| Series | Countries | Live Scores | Fixtures | Results | News |
Features
|
Photos | Blogs | Statistics | Archive | Video & Audio | Games | Mobile | |||||||||||||||||||||
Ian Chappell
Feeds
| Archives
Feeds
| Archives
Former Australia captain, now a cricket commentator and columnist
|
Saviour or predator?
In these trying times, Test cricket needs a stronger and more unified governing body - which the ICC in its current form isn't
July 19, 2009
|
|||
|
Related Links
News : Flintoff to retire from Test cricket
News : Test cricket could die out warns MCC Players/Officials:
Andrew Flintoff
Sites:
Cricinfo ICC Site
|
|||
Ever since the Twenty20 phenomenon burst so successfully and spectacularly onto the international scene there have been constant rumblings about the death of Test cricket. The MCC's World Cricket Committee has heightened the debate by recently expressing similar concerns.
They also proposed a World Test championship as part of a plan to revitalise the longer version of the game. With all due respect, this was discussed at length (at the behest of then ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya) by a number of ex-players in 1999, and some good suggestions were put forward. Ten years on, we still only have the computer rankings to decide the pecking order of Test nations, rather than a fully fledged competition played out on the field.
The main barriers to improving the image of Test cricket have been erected by the ICC itself. They are the ones who have done the most to devalue Test cricket. Firstly the international schedule is an abomination that resembles a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing. Not only is it disjointed, it places an unreasonable burden on the best players. The increasing number of back-to-back Test matches being squeezed into an ever-growing schedule isn't a recipe for getting the best performance out of the players. Those players who compete in all forms of the game face not only an increased risk of injury but also having to prioritise their exertion levels. The latter point could be a clue to the lack of genuinely fast bowlers in the game.
It was also the ICC that allowed Bangladesh to enter the Test arena when they were quite obviously not up to standard. After almost a decade of competition they are still no closer to justifying their premature elevation. Also, the ICC only suspended Zimbabwe's Test-playing status rather than retracting it at a time when their standard diminished rapidly under the rule of a badly corrupted regime.
And it was the ICC that proposed the ill-advised Australia versus the World XI match at the SCG in 2005-06. At the time it was seen as a possible solution to the number of mind-numbingly one-sided series being played in Australia. The ICC then reinforced the futility of a poorly thought-out proposal by also awarding the match Test status.
| As long as the ICC is scheduling some tournaments and the individual countries continue to organise other matches separately, the international itinerary will never be co-ordinated and manageable | |||
In order to return Test cricket to a more prestigious position, a number of issues need to be resolved. However there are two chances - Buckley's and none - of this happening while the ICC remains heavily politicised and consumed with self-interest. As long as the ICC is scheduling some tournaments and the individual countries continue to organise other matches separately, the international itinerary will never be co-ordinated and manageable. And the number of nations with Test status will never be properly evaluated until the ICC becomes an authoritative and impartial ruling body.
Test cricket can't afford to have players of the calibre and drawing power of Andrew Flintoff retiring prematurely, and Chris Gayle eulogising the merits of the shorter version of the game in preference to the more testing five-day matches. It also can't afford the continuing trend of diminishing crowds at Test matches in all countries bar England and Australia. Adding to those concerns, West Indies are in disarray thanks to the ongoing arm-wrestle between the players and the board, and Pakistan is a no-go area.
The only way many of these ailments are going to be corrected is by a united and co-operative effort. They can only be fixed by an administration that has the authority to run cricket globally, with the priority being the best interests of the game.
The proposal by the MCC's world committee to play a Test championship is commendable and a much-needed solution to revitalising the game. However, it will be a wasted effort if all it provides is more one-sided contests between players who are over-burdened by a schedule that lurches along like a manual car driven by a learner.
Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist
Feeds: Ian Chappell
© ESPN EMEA Ltd.
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
TopE-mail
Feedback
Print
Ian Chappell
Widely regarded as the best Australian captain of the last 50 years, Ian
Chappell moulded a team in his image: tough, positive, and fearless. Even
though Chappell sometimes risked defeat playing for a win, Australia did not lose a Test series under him between 1971 and 1975. He was an aggressive batsman himself, always ready to hook a bouncer and unafraid to use his feet against the spinners. In 1977 he played a lead role in the defection of a number of Australian players to Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket, which did not endear him to the administrators, who he regarded with contempt in any case. After retirement, he made an easy switch to television, where he has come to be known as a trenchant and fiercely independent voice.
