FOR a month in South Africa we went in search of a good cricket match. We had occasional glimpses of one, a few unkept promises, but not a game that tingled your senses. The sense of anticipation in cricket, like with most meals, often outweighs reality but it has an excitement all its own. In the one-day games, the result was far too inevitable. Occasionally, even if the result was some distance away, the strong aroma was a giveaway.
Except for a brief period in East London, when India threatened to chase a big score on a lively track, there was not a single game where the result was in balance long enough to begin a debate. At Centurion, Klusener and Boucher fought well but they were never really going to get there. In the end, a one-day international is about checking the time of your next flight and ensuring you do not leave your socks behind in the relevant Holiday Inn.
By contrast Test cricket has never been in better health. In England they talk of the Golden Era of cricket, and hype grows exponentially with passing years, but it would have to be a mouth-watering spectacle to be anything better than what we are seeing now. Almost every Test match has a result and to those who played the game in the fifties this must be as inexplicable as someone wearing spiked green gloves today.
When I was starting out in the profession, it was fairly common for people to say that the death of Test cricket was near; that one-day cricket would soon be the longest form of the game and that in keeping with the profile of modern young men and women, five-day cricket would soon become an anachronism. About now, I should have been seeing Test cricket being referred to the way World War II is or, to be daringly modern, the way the Ambassador is. Nothing quite like that has happened and I wonder sometimes if prophecies of doom produce the most attractively written prose. If anything, Test cricket is in robust health and taking giant strides forward.
It begs a debate on re-thinking the one-day game which, if anything, is looking tackier and more jaded than Test cricket. You cannot have Australia playing South Africa every day and just about anything else seems like it isn't worth the trouble. The biggest innovation in the game, the field restrictions, came over twenty years ago and it has taken a period of utter toothlessness in the bowling to produce the other major legislation. One bouncer per over is not only welcome but, as the news from South Africa confirms, working well even if the umpires seem completely clueless about when to call a no-ball and when to let it go.
There have been some efforts in Australia with jiggling around the field restrictions though if you are a spinner you don't even want to start reading that. The more promising, and more debatable, option is to have a team of more than eleven players though at any given time there will only be eleven on the field. I find that attractive because it could end up taking the bits and pieces player out of the game and bring back the specialist. I find quite delicious the idea of playing with eight batsmen, a wicket-keeper and five bowlers with a couple of batsmen sitting out for a while and the bowlers putting their feet up once the side comes off the field. I believe it will raise standards, keep more players involved and allow for some leeway in choice of players.
It might seem radical but then so did the two circles and coloured clothing. And all those that called that daft were spectacularly wrong. Fourteen players a side may not be the only way to go ahead, there might be many better ways of making the game more interesting, but I like it primarily because it will mean a return to specialist skills; to good bowlers bowling to good batsmen.
That is what Test cricket is about. Having said that, it has acquired a new life because most of its top players bring to Test cricket the flair and the urgency they have imbibed from the one-day game. There are many more short singles, the fielding is probably better than it has ever been in cricket and stroke making is just sensational. The mindset of not being able to hang around seems to have permeated everywhere and while that can be exasperating for a coach it is pretty solid entertainment for everyone.
I actually have another theory for the greater flair we are seeing. The one-day game necessitates a very accurate line because anything away from the stumps is called wide. Given that, a lot of bowlers are actually bowling a closer, and automatically more attacking, line. It makes playing shots a bit easier even if it gives the bowler a bit of a chance. Finally that is what cricket is all about and while we yearn to see the innings-building qualities of a Sunil Gavaskar, we are not short on either long or classy innings. Sachin Tendulkar's sensational century at Bloemfontein is a typical example of that. Where, in another era, a short ball outside off stump would have been allowed through to the wicket-keeper all the time, Tendulkar converted it into a run-scoring opportunity by chipping it over the slips.
In many ways, this dynamic nature of the sport is thrilling in itself. If one keeps feeding off the other, both will grow. One-day cricket grew out of the inadequacies of Test cricket and is now transferring its strengths to the longer form. I think the time has come for the parent game to give its younger version a face-lift, buy it some new clothes.
Comments
SHARE