Cricinfo seems to be be featuring at least one article per week on the future of test cricket and/or the ODI. It's all getting a bit tiresome; the columnists appear to be putting together the same old cliches, while offering no fresh insights of any kind. Harsha Bhogle's latest article is a case in point.
Unfortunately, the article still feels like a wasted opportunity because he doesn't (adequately) make the case for test cricket's existence, or suggest ways in which it might be effectively sustained. He touches upon a possible reason for preserving the format in the last paragraph:
This has me thinking. Do we have any compelling reasons for protecting test cricket? Off the top of my head:
The Need for Balance. Currently, people are drawn to the shorter forms, especially T-20 because it is still regulated to an extent, it isn't shoved down one's throat for 12 months of the year. Remember the format isn't even a decade old: my feeling is the Indian audience would tire of it if it wasn't largely confined to the IPL for two months of the year. You need to provide alternatives for the remaining months, even if the revenues they generate aren't comparable with those provided by the shortest form.
Preserving Skills. Guys like Pollard and Afridi aside, it is mostly players who have excelled in the longer form of the game who remain the biggest draw, whatever the format. Players still value success in tests, whatever their motivations may be - David Warner and Kevin Pietersen to name two. The basic skills nurtured from playing test cricket are still a measure of quality for many of us. Point being, in isolation the shorter formats would breed one type of player alone, and quickly become become unwatchable. Making room for all sorts is one of cricket's biggest strengths.
Maintain a Nursery for Feeding the Other Forms. Related to the point above. If the shorter forms of the game are indeed its breadwinners, you need a steady stream of quality players to sustain them. So the administrators could view test cricket in a different light - as a breeding ground for potential limited-overs stars.
Clutching at straws, maybe, but this is all I'm able to come up with. Are there any other possible reasons, or is its continued existence simply not justified any more?
The most recent piece is from one of my favourite contemporary Indian writers, Mukul Kesavan. In this article, he does a reasonable job of establishing the context in which things have changed rapidly over the last half-decade or so. His diagnosis does include one important observation:
Pundits, cricket administrators and news channels were all part of the IPL's booming economy, so there was no stable perch from which the interests of Test cricket could be independently articulated. All the people who might have been expected to make the case for the long game - distinguished ex-players, concerned administrators, veteran commentators - were so busy feeding at the IPL's trough that it was easier to duck the problem by saying all was well.
Unfortunately, the article still feels like a wasted opportunity because he doesn't (adequately) make the case for test cricket's existence, or suggest ways in which it might be effectively sustained. He touches upon a possible reason for preserving the format in the last paragraph:
It's useful to think of Test cricket as a tropical rain forest that nurtures a diversity of things bred out of the monoculture of limited-overs cricket. Diversity escapes the balance sheets of money men, but it is, as ecologists have taught us, invaluable.
This has me thinking. Do we have any compelling reasons for protecting test cricket? Off the top of my head:
The Need for Balance. Currently, people are drawn to the shorter forms, especially T-20 because it is still regulated to an extent, it isn't shoved down one's throat for 12 months of the year. Remember the format isn't even a decade old: my feeling is the Indian audience would tire of it if it wasn't largely confined to the IPL for two months of the year. You need to provide alternatives for the remaining months, even if the revenues they generate aren't comparable with those provided by the shortest form.
Preserving Skills. Guys like Pollard and Afridi aside, it is mostly players who have excelled in the longer form of the game who remain the biggest draw, whatever the format. Players still value success in tests, whatever their motivations may be - David Warner and Kevin Pietersen to name two. The basic skills nurtured from playing test cricket are still a measure of quality for many of us. Point being, in isolation the shorter formats would breed one type of player alone, and quickly become become unwatchable. Making room for all sorts is one of cricket's biggest strengths.
Maintain a Nursery for Feeding the Other Forms. Related to the point above. If the shorter forms of the game are indeed its breadwinners, you need a steady stream of quality players to sustain them. So the administrators could view test cricket in a different light - as a breeding ground for potential limited-overs stars.
Clutching at straws, maybe, but this is all I'm able to come up with. Are there any other possible reasons, or is its continued existence simply not justified any more?
No comments:
Post a Comment