During the recent encounter between South Africa and England in Cape Town, the issue of four-day Tests was raised by the host country.
The governing body for the sport in the country released a statement that was fairly blunt in its approach.
“In view of an unsourced and misleading report in the media this morning, please be advised that it is Cricket South Africa’s official policy to support four-day Test match cricket,” the statement read.
“We, in fact, hosted the first official four-day Test match between ourselves and Zimbabwe a couple of years ago.”
The “unsourced and misleading report” referred to was in the Daily Mail newspaper, and the headline – South Africa set to oppose four-day Test matches if England and Australia support ICC proposal to make them mandatory from 2023 – was the story.
There was a little bit of filler along the lines of draws being more likely, tactics becoming negative and so forth, but nothing that could be considered earth-shattering.
Now whether South Africa support four-day Tests or don’t support them is a matter for another day and there will be other days when this topic can be debated because it isn’t likely to be going away.
There have already been a couple of shortened games – the southern Africa derby referred to earlier and England’s post-World Cup, pre-Ashes skirmish with Ireland last English summer – and quotes from various figures addressing the subject.
Four-day Tests have so far been reserved for minnows like Ireland and Zimbabwe. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
And once some fuel is added to a tentatively lit fire and it subsequently becomes the talking point of the day, you can be sure that there will be plenty more to come.
The irony of such an argument coming to the fore last week was clear and obvious to see for anyone paying any interest in the goings-on at Newlands.
A ringing endorsement for the traditional format was served up with the result not decided until the final hour of the final session on the fifth and final day.
There were two sides going hard at each other, there was ebb and flow, there was attrition, there was flamboyance, and there was a suitably dramatic finish.
If, as some are predicting, a switch to four-day Tests is the answer then Act II of South Africa versus England was obviously posing the wrong question.
Come to think of it, the quintet of Ashes matches played out a few months ago could hardly be regarded as an advertisement for axing five-day Tests and, likewise, Australia’s thumping series wins over both Pakistan and New Zealand or India’s habitual dismantling of opponents on home soil are no evidence for condemnation.
England’s dramatic win over South Africa at Newlands was an endorsement of five-day Test cricket. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
And the particularly lazy argument that plenty of games finish in less than five days isn’t worth listening to, or if it is, just let it go in one ear and quickly flow out of the other.
Test cricket isn’t perfect. In fact, none of the game’s various guises are.
Plenty of five-day contests aren’t that much of a spectacle, a number of ODIs contain unforgettable passages of play, too many Twenty20 matches are boundary-laden, long-drive contests played on minuscule grounds, and ten-over cricket is what should be played when the weather interrupts a 20-over game.
But for any of its flaws, Test cricket has more than enough going for it and it would be a crying shame to lose 20 per cent of its length based on reasons that would inevitably be led by finance, regardless of what the administrators would no doubt say.
It’s one thing if it’s unsustainable, but if there is a desire to cram yet more short-form cricket into the gaps that would be created – and it is hard to see how that wouldn’t be the case – that’s another thing entirely.
Surely enough money is generated to keep Test cricket as it is, or at the very least, enough could be channelled in its direction.
Progress often leads to traditions being cast to one side but this is one instance where the negative aspects can’t hold a candle to their positive counterparts.
There are five days to get a result. If the game finishes in four, or three, or even two, so be it.
When the format has outlived its usefulness then it may well be time to put it to bed, but that moment isn’t here yet.
Please leave it alone.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
The question is which way are India are going. Cricket is not a democracy internationally , India , England and Australia control the money and control the game, though India as the richest has the most say. South Africa they are just eager to show off that they are ready willing and able to be everyones lapdog in exchange for money. If they wanted to decide anything this big they should have a forum about the issue , it seems James Sutherland, Mark Taylor and their English equivalents have decided it in secret.
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
Four Day Tests? Then they can fit in more meaningless short form games. More revenue.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
— COMMENT DELETED —
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
So far in the current SA vs England series both matches went to day 5 with the 2nd Test going to the last 20 min.
IAP
Guest
No, that's a cost of playing sport, but it's not what makes people play or watch sport.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Let's be clear about something.... South Africa or rather South Africans do not support 4 day matches. Won't call em Tests because that's 5 days of cricket.... Cricket SA supports them. A sports body with a severe credibility crisis amongst not just the fans but the players too. CSA would do well to concern itself more with its pending lawsuit brought against it by The Players Union than trying to change the nature of international cricket. Frankly most of the board will be fortunate to even have jobs if their main prop ups, The broadcasters, sponsors, players and fans have anything to do with it.
