A lot has been said in the last couple of years about five day Test cricket slowly dying, as it doesn’t translate to a young spectator in a fast paced world. Fair enough, but maybe Test cricket and its place in the cricketing landscape deserves a renewed appraisal. Let’s face it, with stay-at-home lockdowns in the not too distant past, what is a fast paced world anyway?
Proponents of shortened Test Cricket look to attention spans in the modern world and argue that potential spectators need a shortened version of Tests in order to turn them into fans. I’d say we’re short changing people’s ability to deal with different formats of entertainment and underestimating the percentage of the billion-plus cricket world needed to keep five day Tests viable. Spectators want entertainment. Fans want a result. Administrators and promoters want money.
Sure you could look at the empty arena in South Africa over the last week and suggest that no one wanted to even watch their home side beat the West Indies in three days, but the ground steadily filled in New Zealand, as word spread that the home side was in with a sniff on day five against the Bazballers of England.
Is there anything worse than an empty stadium? (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Australia’s horrific planning for the Indian tour has more bearing on the production of two three-day Tests in the current series than with tracks which favour the home side. Spectators had a steady flow of wickets over three days in all three Tests. Are Australian fans happy with the three day cricket played by their national team, though? Indian fans are, at 2-1 up!
Sure, due to conditions, the third Test was unlikely to go five days, but there’s no rule that says because five days are set aside that a match should go that long. It was as recent as the Brisbane Test, when an under prepared South African top six imploded and the game was over in two days.
Four day Tests were played as recently as the 1970’s, with the last of those being the debut series of Richard Hadlee when Pakistan defeated New Zealand 1-0 in the shaky isles. Rain affected the first two days of the first Test and it joined the third Test as a draw. The draws in those four day Tests weren’t edge of your seat survival, they petered out.
So what does the one day reduction do for a spectator in this scenario? It does nothing for the fan, does it? Timeless Tests of the 1930’s on the other hand, had examples of the Aussies scoring at four to five runs per over.
Can the game in any of its formats survive, let alone thrive, on spectators alone? Isn’t it invested fans who build the backbone of ongoing financial support? Won’t the quality of the cricket be the ultimate decider of viability? I’m sure the bean counters have a conservative target in mind for profitability and therefore an ideal length of match, but isn’t sport owned by the fan?
I’m sure those same bean counters worked out an advantageous formula when no spectators were allowed in stadia during lockdowns, so do the inevitable changes become dominated even more by televising the matches rather than attendance? The savings from empty stands mean then it shouldn’t matter if there’s five days available for a Test, as ticket sales become irrelevant to revenue.
Personally, I don’t see an indisputable advantage in reducing the Test playing time and the recent one run, fifth day win by New Zealand should spark more debate and admiration for the two different cricketing approaches. Those approaches contributed to a fans greatest hope – a nailbiting finish to a genuine contest, made possible by the time available for New Zealand to claw back into the fight.
Harry Brook celebrates his century in Wellington. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Joe Root and Harry Brook set up England’s chances with a 322 run partnership in 61 overs at 5.2 an over. That rate allowed New Zealand time in their 2nd innings to rebuild with a 149 run, 53 over partnership at 2.8 per over. Kane Williamson and Tom Blundell also produced a 158 partnership in 48 overs at 3.2. Five day Test cricket allows for rebuilds such as the Kiwi’s, at rates which sap the opposition.
Did spectators salivate during the Brook smash and grab, but vow never to watch Test cricket again when the Kiwi openers were digging in for 2.8 runs per over? Did fans shake their heads at edges produced by wild swipes from no footwork, yet lean back in contentment in ‘Man of the Match’ Williamson becoming the highest NZ Test run-scorer while striking at 48?
Five day Test cricket produced both for spectators and fans alike and I guarantee you that the promoters now wish there had been a third five day Test!
Timmuh
Roar Guru
The main advantage of four day Tests is scheduling. With mandated three day breaks between matches, the ideal (in western cultures) Friday to Tuesday isn't possible back-to-back. This is why we get Thursday starts so often, so the following game can start Friday. The other advantage is to broadcasters, they don't need to set aside as many days of programming that might not be used and hope their back-up programming rates. But, if fan concentration is the issue, the time needs to be made up. What is currently a seven and a half hour day from first ball to last; with lunch, tea, and the inevitable extra half four; gets almost another session, and presumably another break, added to it. If people won't watch 7.5 hours, they aren't going to watch 9 hours. The longer hours may provide more incentive to bowl spin in non-spin conditions, as a day in the field gets that much more tiring and takes more out of fast bowlers. As for a day lost to rain, well, just don't play in Sydney (or the UK).
