5 reasons why two-match Test series should be scrapped

The most talked-about point in cricket these days is how the administrators try and ensure that the public is kept interested in watching Test cricket in the times of the ever-growing interest for T20 cricket with franchise-driven leagues emerging around the globe every second month.

One of the things they can do to do that is to scrap the concept of a two-match Test series which is fast becoming a norm in some of the elite cricketing centers and instead have longer series to deliver a better viewing experience for the public.

.A two-match series does little or no good to anybody playing or watching it and the element of value is not entirely there in such rubbers.

Here are five reasons why there should no longer be two Test series played between two countries:

No clear winner in these contests

In any bilateral series between two teams the smallest of expectations that any supporter has is for a clear winner to emerge from the series. In most odd-numbered match series that is a possibility, but is not always the case in even-numbered match series.

In case of a two-Test series played between two competitive teams that isn't guaranteed always, as was seen most recently in the England-Pakistan series, where the former got walloped in the first game but returned the favour to the opposition in the second game to level the series and end it 1-1.

The key question to ask is: Who was the winner in this case? The answer: Neither. Nothing conclusive usually emerges when two competitive teams play a two-match Test series and on the other hand, when two mismatched teams contest, usually the scales are tilted too much in one team's favour and it results in one-sided matches which do no good for the game overall.

Such contests most certainly leave a lot to be desired to everybody watching the game and hence should not be contested in the future.

It doesn't give any clarity on which is the better team

India won at Lord's thanks to Ishant Sharma's spell on the last day but tapered off later

In order to illustrate this point, let me go back in time to 2014 when India toured England for a five-match Test series.

The first Test at Trent Bridge was drawn and then India stumped England at Lord's to lead the series 1-0. What might have happened had the series ended there? The world would have written praises for how India has evolved itself and improved as a touring party.

But now everyone knows what transpired after the win. England found some momentum when they won at the Rose Bowl in the following Test match and then they carried that forward to trample India at Old Trafford and The Oval to eventually win the series 3-1.

That gave an indication of who really was the better side. England, in their own conditions, proved to be too good for India, who tapered off after a very promising start.

In case of a two-match series, it is very difficult to say who the better team is and hence it is very hard to say whether the home team has done well because of familiarity to conditions or an away team was better since it acclimatised to conditions sooner and delivered.

The spectators' point of view

What do the spectators get out a two-Test series? Very little.

Taking a cue from the previous example, in the case of a longer series, there is always a growing anticipation among the public as the series proceeds. The perception of a team goes through various crests and troughs before finding its relevant conclusion once the series is over.

In the case of a two-match Test series, that is difficult to find since either it ends in a stalemate or one side completes dominates the other to win the series, thereby leaving the spectators wondering about the whole idea of having the series in the first place.

No good stories to tell

The story of India's tour to Pakistan is still spoken about 14 years later

A full-fledged series not only creates good cricket for viewing, but it also makes memories and experiences that could be spoken of in the years to come.

An excellent example to back this would be India's tour to Pakistan in 2004, which produced some exciting contests and had moments that are being spoken of even today.

The likes of Mohammad Kaif's stunning catch to dismiss Shoaib Malik in the first ODI in Karachi or the manner in which Inzamam-Ul-Haq batted throughout the series is something that is spoken of even today by those who watched the matches.

Those kinds of stories are difficult to get in the case of a two-match series.

The benefit to the players involved

Longer series judge players for consistency; shorter ones don't

Good players are measured by their performance in one or two series. Great players are measured by their consistency, by whether they could deliver match-after-match, series-after-series on a regular basis.

In a two-match Test series, whether a player has it in him to stand up and perform in every game becomes difficult to judge. I go back again to India's tour to England in 2014.

In that case, Bhuvneshwar Kumar started superbly by picking two five-wicket hauls in the first two matches but then tapered off later on simply because the grind of a five-match series began to take a toll, and could finish with only 14 wickets in the series.

On the contrary, someone like a James Anderson had a slower start to the series but lifted himself soon and ended as the highest wicket-taker with 25 scalps to his name.

Shorter series do not help us measure the sustainability of a player over a certain period of time.