Which teams are the worst travellers?
Numbers Game: A look at how Australia, South Africa and England have fared in Asia, and vice versa
Cricket's not all greek to the Greeks
In Corfu and Athens it's catching on. Locals get countrymen from all over to visit and play. By Firdose Moonda
Afghanistan's remarkable rise achieves new heights
Afghanistan cricket will reach a new high when they take on an ICC Full Member for the first time. By George Dobell
'You need to change the way the batsman plays'
Tony Greig, Mark Waugh and Brian Close on the art of fielding close in. Interviews by Dan Brettig and Nagraj Gollapudi
Someone, please explain the D/L method
Michael Jeh: India's target at the MCG didn't make sense
Dhoni and Sehwag share a moment
ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the second Twenty20 international between Australia and India, in Melbourne
Swann v Ajmal: clash of the offspinners
They're the two best spinners in Test cricket over the last 30 months, and while their overall stats are similar, the break-ups are quite different
Plays of the Day from the second ODI of the CB series, between India and Sri Lanka at the WACA
India were on tonight. It was like it was all coming back to someone who had lost his memory in the first half of a Bollywood film. Simple things but somehow forgotten
Unravelling the mystery of Ajmal
The ICC have explained the science behind the offspinner's action after a TV interview caused confusion
Pakistan rewarded for smart rebuilding (137)
After the events of 2010 Pakistan cricket could have withered away, but due to a combination of determination and desire they are now flourishing
The last we've seen of India's old middle order (123)
Dravid and Laxman will know their time is up. And Tendulkar will go sooner than later too
Unravelling the mystery of Ajmal (113)
The ICC have explained the science behind the offspinner's action after a TV interview caused confusion
Pakistan show England how it's done in Asia (107)
Unlike England, Pakistan used their bats instead of their pads. Unlike England, they retained their composure during the inevitable scoreless periods and, unlike England, they played straight until they were well set
India beaten in battle of strategies (101)
The plan to go in with a spin-strong attack is fraught with risk in Australian conditions, as India were made to realise at the MCG
Sponsored Links
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
ICICI Bank Money2India brings " locked exchange rate" and a free gift
on registering and transfer of USD 250 and above.
FREE copy of Playfair with Wisden pre-order
At Cricshop.com
One of the problems with Test cricket is the importance or lack there of attached to it by the players. If you hear the English crickets speak about it then the only series which has any relevance or meaning to it is the Ashes. Whilst I agree that this is the oldest and prestigious series, by ignoring other series or using other series as a training ground for this I believe we are devaluing all the other countries. If the players are not going to value all series equally then we definately will have a problem. Strauss described the Ashes as the unofficial world test championship which is rediculous as no other teams can enter !. A test championship would definately liven things up. Also they need to ensure that there are no back to back series such as the Windies-Eng / SRL-Pak series we have just witnessed. This makes the cricket monotonous and boring. There also should be equally tests/one days in each series rather than the arbitrailly decided ones we seem to see.
Posted by gpharrison on (July 21 2009, 10:00 AM GMT)@alexk400 - 'Why do you want to watch ASHES when both team is bad and play is lack lustre. Without Great bowlers , Test cricket is unwatchable like ashes now.' what are you on about? both teams are bad? aus is number one in the world. eng have struggled recently, but they're still a good side, with some some world-class players. lack lustre? that is laughably untrue.the first 2009 ashes test was riveting, and the second was perhaps closer than it seemed. i would also risk claiming that flintoff's spell yest morning was nothing if not great.
Posted by AdityaMookerjee on (July 21 2009, 04:43 AM GMT)Why do we need a test championship? The ICC world test rankings are enough of an indication on the accomplishments of test playing nations. I agree entirely, that the BCCI should work to strengthen the ICC globally, and should work in the service of the international game of cricket. The BCCI has a unique opportunity, and ability to serve the game, because of the tremendous resources it commands. The BCCI could also help the international version of the game played by the ladies. I want the BCCI to serve faithfully the international community of cricket, and to influence interest in cricket internationally, the way it has influenced interest towards cricket in India. The game of cricket is not of more consequence than those who contemplate it, nor the other way around. All the various aspects of cricket are equally important, to the all round wellbeing of the game. Those who have no opportunity to play the game, must support the game.
