatively uninterrupted sporting gratification.
While many other sports (think tennis, for example) experience breaks in play, generally they are either shorter or long enough to afford the viewer the opportunity to do something else.
The problem is compounded in Test cricket where, unlike shorter forms of the game, the remote chance of batting fireworks or a wicket from any given delivery does not generally justify the wait.
MLB has identified a similar issue in respect of time elapsing between pitches and, in line with its proactive approach to safeguarding the future of baseball, has threatened the introduction of a pitch clock if other reforms do not adequately speed up play.
Perhaps a solution for Test cricket lies no further away than the nearest net session. Other than breaking with tradition (and let’s not forget how far that has got us), is there any reason why we couldn’t fill the dead space with another delivery?
While admittedly outlandish and logistically challenging, make no mistake that these are desperate times.
As a cricket-obsessed kid, I remember how incredulously defending the Test cricket wall came so naturally to me. Unfortunately, while the sporting landscape has since evolved, Test cricket has refused to move with the times.
Feralballer
Roar Rookie
A lot of boring draws (or boring wins for that matter) originate from the first team batting piling on a huge score (of 500+) which makes it highly unlikely that the second team can win the contest. Instead the second team bats for survival. Which means they bat for time, to grind out a draw. Boring, boring, boring. There are exceptions of course, such as India's fightback win over Aust in 2001, but these are quite unusual - we have to put up with a lot of boring matches to be open to such rare contests. The tweak I am suggesting is to cap the number of overs in the first innings of each team to just 100 overs - roughly one day's play. The first team still has the option of batting for as long as it wishes (or is able to) in the second innings. People moan about what you lose with rule changes, which is fair enough. But I ask that they also consider fresh contests can be gained by such a rule change.
Warnie's Love Child
Guest
With cricket being such a highly statistical game, how would the bonus runs be apportioned ? Sundries ?
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
I am not convinced the current 90 overs a day is in good shape. Most days, until there is spin from both ends for large chunks of the day, the 90 overs are not bowled within six hours. Half the time, even using up the extra half hour doesn't get 90 overs bowled. That extra 30 mins used to be to make up lost time. Now it is to get closer to the 90 overs. There are plenty of reasons for this, including committee meetings to set fields and batsmen needing new gloves every three overs. Whatever the reasons, losing this half hour almost daily limits the gains on time lost due to bad light or rain. Even in this recent test, on day one South Africa's ordinary over rate left them a few overs short of being able to take the new ball late in the day. Sadly, all too often the fielding team isn't disadvantaged enough for their tardiness. There are fines and suspensions for captains but there seems to be far too many poor over rate days ignored. I, for one, would love the ICC to take a far stronger stance on over rates in the flagship format of the game. Any day where the fielding side doesn't average 15 overs per hour, the captain is advised by the umpires. If that shortfall isn't addressed in the next session, the captain is on notice. A second notice for that captain and he is a spectator at the next test match. Of course, in extreme heat, extra drinks breaks will take time but that can be allowed for in the expected over return per session.
BrainsTrust
Guest
In baseball with good seats your near the batter thats the point I was making, not that the field is smaller. The price differential in seats is a lot bigger because the major of elements of play are towards one side. The flip side is the weird deals you can get for the worst seats. The all you can eat seats where you get unlimited hot dogs, soft drinks etc included in the ticket price is one way to bring in the crowds.
Linphoma
Guest
Because it would take away the moments to sledge the batsman, silly!
