It’s easy to start descending into the five stages of grief if you believe all that’s being said about Test cricket’s potentially grisly demise looming on the horizon.
Cricket nuffies need to revolt against the T20 revolution.
The alternative is the Kubler-Ross model of dealing with the loss of a loved one that Test cricket fans seems to be in one stage or another at the moment – denial that the format is dying, anger about the ICC’s inaction, bargaining with whichever dubious financial devil can come to the rescue, depression that the T20 circus is getting all the spotlight or acceptance that all good things must come to an end.
Test cricket is three years away from its 150th anniversary and the great sporting cockroach that it is, don’t rule out the prospect that it will not only survive the current gloomy forecasts but be around long after the doomsayers have met their own mortal doom.
Make no mistake, the current cluster of calamity that’s mounting against Test cricket is the greatest threat to its existence.
T20 is making pretty much all of the coin for the ICC and it’s raking in numbers that couldn’t have been dreamt about just a couple of decades ago in a time before the IPL.
Cricket’s administrators can save the traditional format if public pressure is such that the fans vote with their feet at games and eyeballs on their TV screens.
But T20 is also entering a crucial stage of its exponential explosion.
It won’t quite be boom or bust but the current rate of T20 leagues popping up in heartland cricket nations and new frontiers is not sustainable.
Like video stores in the 1980s and dotcom businesses before the turn of the century, they will cannibalise each other to the point where only a few will remain standing.
West Indies celebrate after beating England at Grenada. (Photo by Ashley Allen/Getty Images)
The IPL will continue to be the main feast but some of the other pale imitations will have a small shelf life or never be relevant beyond their own borders.
Popularity is not everything. Baywatch held the title of being the most watched TV show on the planet in its heyday. That didn’t make it the best.
Or as 1990s philosopher Wayne Campbell theorised (while playing ice hockey, another sport with limited geographic reach): “Led Zeppelin didn’t write tunes that every one liked. They left that to the Bee Gees.”
Test cricket wasn’t even known as Test cricket when it first got underway in 1877 and Australia, England and South Africa (12 years later) were the only countries participating in this very British Empire peculiar pastime for half a century.
The Caribbean outposts of the Commonwealth were merged to form the West Indies in 1928 with New Zealand and India earning their stripes soon afterwards.
Even with the addition of Pakistan in 1952, it meant that Test cricket had no more than seven nations for more than its first 100 years of competition.
Over the past four decades, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and six years ago Ireland and Afghanistan were granted Test status, mostly with limited success.
Sri Lanka’s rise to a team that can beat anyone on their day and South Africa’s readmission from the apartheid boycott in the early 1990s have been the only truly substantive additions to Test cricket in modern times.
An all-time great like former Australian captain Allan Border played against five teams for the vast majority of his Test career with a handful of games against Sri Lanka and South Africa (at the very end) added to the mix.
As a side note to the current drama surrounding South Africa selecting a B-grade Test squad to tour New Zealand, how galling must it be for the players who missed out on international careers due to their government’s racist policies over the course more than 20 years.
Allan Border. (Photo by Adrian Murrell/Getty Images)
The current glass half empty viewpoint on Test cricket’s future is that teams outside of the Big Three of Australia, India and England will not be competitive because they can’t afford the running costs associated with the five-day format.
It’s true, unless drastic changes are made to cricket’s uneven distribution of wealth, the Neglected Nine of the 12 Test-playing nations will struggle to compete.
But the fact is many of these countries have never been consistently able to give the top-ranked nations a run for their money (on the field, that is) in the longest format.
It’s much easier to jag wins in T20s or even in a 50-over fixture but the testing nature of the red-ball contest separates the wheat from the chaff.
Looking at the glass half full, the likes of New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Pakistan will continue to punch above their weight in Tests even if they are regularly hampered by players being unavailable due to white-ball commitments.
The decision to rest Shaheen Shah Afridi from Pakistan’s line-up in Sydney was weak as pea soup on many fronts but the tourists again put up a strong showing and would have likely upset the Aussies if not for their day-three batting collapse.
Sri Lanka nearly made the last World Test Championship final and the Black Caps won the first one.
(Photo by Adam Davy/PA Images via Getty Images)
South Africa claim they will do their best to put their best team on the park in future Tests and that this upcoming farce was purely the result of the calendar clash with their T20 league.
If it’s their way of letting other countries know not to schedule any tours during this upcoming calendar slot, then it’s fair to say the message has been received loud and clear across the cricketing globe.
The ICC executives clearly think that cricket can cope with the logjam of formats and competitions – they’ve signed up to add the Olympic Games to their crowded calendar in 2028.
If T20 is the fast food of cricket, then Test cricket can surely remain on the menu as the satisfying cuisine for true connoisseurs.
As has been the case for the past 147 years, there are enough of us nuffies out there to dine out on Test cricket.