Posted by vswami on (July 21 2009, 02:53 AM GMT)Distilling your article, there are four issues you raise 1. international schedule 2. ICC allowing Bangladesh 3. ill-advised Australia versus the World XI match at the SCG in 2005-06 4. ICC scheduling some tournaments and individual countries some others Of the four, the only issue I agree with is the international schedule.Bangladesh having test status has nothing to do with declining test attendance at matches between traditional test nations.Australia vs World XI is a forgotten match and had no impact on test match as a product.On point 4, its has always been the case for over 100 years. As long as England and Australia enjoyed the monopoly of deciding their own schedule, all was okay in the world of cricket.Thats why we have a ridiculous situation in India where there is no traditional home test match season.On test match attendances in England, if there is free to air cricket on BBC, I wonder how many would turn up to watch EnglandvSL.Ashes is not the barometer for all tests.
Posted by Subra on (July 21 2009, 01:02 AM GMT)Test cricket is like a 10 course dinner, where you sit and appreciate the fine wines and food on offer. T20 is like a meal at the local McDonalds - grad eat and run. In the course of one's life both are necessary. Likewise in cricket all the three forms are necessary as they complement each other. Professional cricketers must be given time between matches and series to rejuvenate themselves. All this requires a strong controlling body, which must be able to see beyond political agenda. Make it mandatory for groundsment to produce more lively pitches, so that there is parity between batsmen and bowlers. Fine heavily Test venues that do not produce pitches of acceptable standards. Make the boundaries standard for all venues and for all formats. Give the bowler a chance to even out the advantage modern batsmen have - heavy bats, two-sided bats, protective equipment by giving them more sporting pitches. Reduce ticket prices, then crowds will be back to watch Test matches.
Posted by fanofteamindia on (July 20 2009, 14:53 PM GMT)ian chappell is spot on!!! i love watching test cricket but only when it is played between two good sides and played on result producing pitches like the ashes,india-australia,etc...but there are many matches, even series which end in a tame draw like most matches played in india,pakistan where pitches mostly remain flat throughout...so if icc can improve the standard of pitches worldwide and produce result producing pitches the audience for test cricket wil definitely increase...
Posted by TD_160 on (July 20 2009, 13:21 PM GMT)A Test Championship would be fantastic for the non-"Big Four" Test teams. The "Big Four" (Aus, Ind, Eng & RSA) are determined to play each other as often as possible, while fitting in fixtures with other nations when required (and maximise revenues from selling TV rights in the process!). The ICC can make Test cricket about the world's best teams again, rather than the world's richest.
Posted by duvva on (July 20 2009, 11:21 AM GMT)Testing ignore! How far can they push the boundaries of 2otwenty cricket. How can you increase the height of a skyscraper and rip up its foundation at the same time? all these test cricket killers, have they even played the game before? heve they ever looked at the skill factoers involed in playing different forms of the game?consider 11 a side football being scrapped for a shorter 5 a side version, which requires less skill? does this make sense?
Posted by jamesb on (July 20 2009, 07:26 AM GMT)THere is undoubtedly a split in these comments. Those who have any kind of understanding of where cricket came from know that test cricket is the ultimate form of the game, it has history and tradition that 2020 can never match or even come close to. The first two Ashes tests show this. 2020 is great entertainment, and produces some great skills, but it is not satisfying from a purely cricketing point of view. I have been to my first 2020 matches this season and left feeling like I had only seen half a day's cricket. If you want pure entertainment, go to the cinema. I find it interesting that virtually all of the anti-test comments come from Asians, whose countries have only been playing test cricket competetively for 30-40 years, as opposed to nations like England, Australia and South Africa. Nothing wrong with only liking 2020, but it is arrogance that because the BCCI has some cash to splash around, they think they own the game. Cricket is not a franchise, it is a sport.
Posted by sabina2009 on (July 20 2009, 06:26 AM GMT)I fully agree with what Mr.Chappell has commented. It is true and indeed sad that the test match appeal among the young generation has declined dramatically. It is also true that the standard of Test match between teams have deteriorated also. And I blame Twenty20 version of the game for this. We have to admit that Test cricket is the real game of cricket. Test cricket allows us to see the players true performances. I propose for Test Match World Cup so that Test cricket gets its life back.