Enjoying Test Cricket
I keep hearing all these intellectual interviews of past cricketers about the need for reviving test cricket. The compelling argument for doing this has been the empty stands and probably the dropping viewership on TV. Almost everyone, from Geoff Boycott to Ian Chappell to Kumar Sangakkara, has put forth their suggestions for the so called revival of test cricket.
To start with, I simply don't agree that test cricket needs any revival. It is still the form of cricket that best tests a players capabilities. Any cricket fan worth his salt would tell you that the joy of watching a test match far far outlives the joy of watching a T20 or even an ODI.
So what is it that is so enjoyable about Test cricket? And why can't the limited overs version come any close?
The answer is pretty simple. Cricket is not only about fierce bowling or aggressive batting or scintillating fielding. There is an entire part called "strategy". Rather strategy is a part of every sport. And the joy of watching a sport lies in understanding the strategy being employed by the comtetitors and then seeing how well it is executed upon. And since test cricket goes for 5 days, there is huge amount of time for strategising and implementing it. And there are a wide variety of variables in it. The condition of the pitch, the form of the opposition players, form of your own players, condition of the ball, weather, state of the game, time of the day, etc. More the variables, more the combinations and therefore more possible strategies. It is totally fascinating to learn and understand these strategies and see how things are shaping up.
If anything the ICC should try to educate people about what to see in Test matches. I think crowds will throng the stadiums if people understand what is happening.
Having said that, I do think test cricket could do with some changes. Here's what I think.
1. Cricket matches are won by scoring runs and taking wickets. History is the proof (Yes... while thinking I had "Itihas gavah hai" in mind :) ) that the best cricketers are the ones which did either of these (or both) things in huge numbers. And beyond that history tells us that the best cricketers were those who did these things "FAST"!!
Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and modern day great Virendar Sehwag are reverred as the best in the business because they scored runs quickly. And they are proof that scoring runs quickly is possible. Not everyone has to go through the grind like a Geoff Boycott or Rahul Dravid. Sure, today already most test matches have an average scoring rate of about 4 runs an over, why can't it get better? Batsman should acquire the skills to be more positive while scoring runs.
Shane Warne, Muralidharan or Glenn Mcgrath are greats because every time they came on to bowl, they created chances of getting wickets. If every bowler was able to do that, it would be simply awesome. Bowlers should be more aggressive and attacking and always in the quest to get batsman out.
Think of it this way, if there were 5 consecutive ODIs, would it bring in the audiences? Probably yes... beacuse ODI cricket is fast paced. It doens't have as much strategy as test matches... but it does have some (and part of the reason ODI's popularity is waning is because most the strategies have been tried and tested and ODIs seem to be mundane). Fast paced cricket with lots of strategy would be "yummy" isn't it? :-).
2. Day night tests
Surely this has to happen. On the one hand administrators expect people to come to stadims but on the other they schedule the match from 9am to 4.30 pm. Nobody would want to leave their job and come to watch cricket.
In some ways, test cricket is similar to classical music. Classical music isn't just about the words or the sound that it creates. One needs to understand it a little bit. Only then can one really appreciate it.
Hopefully things will only improve in the days to come. There will be exciting test matches which everyone will enjoy.. both, on the stadiums and on TV.
-Shri
To start with, I simply don't agree that test cricket needs any revival. It is still the form of cricket that best tests a players capabilities. Any cricket fan worth his salt would tell you that the joy of watching a test match far far outlives the joy of watching a T20 or even an ODI.
So what is it that is so enjoyable about Test cricket? And why can't the limited overs version come any close?
The answer is pretty simple. Cricket is not only about fierce bowling or aggressive batting or scintillating fielding. There is an entire part called "strategy". Rather strategy is a part of every sport. And the joy of watching a sport lies in understanding the strategy being employed by the comtetitors and then seeing how well it is executed upon. And since test cricket goes for 5 days, there is huge amount of time for strategising and implementing it. And there are a wide variety of variables in it. The condition of the pitch, the form of the opposition players, form of your own players, condition of the ball, weather, state of the game, time of the day, etc. More the variables, more the combinations and therefore more possible strategies. It is totally fascinating to learn and understand these strategies and see how things are shaping up.