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Thanks AD.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Most tests aren't going the full 5 days now anyway, either because they're so lopsided or because modern batters (on the whole) are less inclined to graft. To me, that's not an argument for 4-day matches - quite the opposite. All that would happen if we reduced tests to 4 days is that the number of draws would increase. Realistically, the only way they could actually make the game more 'exciting' by reducing it to 4 days is to cap each innings at 90 overs. That way you ensure a result, and it promotes a bit more risk-taking. Stronger sides also wouldn't be able to bat their opponents out of the contest over 2 days. But of course, that would fundamentally change the nature of the game altogether, alienating the existing fan base. The reality is that people who find 5-day tests boring aren't suddently going to be thrilled by the prospect of 4-day cricket. People either enjoy the long format or they don't, and the best way to draw people to it is to keep promoting the game at grass roots level. It's a really tough sport to get into if you don't grow up with it.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
During 1926-1969 inclusive, SA generally hosted Qld on Christmas Day. Qld's Slasher Mackay played in 10 of them. Aus v WI, Adelaide, 1951/52. Started on Sat 22 Dec. Then rested on 23 Dec, it being a Sun. Continued on Mon 24 and (with 6,000 spectators) ended on Christmas Day Tue 25 Dec. Aus v Ind, Adelaide, 1967/68. Similar scheduling.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Aus v Pak, MCG, 1964/65. A one-off game on Pak's way to a series in NZ. 4 days only. Match drawn. Pak, the fielding side, appealed against light rain when Aus needed 78 with an hour still to play and 8 wickets in hand. Aus delivered the eight-ball equivalent of 19.2 six-ball overs per hour thanks to an attack that included 4 spinners in Sincock, Veivers, Simpson and Chappelli.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Another noteworthy epic Adelaide Test that went the distance and then some, was the 5th test vs India in 1977/78. As the deciding test it was to be played to the finish. Can't remember if it was actually timeless or there was just an extra day added. In any event it went into the sixth day as a defiant India finally succumbed. This was also 8 ball over cricket. Pretty sure I read somewhere that Pakistan played 3 or 4 day tests in Aus in the 60s. One of these may have been played on Christmas Day. There was definitely a Christmas Day test around that time. And on the current raging turners in India, the establishment Aussies played 6 tests in India losing 2 with 4 drawers in 1979. I can't remember raging turners being discussed. Indeed LFM Geoff Dymock took 5/99 and 7/67 in one of the all time great efforts by any bowler, in India, let alone a spinner. There was much good and gritty cricket played throughout the series in the battle between bat and ball. In the current series I was a bit surprised India didn't put in an old style placid pitch for the 3rd given they were 2 up but times have changed I suppose. I guess they are rightly carried away by their success but you'd think the bats might start a petition....it's s batsman's game after all.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
8 ball overs.
Dougs
Roar Rookie
I am dumb DTM. I forgot, of course they were 8 ball overs in those days. So really it was equivalent to well over 500 overs. You are right in your observation.
Dougs
Roar Rookie
Hi DTM. Juat checked the scorecard again. Australia's fourth innings was 84 overs. The Windies first innings was 65 and a bit. So 65 + 126 +137 + 84 = 412. The teams both had very strong pace attacks with Australia having Gleeson and the West Indies Lance Gibbs for spin. In those days there was no enforcement of the over numbers per day. Just start and finish times. So a run rate over the five days of over 4.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
If they're not mutually exclusive then Tests get canned if crowds get to a prohibitively low nett return on stadium costs, even if broadcast figures are still bringing in advertisers? Or will admin bend to the vocal minority to reduce number of days for all members, instead of just Tests against the second class citizens Ireland and Afghanistan?
DTM
Roar Rookie
C A M, the other thing is that (in most countries and most of the time) the wickets are prepared to last 5 days. Just as easy (if not easier) to prepare them to last 4 days.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Dougs, I'm confident that your recollection is accurate. The most telling numbers here are the overs - seems like about 520 were bowled over the 5 days. That simply would not happen today and we'd be looking at a maximum of just 450 overs. The administrators, the umpires and the players are responsible for the modern day slow pace of play.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Yes, the pitch wont break up as much but if you have 4 days of 100 overs there's more activity in the 4 days of play. Also, it will be more of a challenge for 3 quicks and a spinner to bowl 100 overs so perhaps teams start opting for more all rounders who might not previously got a game. It would be interesting if someone did the stats on the average number of overs in a test match over the last 10 years. My guess is it would be around 350. The big issue for me is that the game drags on because there is no urgency to get the overs in. They have 6 hours of playing time to bowl 90 overs and a 30 minute allowance. Yet watch the players and the umpires between overs and they all take their time. Of course, broadcasters like this because they sell more adverts.
Rellum
Roar Guru
5 day Tests will become a thing of the past just because the standard of batting continues to drop with only roads potentially going the distance
Nobody likes a smarta*s
Roar Rookie
Keep real cricket at 5 days; patience is a virtue! The short forms of the FC game started at 65 overs and have been 60, 50, 40, 20 overs and then 100 balls. So we have been getting closer to the best length of short-form of the game. With any luck, in our lifetimes, we will see the short form reduced to zero balls (ouch)
Ummi
Guest
Test cricket is never a problem the real problem is t20s and their stupid franchise leagues.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Administrators have long courted the corporate dollar. Start on a Thu, and sell hospitality and boxes to business types for Thu and Fri. Then sell general admission to the general public for Sat and Sun. The best of both worlds...
Big Daddy
Roar Rookie
Cricket surely has changed over the years . For those old enough to remember Boxing day used to NSW v Victoria and tbh I'm not sure when they went to tests. Tests used to start on a Friday and again I can be corrected there was a rest day . Today's tests are starting mid week and struggle to get reasonable big crowds particularly if the matches are a little bit one sided . My train of thought is the top 8 play 5 day matches and the next tier of 8 play 4 day matches and matches should be played on days that are able to draw more people e.g weekends . I think the dominance of the usual suspects and the fall from grace of countries like Pakistan and West Indies had resulted in 1 sided matches . T20 has to take a lot of blame as we play T20 world cups every 3 years and flourishing domestic T20 competition has overtaken test cricket.
Gary David
Roar Rookie
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. More spectators in person add to the appeal of watching it on TV. We all now know how ugly watching sport without fans is, watching some of the test cricket in Pakistan has been painful due to the tiny crowds. It all feeds in together, even on TV how great is it to hear the roar of a crowd. And with the exception of Indian expats, I don't think the streaming from outside the host country is a big factor.
Dougs
Roar Rookie
None at all. Sorry. ????