Context. Relevance. Boost.
Ever since the World Test Championship (WTC) was formally announced towards the end of July 2019, these three words have been used more often than ‘tampered pitches’ or ‘Bazball’ while discussing Test cricket.
Two WTC cycles and four years down the line, it is time to take a hard look at whether the WTC has achieved its objectives. Has it brought context to every Test match that is played across the globe? Has it made every Test relevant? And has it given a boost to Test cricket, or has it in some way shrunk Test cricket?
READ |WTC 2023-2025: India full schedule, tours, matches list
“It has scaled Test cricket upward. Even in terms of the attempts to do well overseas. England and Australia toured Pakistan and won there. Sri Lanka won a Test in New Zealand. India has been consistently winning Tests or series overseas, be it in Australia, England, or South Africa,” says Sunil Joshi, the former India left-arm spinner who has been involved in each of the WTC cycles in different capacities.
London, June 08 (ANI): India's Ravindra Jadeja celebrates a wicket of Australia with teammates during Day Two of the test match between India and Australia in the ICC World Test Championship (WTC) final at The Oval, in London on Thursday. (ANI Photo) | Photo Credit: ANI
In the first cycle, Joshi was Bangladesh’s spin bowling coach. For most of the second cycle, he was India’s national selector, including nine months as the chief selector that coincided with the first WTC final. While the first cycle, marred by the pandemic, saw a qualification rule change in the end stages, the second cycle turned out to be a much more competitive affair.
Besides India and Australia—the eventual finalists—Sri Lanka and South Africa were also in contention till the dying stages.
Still, the fact that each of the nine teams that feature in the WTC ends up playing six series over two years makes the tournament difficult to follow for a lay fan. Add to it the complex ranking system based on the average number of points earned, and things only get more cumbersome.
“The last one, though debatable, saw two of the best teams in the world play each other. In my opinion, we had the two right teams playing against each other,” says Lance Klusener, the former South Africa allrounder who has been Afghanistan’s head coach in the past.
It’s probably not far off in terms of the system at the moment. Can it be a little more inclusive? Possibly.”
Klusener hints at the need for the WTC to involve all 12 Test-playing nations—that too on an equal basis—for the WTC to be recognised by the whole ecosystem. At the moment, it seems illogical that only nine of the 12 nations compete in the championship, leaving the bottom three—Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Ireland—begging the other Boards to feature them in a Test.
Even among the top nine teams, the possibility of every team facing each other—if not in each cycle, at least over two cycles—is zero. The primary reason for conceiving a six-series format is to avoid the politically problematic India-Pakistan clash.
Bazball charge: England ‘s radical approach to Test cricket was one of the highlights of the Championship. | Photo Credit: Getty Images
“The number of matches should be equal for all teams going forward. That would raise the bar and also make the qualification process more even. The ICC should ensure that all the teams play a certain number of matches—ideally, it should be 10—in the two-year cycle, so that there’s a level playing field,” says Habibul Bashar, a former Bangladesh captain who is now a national selector.
“I know time is a constraint, but it would be highly beneficial for all teams if the number of home and away games were restricted to five, respectively. That way, teams won’t have any sort of unfair advantage, and everyone will have lots to play for until the last leg.”
READ | Five ways in which India can improve its Test cricket fortunes
Klusener agrees with Habibul, especially when it comes to making it inclusive, but is not sure whether it’s practically possible to let all 12 teams have a crack at it.
“Test cricket is slightly on the back foot in terms of fighting for time. Yes, I agree; it’s not a perfect system, but it’s a decent system. Like all other competitions, it’s a peg in the ground for now in terms of the format and how it’s working,” he says.
“I am sure we will find more ways as we move forward. I am sure the clever people will come up with some ideas, but in terms of inclusiveness, I am not sure if teams like Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, or Ireland are going to compete for something like this. Should they be included in this competition? Probably not.”
Even Joshi is on the same page. “If you are playing a World Test Championship, it can’t be a case of the top three or four teams dominating the calendar. All the Test-playing nations should play each other. The format can then be worked around, but teams should not be allowed to cancel any series.”
For now, though, an inclusive system looks like a distant dream. Let alone the newbies—Afghanistan and Ireland have played seven Tests each since they were granted Test status in 2018—even the smaller teams are finding it tough to get a crack against the Big Three. Australia, for instance, last hosted Bangladesh for a Test match in 2003.
Last gasp: The first Test match between New Zealand and Sri Lanka in March was a cliffhanger, with centurion Kane Williamson leading them to a last-ball victory. | Photo Credit: AFP
As a result, rather than making Test cricket more competitive and inclusive, the WTC may have ended up being detrimental to it. India, Australia, and England have been playing five-Test series against each other, making pitches that suit their teams. And the likes of Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand are happy with shorter series, considering the lack of commercial support for Test cricket in their backyard. Add to it the mushrooming of T20 leagues across the globe, and it makes for an intriguing scenario for Tests in general and WTC, in particular, going forward.
“People are cutting off Test cricket to fit in one-day series. But it’s still important that we are at least having Test cricket, even though it’s one game here and two games there. Still, it’s better than having no games,” Klusener states.
“Unfortunately, the way cricket is moving, the focus is on T20s and the leagues, and to make space for those leagues, Test cricket has taken a bit of a backseat in terms of time allocation. But I still think a two-match Test series is better than no Test series.”
Bashar, though, ends with a silver lining to the dark cloud surrounding the Test cricket ecosystem.
“The focus may have now shifted to the T20s and franchise cricket, but I sincerely believe that there’s no substitute for Test cricket if you want to produce quality cricketers,” he says.
“The likes of Sunil Gavaskar or Sachin Tendulkar became legends because they played a huge amount of red-ball cricket. Now, at a time when most of the Tests are becoming result-oriented, the WTC is a step in the right direction.
All it needs is a bit of attention in even allotments of matches and ensuring a level playing field for all teams in it.”
Is anybody listening?
Comments
SHARE