Test cricket should not be jazzed up

Beyond Sri Lanka's Under-19 tour of Pakistan, the international scene is quiet in Pakistan. But a great deal of cricket is being played elsewhere including Zimbabwe's tour of Bangladesh, two evenly matched teams.

Sri Lanka made short work of the West Indies despite a Brian Lara hundred in the first innings. But in the end, the incomparable Muralitharan was too much for them.

The West Indies continue to struggle and unless something dramatic happens, the future looks extremely bleak for the once invincibles. Those of us who have been privileged to have seen them at their best are both amazed and saddened that the mighty should have fallen so low.

The game of cricket is the poorer for it. Gary Sobers like Don Bradman was a case apart but I am trying hard to think of a batsman of the present day who could be compared to Rohan Kanhai. Sachin Tendulkar is a batsman in a different mould but Kanhai in full flight was like the choral in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, an ode to joy.

I am not sure whether I am in favour of oho "gambling" with declarations in order to get a decision. It seems contrived and in the present climate of match-fixing is open to suspicion. The first Test match between Australia and New Zealand had everyone on the edges of their seats and New Zealand almost brought off an upset but seemed a bit bogus.

Perhaps, I am too old-fashioned and cricket has become a young man's game but I don't think we should try to jazz up Test cricket. The one-day version is bad enough. Test cricket has never been show business and I am glad to see that the players still wear 'whites' and a red ball is used. I realise that the one-day game has brought an immense amount of money in the game mainly through television rights. But there should be no compromise on the integrity of the 'product'.

But seeing New Zealand playing against Australia, a local 'derby' made me quite angry. New Zealand could have easily toured Pakistan without any risk at all and they have been allowed to get away with it. Apart from depriving the Pakistan cricket public of watching international cricket, the Pakistan Cricket Board took a hefty financial knock and someone should compensate it, either New Zealand or the ICC.

A one-day series was hastily arranged with Sri Lanka but Sri Lanka 'chickened' out having had second thoughts about security. Yet the Sri Lanka Cricket Board had no hesitation in sending its Under-19 team! Yet nothing has changed in the security environment.

As I write this, India is counting more heavily on the weather rather than on Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Vangipurappu Laxman to save the second Test match and the series against South Africa. It has been, so far, a poor advertisement for Test cricket. To start with the umpiring has been sub-standard and the offender has been Ian Howell the home umpire.

To be fair, both teams have been at the receiving end of some atrocious decisions so that it is incompetent rather than biased umpiring. India got off on the wrong foot in its team selection, playing only two seamers. This was bitterly criticised by the television experts. India won the toss and put South Africa in on a cloudy morning and on a wicket that was tailor-made for seam bowling. Jagaval Srinath bowled magnificently but he had no back-up.

Even so South Africa was troubled and even the mercurial Herschelle Gibbs was restrained though he played glorious cricket. South Africa has depth in its batting and is a disciplined team and every player is expected to chip in. Once again India batted poorly and Tendulkar was outplaying what looked like an absent-minded pull and getting out to the softest of dismissals. Only Laxman held firm and in the company of Anil Kumble saved the follow-on.

But take away Shaun Pollock from the South African attack and this is a pretty mediocre bowling attack. All the Indians have to do is to handle Pollock with extra-care and Pollock can't bowl the whole day. India batted poorly in that the shot selection was poor and there was very little application.

I get the impression that there is very little communication between the players in the dressing-room. I could be wrong, of course, but every player seemed to be batting to his own script and there was no team plan. Kumble showed that if you put a price on your wicket you can hang in there and Test cricket is about occupation of the crease. After all, a Test match is supposed to last five days.

Since, almost all of us watch international cricket on television, the commentators have started to play dominant roles in shaping the cricket public's attitudes. This confers an immense responsibility on them. I don't think it is their job to give tutorial classes on how to bat or bowl or field and nor is essential that their criticism is so harsh that it becomes cruel.

A certain amount of banter between them is welcome but for Geoff Boycott to tell Navjot Sidhu that he should be in a circus goes beyond banter. Sidhu looked flustered. I think that Boycott should consider himself to be very lucky that there was no Boycott doing the commentary when he was playing! There is a difference between criticism and ridicule.

One gets tired of a commentator who is a supercilious Mr. Know-all. And, as if, technology was not bad enough, the commentators have taken on the umpire's job and started to give decisions from the commentary-box that undermines the authority of the umpires. And there is incessant appealing and glares from the bowlers and in some cases some abusive language from the bowlers. What is the match-referee doing?