Need for speed

Crowd numbers and local interest would suggest that Test cricket is still in robust health in Australia and England, despite the fact that both countries are ranked mid-table. Compare that to India - the juggernaut of cricket, not just financially but also in terms of on-field performance - and if the modest crowd numbers in recent series are any indication, it appears that even being on top of the world does not guarantee anything remotely close to a full house. Stadium attendance figures alone do not tell the full story because it is clear that Indians still follow Test cricket with avid interest. But if a rampantly successful team with so many iconic ‘greats’ cannot attract spectators in India, does Test cricket have a future as a “live” spectator sport?

The Gabba Test rarely disappoints and whenever England or India visit here, you can almost guarantee that it will be well patronised. The current Ashes Series lacks the plethora of superstars - Ponting and maybe Pietersen apart - but that has not detracted from significant public interest in the event. Assuming Virender Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman and Harbhajan Singh are still playing when India come here next, any cricket lover would be daft to miss them in action, especially because it may be the last time we see these legends in action. The question remains though: what does Test cricket need to keep spectators coming in through the turnstiles, instead of taking the soft option (like I’ve done this week) and watching it on TV or following it on Cricinfo?

Scoring rates are still pretty decent, certainly more entertaining than in any other decade. We’re consistently seeing more runs scored per day, so from an entertainment perspective, the batsmen are certainly doing their fair share to make it an attractive product. And yet, Australia and England apart, Test match crowds are spending their entertainment dollars/rupees/rands elsewhere. So who is letting the team down?

Fielding captains and bowlers can take some of the blame, I reckon. In an era where bowlers have never been fitter and captains have detailed bowling plans to adhere to, dictated by software and print-outs, the inability of just about every single team in world cricket to bowl their allotted 90 overs in 6 hours is nothing short of a disgrace. Where 90 overs was meant as a minimum requirement, it has now become de rigueur for teams to view the extra half hour as essential, and that too, just to complete the bare minimum. And the ICC just watches on in indifference. There can be no excuses. Fast bowlers are super fit these days, they have the latest in hydration, compression garments, ice baths, massages, footwear etc and they are still unable to match their ‘amateur’ predecessors of a few decades ago. Even teams with lots of spin-bowling options cannot bowl 90 overs in the allotted times.

Captains, armed with all the strategic information, courtesy of software-generated coaching aids, continue to have lengthy discussions with bowlers as if they’d only just thought of a new idea. Watching Ponting waste time on the fifth morning in Brisbane, at the start of the day’s play when they surely must have already discussed field placings and strategy was incredibly frustrating. And I was sitting in the comfort of my home, not feeling hot and bothered at the ground, having paid over the odds for a ticket in an uncomfortable seat with exorbitantly priced drinks and food and smelly toilets. Why would I catch public transport and endure discomfort to watch captains who are unable to make decisions instinctively without having to seek five different opinions?

The umpires just stand by and do very little to hasten proceedings. The ICC worry about the extra time that may be wasted in using video umpire technology and so implement a system where each team only gets a quota of referrals, but they do absolutely nothing to impose any genuine penalties on the pointless time-wasting that happens every single day of a Test match.

Meanwhile, we continue to endure a video umpire system that fails in its most basic task – to guarantee that the correct decision is made. Surely that should be at the forefront of the logic pertaining to the UDRS, to ensure that we get the correct decision. Otherwise, let’s just leave it to the on-field umpire and learn to live with the mistakes. The current system still hasn't eliminated the mistakes. As we’ve seen at the Gabba this week, Mike Hussey’s lbw was a potential match-changing moment and it was still the wrong decision. I’d rather waste a few more seconds to get the correct decision or just accept the on-field verdict and keep the game flowing. The current system is still essentially flawed if we're still getting crucial decisions wrong. The paying public would probably prefer the correct decision and sacrifice a few valuable seconds. The umpires usually halt play for bad light anyway, even when it's clear that the batsmen are in no danger of "physical harm", so why the great concern about not wasting time?

Here we are, in an era where we have entertainers like Sehwag, Chris Gayle, Tendulkar, Sangakkara, Ponting, deVilliers and a host of other swashbucklers, and Test cricket is still struggling to attract live spectators. Thank God for the Barmy Army, The Fanatics and those other faithful few from each country who follow their team around the world and bring the sort of spirit that I’m seeing right this minute as Alastair Cook celebrates a wonderful double-century. The quality of cricket and cricketers these days deserve more. Yet, for some reasons, in India especially, even with the mouth-watering prospect of watching a batting order that reads Sehwag, Gamhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Raina, Dhoni (and now Harbajhan), the public would still prefer to watch them from afar. If you can't get people to go to the ground to watch the number one team with this sort of pedigree, what will it take? Another reason why the Ashes should still be a terribly important part of the world cricket calendar. Even for the neutrals.