Saving Test Cricket: Some rule changes that can make tests more interesting

Test cricket has come under a lot of fire of late

“In test cricket, unless four innings are completed, a draw is declared. If teams bowl defensively or if batsmen play too slowly, no one wins. Least of all the poor buggers who wasted five days watching.”

-Chinaman, the legend of Pradeep Mathew

Test cricket is akin to fugu fish- sumptuous when properly cooked but lethal with the slightest of mistakes. Even though Test cricket is the most intriguing of all formats with the amount of scheming and mind games that come to pass – which of course can only be enjoyed by fans who are ready to intellectually invest themselves in the game rather than consuming it at a superficial level, in the recent times what you get is a hollow game of Test cricket where batsmen try to bat and bowlers try to bowl and nothing else happens.

The mind games have been absent for a long time and captains have grown to be defensive. There is an argument that Don Bradman could score so many runs so quickly because sweepers were hardly employed those days.

But as the game grew to be commercial, and cricket journalism found its feet captains became apprehended by what might follow defeats.

The perfect example of this is how India and Pakistan were keen on drawing Tests during the ‘80s, so much so that players from each side often back scratched each other so that there wouldn’t be any inferno in the media in either of the countries.

There was always an unsigned, tacit memorandum of understanding between the two sides – cricketers were the winners at the end of the day.

But with the burgeoning of the social media and the profound progress of technology in the contemporary world, the job of a captain has become even more gruesome, with even people like me ranting about what should have been done and what should not have been. As a result, captains have become more defensive. Avoiding defeats have become the precedence while a win has become a luxury.

Now, watching a Test match has become a risk. You risk wasting five days to swill what is to the hilt deemed as the best of all cricket forms. With the fans of Test cricket regularly waning in a downhill motion, many ploys have been suggested to woe back test cricket’s exs.

The day-night test was one such thing. Test under light, truth be told, was a different flavour. The purists might harp about the tradition, that is Test cricket, but one should not forget how cricket has evolved over the years. From rolling the ball along the turf to higher arm bowling, 8 ball overs to 6 ball overs and hockey-sticks like bats to the modern woody monsters, cricket has evolved.

Shane Warne recently reared up some fancy rules that could tweak tests to make it more interesting, let me give my two cents too.

Wide markers in Test cricket and penalty for leg-side wides

Currently, there are no wide markers drawn on the pitch in Tests and the return crease is used as the guide-line by the umpires, allowing a bigger leeway for bowlers. Balls drifting down leg are also excused to an extent.

This allows bowlers to adopt a very defensive technique as might be evident from the Test match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan in 2013, when the Sri Lankan spinner, Rangana Herath bowled outside leg stump to preclude Pakistan chasing down 302.

Hence, much like the shorter versions of the game a wide-marker should be used in test cricket which will narrow down a bowler’s spectrum of bowling. This will daunt bowlers from adopting a negative line of attack since that would cost them runs. Umpires should also be severe on anything that drifts down the leg as in ODI cricket, which would debar bowlers from bowling outside leg to prevent batsmen scoring runs.

Fielding restrictions in Test cricket

While fielding restrictions in ODIs are to help batsmen score faster, such a restriction in Test cricket would force fielding captains to be aggressive. A counter argument might be that this rule will favour the batsman, but in reality, batsmen would not want to take too many risks since they need to play longer and scoring would not be easy against the harder red ball that swings for a longer time.

2 catchers must be made compulsory all the time and only 3 sweepers should be allowed. Of course, this will favour aggressive batsmen like Brendon McCullum and AB de Villiers, but on the other hand, this will also force fielding captains to go for wickets instead of trying to control the damage.

The only way to stop batsmen who love to blaze away would be pick up their wickets and this will only make Test cricket interesting as both parties would be engaged in a mutual combat.

However, as a respite, a bowling team can be given two separate spells of five overs where these restrictions can be relaxed, within every 80 overs. A captain might opt for it if he deems that there is no way by which by a tear-away batsman can be stopped.

Captains like Angelo Mathews and Alastair Cook are notorious for their over-cautious field settings and this rule will force them to attack since a defensive field cannot be set with the aforesaid restrictions.

Relax the rule against Bodyline bowling

Who doesn’t enjoy a fiery spell of fast, short-pitch bowling? Rule changes were made to disallow more than two fielders behind square to counter England’s fast leg theory.

But that was during a time when batsmen were bereft of the guards that are at the disposal of the modern batsmen. With helmets, chest guards, arm guards and well-cushioned gloves bouncers are no more dangerous to batsmen as it was eight decades ago.

Yeah, I can read your mind referring to Phillip Hughes. But let’s admit that it was one of the most freakish accident. New helmets have adopted a guard to protect the back of the neck too, which would offset such unfortunate incidents from happening again.

If bodyline rules can be allayed, then it will give captains different permutations of field settings and more options to attack. Two catchers and two sweepers should be allowed behind square. This will allow fast bowlers to try their luck with bouts of aggressive, hostile short-pitch bowling at batsmen’s ribs and this would bring viewers right to the edge of their seats.

Incentives for aggressive batting

Defensive batting can make Test cricket lethargic as much as defensive bowling. So to counter defensive approach to batting, teams that adopt an aggressive approach can be offered incentives.

This would mean that teams that are habitually defensive would be forced to attack with the bat since the oppositions receiving a benefit owing to their attacking batting, and them not receiving one would mean that the oppositions would get an added advantage.

A team that scores in excess of four runs per over at the end of 80 overs should get an extra-life for one of its batsmen. It should be two life-lines, if the runs per over are more than five.

But the number of wickets available for a team should only be ten. That means the batting team can choose to give an extra-life to one of its batsmen instead of another, plausibly a tail-ender.

This would encourage teams to score at a faster clip and teams that are used to scoring slow will have to re-think their approach.

Punitive measures for docile turfs

Dead pitches are one of the chief reasons for Test cricket being boring for who would want to see bowlers running to and fro to pitch the ball on an unresponsive high-way and get bashed all around the park? Truth be spoken, three-day Test matches like the Nagpur Test are more interesting than the five-day Test matches like the recent Perth Test.

In the last 10 years, Test matches that have produced results have averaged 29.91 while drawn Tests have averaged 42.59. So a nominal average of 35 can be used to demarcate a poor pitch.

Hence, if a Test match that is going to end in a draw is going to average more than 35, provided that there are, at least, four days of play, then the ground should be given a warning. The host team should also be fined. Three such bans within three years should earn the ground a ban on hosting Test matches for two years.

Test cricket, if it is to survive will definitely have to undergo some changes. Though such changes can alter the very essence of Test cricket, one must realise a modified version of Test cricket is better than no Test cricket at all. Generations have changed. Spectators have evolved. And Test cricket needs to change too.