Ashes to Ashes, Test to Dust!
I think it's over.
There's no hope for Test cricket anymore. Much as purists like us make our case for Test cricket, it doesn't look like it will work.
Geoffrey Boycott, that great champion of everything five-day long, says: "We need to get those booms (bums) to fill the seats at Test matches. But it's not happening except in Australia and England." And even there it's a stretch. Depends massively on the opposition.
Sunil Gavaskar, a member of every committee the BCCI runs, admits: "Young cricketers are taking the wrong path by thinking IPL is the be-all and end-all in cricket."
And that's the truth.
West Indian cricketers might just have started a trend. Prior to that, players like Shane Bond and others had chosen the Indian Cricket League over their nations. Now, Andrew Flintoff has furthered it. In countries outside India (and that's a very limited number anyway), players do not get paid enough; they do in the IPL and similar tournaments. So why not bowl four overs instead of 50? Or even 10 in ODIs? Or bat for an hour instead of many hours? That too, for less money?
And that's only from the players' point of view. What about those 'booms'?
The old argument: If they get more entertainment in three hours, why bother with 30 not-so-entertaining hours, which might not end in a result?
Now, if we accept that T20 is the writing on the wall, is there any point, really, in persisting with Test cricket? Personally, I don't think so. Yes, I am a purist. I like nothing better than a good Ashes fight or a gripping fifth day, which sees the batting side battle out a draw. But not everyone does. And truth is, only a fraction of the Test matches actually end in such super finishes.
This suggests to me, that T20 should become the only form of the game. Yes, I won't like it. But is there a choice?
Compare it to a sport like football, still the most popular sport in the world. You don't have 50-minuters and 90-minuters and 150-minuters, do you? 90 minutes. Maybe another 30. That's it. One format. One sport. The optimum in terms of entertainment.
That has to be cricket's future if it has to survive.
Throw in multi-nation tournaments - a World Cup. The IPL, and IPL-like tournaments around the world. Because really, kids are not being trained to play their cover drives when they get a half-volley; they train in switch hitting; the ball goes to the third-man boundary instead of cover.
And that's the reality.
There's no hope for Test cricket anymore. Much as purists like us make our case for Test cricket, it doesn't look like it will work.
Geoffrey Boycott, that great champion of everything five-day long, says: "We need to get those booms (bums) to fill the seats at Test matches. But it's not happening except in Australia and England." And even there it's a stretch. Depends massively on the opposition.
Sunil Gavaskar, a member of every committee the BCCI runs, admits: "Young cricketers are taking the wrong path by thinking IPL is the be-all and end-all in cricket."
And that's the truth.
West Indian cricketers might just have started a trend. Prior to that, players like Shane Bond and others had chosen the Indian Cricket League over their nations. Now, Andrew Flintoff has furthered it. In countries outside India (and that's a very limited number anyway), players do not get paid enough; they do in the IPL and similar tournaments. So why not bowl four overs instead of 50? Or even 10 in ODIs? Or bat for an hour instead of many hours? That too, for less money?
And that's only from the players' point of view. What about those 'booms'?
The old argument: If they get more entertainment in three hours, why bother with 30 not-so-entertaining hours, which might not end in a result?
Now, if we accept that T20 is the writing on the wall, is there any point, really, in persisting with Test cricket? Personally, I don't think so. Yes, I am a purist. I like nothing better than a good Ashes fight or a gripping fifth day, which sees the batting side battle out a draw. But not everyone does. And truth is, only a fraction of the Test matches actually end in such super finishes.
This suggests to me, that T20 should become the only form of the game. Yes, I won't like it. But is there a choice?
Compare it to a sport like football, still the most popular sport in the world. You don't have 50-minuters and 90-minuters and 150-minuters, do you? 90 minutes. Maybe another 30. That's it. One format. One sport. The optimum in terms of entertainment.
That has to be cricket's future if it has to survive.
Throw in multi-nation tournaments - a World Cup. The IPL, and IPL-like tournaments around the world. Because really, kids are not being trained to play their cover drives when they get a half-volley; they train in switch hitting; the ball goes to the third-man boundary instead of cover.
And that's the reality.
posted by Black Muddy River at 9:45 pm
<< Home