If anything the ICC should try to educate people about what to see in Test matches. I think crowds will throng the stadiums if people understand what is happening.
Having said that, I do think test cricket could do with some changes. Here's what I think.
1. Cricket matches are won by scoring runs and taking wickets. History is the proof (Yes... while thinking I had "Itihas gavah hai" in mind :) ) that the best cricketers are the ones which did either of these (or both) things in huge numbers. And beyond that history tells us that the best cricketers were those who did these things "FAST"!!
Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar and modern day great Virendar Sehwag are reverred as the best in the business because they scored runs quickly. And they are proof that scoring runs quickly is possible. Not everyone has to go through the grind like a Geoff Boycott or Rahul Dravid. Sure, today already most test matches have an average scoring rate of about 4 runs an over, why can't it get better? Batsman should acquire the skills to be more positive while scoring runs.
Shane Warne, Muralidharan or Glenn Mcgrath are greats because every time they came on to bowl, they created chances of getting wickets. If every bowler was able to do that, it would be simply awesome. Bowlers should be more aggressive and attacking and always in the quest to get batsman out.
Think of it this way, if there were 5 consecutive ODIs, would it bring in the audiences? Probably yes... beacuse ODI cricket is fast paced. It doens't have as much strategy as test matches... but it does have some (and part of the reason ODI's popularity is waning is because most the strategies have been tried and tested and ODIs seem to be mundane). Fast paced cricket with lots of strategy would be "yummy" isn't it? :-).
2. Day night tests
Surely this has to happen. On the one hand administrators expect people to come to stadims but on the other they schedule the match from 9am to 4.30 pm. Nobody would want to leave their job and come to watch cricket.
In some ways, test cricket is similar to classical music. Classical music isn't just about the words or the sound that it creates. One needs to understand it a little bit. Only then can one really appreciate it.
Hopefully things will only improve in the days to come. There will be exciting test matches which everyone will enjoy.. both, on the stadiums and on TV.
-Shri
Labels: classical music, cricket, odi, T20, Test cricket
posted by Shri at 6:07 PM
2 Comments:
Shri, your analogy about test cricket and classical music is very apt - so much so that what you say about test cricket is also happening to classical music!
Thanks to the fast declining patronage, it is changing-right down to the way it is taught these days. 'Snazzier' ragas (popular, more pleasant sounding, less difficult to sing) and chhota khayals ( the faster and shorter versions of those unbearably long winded bada khayals, where the table just refuses to move forward ) are becoming ever more popular.
I sense the disagreement and disappointment of the purist whenever there is talk jazzing up test cricket. But it really depends on the motive, isn't it?
If it is about re-creating interest,pulling in the viewership and making it commercially viable, test cricket needs to adapt fast and perhaps radically.
If it is about recreating interest in the delights of the game, and there is willingness to wait as long as it takes, perhaps the players, commentators and authorities need to come out, explain the game, and the strategies, and the finer points of appreciation. The game must be made easy to understand by everyone-something like a 'Test Cricket for Dummies'.
And the third option is: Do nothing.
Let evolution take its course-perhaps test cricket will die a natural death as the number of supporters dwindle. And that is not necessarily such a bad thing:)
I think method #2 is the best way ahead. But its not about "re-creating interest" ... since I believe people never had interest in Test cricket for the right reasons.
There was, is and always will be fascination to see "how-bat-hits-ball". As long as the novelty of "how-bat-hits-ball" was intact, people thronged the stadiums.
With TV there is "bat-hits-ball" 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. So there is no novelty in it. Plus ODIs and T20 provide a more compact form of "bat-hits-ball".
To enjoy Test cricket, one must definitely see what is happening on the field, how it could be changed, how batsman could make more runs or how bowlers could get more people out and think of the conditions and so on. Its more involved than "bat-hits-ball".
Once that happens everyone will enjoy test cricket.
Similarly, I believe classical musical is not just about how "Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Dha Ni Sa" or "Do re mi fa so la ti"... its much more involved. One needs to be a bit more involved and it will be interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home