Test Cricket is no longer intuitive
For the times Test cricket is played in; for the competition that Test cricket finds itself facing; it's a far too nuanced game for its own good. Modern; and dare I say; rational; spectators demand the game be intuitive. There is a growing tendenc...
13 Jul 2011, 02:10 IST
For the times Test cricket
is played in; for the competition that Test cricket finds itself facing; it’s a far too nuanced game for its own good. Modern; and dare I say; rational; spectators demand the game be intuitive. There is a growing tendency among Test cricket lovers to disconnect from reality and hang on to those very nuances of Test cricket that are threatening to make the game irrelevant. Of course it was prudent for India to call off the chase at Dominica; question is why does Test cricket afford this option to a team. To walk off. To claim a ‘no-result’ when a result was inevitable.
How long would sports like tennis, boxing, athletics, survive if participants are allowed to collectively decide and effectively strike in the middle of a contest?
The best scoreline that can capture the series concluded yesterday between India and the West Indies is
T20: 1 Tests : 0 (Rahul and Laxman walk-off)
There are fines, bans and all sorts of tricks employed by the game’s governing body to speed up the game. Its working too. In one of the sessions in the 3rd Test, I saw India bowling at the rate of 16.2 overs per hour. Perhaps they had one eye on the Lord’s Test. Whatever the reason, the game had picked up pace.
And what did they do with the time that was created over the first 4 days?
They shook hands and went home. Presumably to their hotel rooms.
Rational thinking fans can’t be blamed if they were waiting to see how much of the contesting team’s match fees would be cut. They played only 80 overs when 98 was the ask. The 18 overs they refused to play would surely have been the most exciting 18 overs of the entire match assuming India were willing to risk the series,
The problem with Test cricket is what happened is entirely defensible.
India did not want to risk a series and the only way West Indies would win is if India were willing to do just that. And without getting into either defending or criticizing India’s approach; I ask…why does a team in Test cricket, even have the option of just walking away.
I mean they play 2 entire Tests, in a 5 match series even if one side has won the first 3 and the series is won. Isn’t it a bit like being penny wise and pound foolish when teams are allowed to walk off to save a few overs of effort that is unlikely to change the end result when meaningless Tests and ODIs are played under the same circumstances.
In my view this series was already rendered inconsequential by a series of actions. Sehwag, Gambhir, Zaheer and Yuvraj choosing IPL
over this series. Sachin Tendulkar
trying to pass of Roger Federer
as “family” and Chris Gayle
and his tasteless tussle with the WICB.
This ‘walk off’ by two of India’s all time great batsmen isn’t going to add any more ignominy than that was already conferred on this series. But allowing batsmen of this caliber to walk away from the contest adds no qualitative attributes to the game. While India’s actions can be defended; they raise questions as to whether today’s teams can be trusted to take decisions that will help the game in the long run.
A few decades from now when some noted film maker decides to produce a documentary lamenting the state of Test cricket, this India v West Indies series will be exhibit A. When the need for Test cricket was to make it relevant for today’s fans; its greatest ambassadors walked away.
Sachin, Rahul and Laxman
Fetching more content...