JGK
Roar Guru
I'm still yet to see what the case for 4 day tests is. The only vague thing I've heard was about workload management which was so laughable it doesn't seem to have been raised again.
DTM
Guest
I'm a traditionalist but I'm also a realist. 4 day test cricket is coming. On your points: 1) Agree, although if test matches change to 4 days, I suspect the Shield final will too. 2) Not necessarily. It is not unusual for a spinner to be bowling at the end of the first session of a test match. If you increase the daily overs to 98 or 100, spinners are likely to play a larger part in getting through the overs. As will part timers or all rounders. 3) I see a future for test cricket as a 4 day game played predominantly as a day/nite fixture - alleviating the issues of bad light. The extra 32 or 40 overs on days 1 to 4 will cause the pitch to deteriorate quicker than a 5 day test so spinners are likely to be more involved. Sadly, without 4 day test matches and at least a 50/50 spread of day/nite and day tests, I doubt test cricket will survive more than 10 years (other than for the big 3 or 4 countries and even then not much longer).
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
I hope they stick to the five day format. I think you would get more draws in the 4 day games. Even if they increase overs bowled in a day to 100. This is only 400 overs for the test, whereas we now have a potential 450 overs in a five day game Unless they restrict each side to a one day first innings (ridiculous), I could see (on a good pitch) the team batting first would do so for a day and a half, If the other team does the same, that leaves one day to try and get a result. (See the Vic shield game early in the season), and if teams did not want to lose, no way are they going to risk a declaration to set up a result. Second in some respects I think test cricket could fade away in a few years time. At the recent BBL game in Launceston, about half the people there were probably 10 or under, and I suspect a lot of older people were not test cricket lovers. As us oldies and lovers of test cricket fade away, will those children take to test cricket, or having been bought up on the short form cricket, will it interest them.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
:stoked:
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Written a few years ago, but fascinating to see what predictions have and have not, come to pass. Not so outdated that it suggested we'd be arriving at the ground in our hover-cars!
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Thanks Jeff. Will have a look this evening.
AREH
Roar Guru
I've little doubt that unfortunately it is something which will arrive, more permanently, sooner rather than later. Can't see much of an issue with some matches being so, we've already seen these, yet for it to become mandatory could be a huge step down a risky path, I fear. As others have pointed out well, there are a raft of potential flaws and teething problems which don't make the concept a 'Saviour' of the format by any stretch.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Well, it is about money if you want a large group of people to go watch it in one location and to have many more be able to watch it remotely. Because it costs money to deliver that.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Thanks Paul. That's pretty much what I was thinking too. It seems a reasonable guess at this stage.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
A brief mention re support from (then) CA Board members for four days in the article linked below. I'm sure some digging would find some more detailed comments. But this is an interesting read nonetheless re some of the challenges for Test cricket and concepts to vary the format. http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1061588/tests-in-2020
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I think financials are the driving reason - be it 5th day uncertainty or certainty of a Sunday finish as you suggest (most Test nations are definitely losing money on hosting Test series). The issue of reducing players' playing days is most certainly a furphy; this discussion re 4 days has being going on for a number of years with plenty of quotes/statements attributed to ICC/Board officials - the most recent ICC statement about reducing player workload is the first time I recall it ever being raised and I suspect it's just to deflect away from $$ discussions as this seems to be something that constantly raises the ire of supporters of the game.
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm in the dark too Bob. I can't see them agreeing to compulsory 4 day Tests, but would probably be open to the idea if this was part of a negotiated agreement with touring sides of lesser Test stature, eg Ireland and maybe Afghanistan. Again though, it's only a guess.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Having read numerous articles on this subject now, I haven’t seen one in the British or Australian media supporting four days, and just about all past and present players quoted want to keep five. I think it is a realisation that, unlike limited overs cricket, two-innings matches provide the ultimate test for team contests, and five days has been the sweet spot for contests between the best players. While white ball cricket will bring in the money, Tests need to be preserved in their most credible form, and subsidised if necessary.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Paul, what do you know about CA's official position on it. I was under the impression that they aren't too keen but I've seen other people say that CA is somewhat supportive of the idea. I can't recall seeing any press releases about it but maybe you have.