Linphoma
Guest
The baseball experience is more meaningful than a T20. It is a pure game - granted I am a former baseballer and cricketer of the era when FC cricket was king, but you can appreciate Babe Ruth coming to a ballpark in 2018 and seeing basically the same thing he was playing a century ago. Dimensions of the playing filed are the same if not bigger: Fenway Park in Boston is the oldest ground still used for MLB fixtures(correct me if I'm wrong) and it is considered boutique compared to some of the more modern parks. MLB hasn't cheapened the scoring of runs like T20 has with ridiculous small dimensions. The bat is the same. Wood, dimensions and measurements the same. Look what cricket has done with some of the battleaxes we see now. The ball I believe varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I don't here Japanese pitchers coming to the Majors and taking too long to adjust, and vice versa. And these guys make the ball talk. Then listen to the hoo-ha from batsmen and bowlers about which ball they're using - Dukes, Kookaburra or SG. What you failed to mention was that while MLB has made these changes to speed the game up the counteracting change to the playing conditions in recent years has been the review system - their version of the DRS. And the MLB managers have it down to fine art and quickly adopted it tactically. I've seen 5 minutes taken on some reviews and that is intolerable.
Warren
Guest
Slow over rates are the biggest culprits. As stated before in earlier years there was no issue with getting the game done in under 2.5 hrs (baseball) or bowling up to 100 overs in a day. Make test cricket over 4 days and bowl 105 overs in a day - and make it day / night to encourage viewers both live and on TV. Should a team not stick to the allotted overs per hour then do what Geoffrey Boycott suggested - add 10 runs to the batting team for every over missed at the end of the day. Do not bother defending the position of wickets falling / change of innings etc - there are enough parties to determine the guilty parties and apportion the runs appropriately. If they are able to hustle between overs in T20 then why not do the same in tests.
bigbaz
Roar Guru
had no TV in the 50s
Blanecoach
Guest
How are the TV ratings though? The whole gig is up. No way our kids are watching test cricket. No way.
El Loco
Roar Rookie
But realistic things that don't attack the integrity of the sport are being done and it is surviving. I'd sooner it wither and die than become a circus.
Memphis
Guest
Good article but we all get older and time speeds up. The problem of speeding up the game is its in summer and whether its 53 degrees at the SCG on Day 4 of the Ashes or 48C in the outfield in Dallas there are safety issues. I'm not sure what the answer but good article and some good responses.
sheek
Guest
A slight correction, day/night cricket is not an innovation. For those who were around at the time, it was very successful with the WSC supertests back in 1978/79. That's 40 yers ago now! The white ball caused the players some problems, but then, they just got on with it, accepting that it affected everyone equally. As a means of making both tests & Sheffield shield more relevant, I would make both formats day/night. For tests, I would change from 5 x 6 hour days (30 hours) to 4 x 7 hour day/nights (28 hours). That's a net loss of one day but only two hours overall. For SS, I would change from 4 x 6 hour days (24 hours) to 3 x 7 hour day/nights (21 hours). Again, that's a net loss of one day but only three hours overall. The overrate of 90 overs per day (less one for every two wickets & three for change of innings, seems to work quite well. As I understand it, an average over is given four minutes in tests & SS. A loss of wicket & new batsman to the crease is allowed two minutes. A change of innings is usually 10 minutes, but 12 minutes if three overs is deducted. In LO cricket, overrates are reduced to 3.6 minutes, or 3 minutes 36 seconds. Let's call it 3.5 mins. Could overs in tests & SS be reduced from four to 3.5 minutes each? I guess it's worth a try. How about a 12 man team, incorporating at least one player who only bowls (someone like Glenn McGrath) & obviously one guy who only bats? This suggestion borrows from baseball's designated hitter concept. Also, particularly a memo to CA, tests & SS go together like a horse & carriage, or a marriage. They have to be kept together & separate from T20 for the obvious purpose of allowing players to find & maintain red ball form. Mixing them in the high season of mid-Dec to mid-Jan is like mixing water with oil. It will do neither format any good, especially the red ball game.
sheek
Guest
Yeah sure, the demise of test cricket has been oft quoted. But then again, if nothing is done, it will surely wither & die. Test cricket is under different pressures now, many of them from within. T20 is game requiring an entirely different skill set. Today's players are increasingly lacking the patience to develop an innings as a batsman, or work a batsman out as a bowler. To wit, patience is dying. if players no longer possess the skills to play test cricket, the quality will fall off, followed by interest.