It’s an acquired taste and not palatable for everybody but like all the classics, it has stood the test of time.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
NFL Europe got good crowds in Germany which is why most teams were based there with American soldiers being a big part of the crowds and it went for many years not a few years. The problem they had was no Tv revenue from the USA not crowds, american soldiers numbers being reduced in Germany. NFL gets hardly any revenue worldwide I think its around 100 million, these overseas matches have high ticket prices and are staged in big cities in rich countries so they can charge high prices. Cricket most countries are interested in their own national team, some countries have high immigrants populations from cricket nations who are interested in the national team. Staging a match involving India will be succesfull in a lot of rich countries USA,Canada, Australia because of their Indian population. Ashes no one is actually that interested apart from AUstralians and the English, and Australia has plenty of the English. There is reason why NFL would not take a match to Ireland,New zealand, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. They are small or poor countries. In England they charge up to 200 pounds for a single day of Ashes cricket, you would not get 10 pounds in the countries you have put down. Ireland weather is not suitable for cricket and they have few fans as well. NFL plays proper matches overseas Liverpool dont here , if you payed a couple of hundred dollars for an exhibition match your a fool like the rest of the crowd. Furthermore the womens world cup here many of the teams were no better than A-league W teams and a lot players from that world cup are in the A-league W.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I clearly say all either of us have are anecdotes… you do know how to read, right? LOL
Ad Tastic
Roar Rookie
LOL! You claim my facts are anecdotes but then state youve been talking to your mates overseas and everyone loves test cricket. You do understand what an anecdote is, right?
Barb Dwyer
Roar Rookie
Standing up for woman's rights in Afghanistan does not make a country narcissistic. A clear agreement was made and Afghanistan broke it.
Paul Suttor
Expert
the question for women's cricket is do they bother trying to get Tests up and running on a regular basis or stick with T20 and 50-over games as their main way of going global
Boo-urns
Roar Rookie
The pipeline of 20/20 players has never been stronger, because there are so many competitions for these guys to develop. And most of these comps are funded by the nations that can afford it (Aus/India/Eng). I think having stronger domestic competitions in 4/5 day and 50 over cricket in the nations that can support those comps (Australia, England and India) with enough space to bring in foreign players is a good way to strengthen development. Might also drum up some interest in these competitions.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
It's not the worst idea I've read. The WTC final is supposedly played at a neutral venue, so why not expand the finals to have two semi finals for the top 4 sides, played at grounds outside India, Australia and England, with the winners to pay the final in one of the countries that could really use a boost by bringing a high profile Test to that nation.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Those countries also have a long cricket playing past as well. All of them are commonwealth or ex-commonwealth countries. By competitive aiming to compete well with Sri Lanka. Not all teams in any sport are as good as the top four or five. But the others aren't so weak in more developed sports that they're completely thrashed. The goal is competitiveness.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
well hopefully het goes off in the ODI series and is irresistible think India would prefer to face starc than him next year?
matth
Roar Guru
If only he did t get injured jumping out of bed in the mornings
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
India have been paying Test Cricket for over 90 years & have a 1.4B population with huge stadiums. Pakistan has been playing Tests for over 70 years with a 230M population. Totally different ball park Playmaker. Test Cricket is not developing in those countries, it is already a religion. Sri Lanka aren't bad but they are only successful in Test when they are playing Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland etc. BTW, what do you rate as competitive?
Gibbo
Roar Pro
Very well said, BG. Harris wouldn't have been my first (or any number) pick, but yes, if he's been the anointed replacement by Davey himself and has been the one constant in the squad, then yes, it makes sense that he would've been in there.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh. India too, West Indies.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Give me a example of one of these countries you describe?
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
As I said elsewhere, spare a thought for Marcus Harris. In the squad all summer, air apparent to Warners spot according to Davey and not even in discussions let alone the Test squad. We want guys like McSweeney to want to playing their best to make the Test squad, but it hardly seems worth it if they're seemingly being ignored.
Gibbo
Roar Pro
George Bailey was a selector's captain's pick. It was too soon for him to be in the role after he retired. Andrew McDonald, the coach, shouldn't be involved because then whom could they trust. The messages it sends to the Test prospects are horrible! Think about a guy like Nathan McSweeney. He's apparently being groomed to be a future Test captain, yet he's nowhere around the team. Why wasn't he in the frame for selection in the middle order if Smith moves up?
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Look at some test teams that are stronger than Afghanistan. Many are developing countries, and have all the same challenges you describe. But they managed to be competitive. Maybe not number 1 in the world but competitive. That's the first goal. Not simply to beat everyone but to be a good competitor. And they do play tests, now. So if they do, Afghanistan probably will as well.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
You don't think it will cost too much? Getting some of these countries to be competitive at Test level is a 10 year project. To get Test Cricket to work in these countries some basics are going to need to be met including home crowd attendance. The Afghanistan/GDP per person is $USD370pa. In Australia it is $USD60,000 pa per person. Unless you are offering free entry, no one is going to turn up to watch the games. How exciting is an empty cricket ground? Imagine what you are going have to pay topline coaching & support staff to live there with there families in Afghanistan? Never going to happen. As soon as an emerging star appears, the IPL will be throwing megabucks at them & they will be staying in 5 star hotels. They won't be hanging around to play in a test team that get's beaten in 3 days by NZ or Australia.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
My concern is how much of the cricketing hierarchy seems to be buying into this close approach to cricket? At least two of the selectors, obviously the coaching staff and 12 players all think this is the right approach and it might well be - in the short term. CA don't give a toss. As long as the teams are winning now, they're happy. In the longer term, what messages is it putting out to budding Test prospects? I can't think of any positives.
Gibbo
Roar Pro
Exactly! The best example that I can think of for this is when Neser made his Test debut. He and Jhye Richardson bowled really well in that match and both, with injuries to bowlers and uncertainty around the squad, should have been in contention to retain their spots in Melbourne. However, they apparently had “General Soreness” (which I get all the time after my club games) and were not considered. A bloke named Scott Boland made his Test debut and the rest was history. It always seemed to me like “general soreness” was code for “thanks for playing, we had no choice but to play you, but we don’t want you in the actual side anymore.”