Bilbo
Guest
"The problem is compounded in Test cricket where, unlike shorter forms of the game, the remote chance of batting fireworks or a wicket from any given delivery does not generally justify the wait." Maybe you just need to take the bucket off your head. What nonsense. Anyone that watched some of the great battles between ball and bat would never say such a thing. The Steve Waugh v Ambrose battle, Warne v Tendulkar. Time seemed to stop during these hour long battles and I can't recall ever thinking "oh Jeez, come on Waugh, hit a six or something".
Bilbo
Guest
"After all, we have just endured an underwhelming Ashes and now a (thus far poorly attended) Australia vs South Africa series confined to pay-TV in what had loomed as a showpiece summer of Test cricket." I don't see the big deal about the crowds in SA. I've watched plenty of tests on TV (Fox Sports) played in SA and can't remember the last time I saw a very healthy crowd. The recent series against India fared slightly better crowd wise but that may be due to the contingent of Indians that live in SA. Also, what is with your confined to pay TV comment? All series except the Ashes played overseas are not shown on free to air. This is not a new thing and doesn't suggest that there isn't interest in the series or that Test Cricket is on the slide.
BrainsTrust
Guest
The MLB does have 70 million attending which is three times bigger than any other league and the second biggest is the Japanese baseball. Baseball and test cricket are operating in reverse,. The advantage baseball has is you be closer to the action at the ground, well if your on the expensive side in MLB, on the other side your miles away. Test cricket played in the daytime in summer is becoming a TV sport its not good sitting in the hot sun and your far from the action, but the number of people with access to TV or internet viewing on the subcontinent is increasing. whereas baseball the minor leagues get over 20 million in attrendance but no TV viewership. The other difference is baseball has one format whereas cricket its like dancing versus strippers. Marketing people think strippers will always be preffered to proper dancing. They also put a big push to bring lingerie football to Australia. Journalists sorry to say most of them have the same taste as the marketing people and a lot of interconnection with them. The Marketing people have been the biggest winners out of the Big Bash with a massive budget introduced to promote the BIg Bash so thats why we keep seeing these articles.
Kris
Guest
Apples with Cabbages indeed. MLB has seen the time it takes to complete a game rise from under 2 hours in the 1920-30s to 3 hours now. Same number of innings and outs. Games were going over 4 hours in some cases. Since 2015 these pace-of-game rule changes have reduced the average game by 6 minutes to 2 hours 56 minutes. I doubt an extra over a day will see floods of support coming back to cricket. Test Cricket has had slow-over rate rules and minimum over rates for a while and it is not toothless - captains are banned and fined.
The Doc
Roar Guru
Test crickets doesnt need to change drastically - just needs a few tweaks. Most ideas mentioned already but come down hard on over rates - fines dont achieve anything and neither do suspensions it appears. Perhaps run deductions from a total may do the trick (a bit drastic perhaps but a thought). Day night tests I think are a massive step forward and need to be embraced by all nations. Its simple math - on a weekday many people that would ordinarily come are at work and cannot attend but plenty would go for an evening session.
JamesH
Roar Guru
This was essentially my thought. Speeding up the time between pitches is a basic tweak; moving to day-night tests or four-day matches is a fundamental change. It would be akin to reducing the number of innings in MLB matches. The only things that need to happen are (a) better use of lights and/or earlier start times to reduce the number of overs lost to bad light, and (b) actually getting tough on slow over rates. Those changes, with a few more regular day-night tests, would be sufficient. I'm glad the author linked that article he wrote about sledging in the Ashes, though. Gave me a bit of a chuckle. Honestly, with the benefit of hindsight does anyone actually think the Ashes series was marred by sledging?
bigbaz
Roar Guru
Test cricket is evolving all the time. The game today is very different and funnily enough very much the same as the cricket I started watching and playing in the 50s, when it was also dying. Test cricket then was basically between 4 country's and if it ends up back there so what. The ashes was the best attended in history.