Why are sports administrators so hellbent on change?
Is this their way of making sure that when they move onto the next job they have something to put on their resume? That they oversaw a particular change, irrespective as to whether it was a good change or bad, or how devastating the effects of those changes had on the sport for years to come.
Or does it simply come down to money? Making more money.
The announcement that two traditional cricket powerhouses were supporting a move to reduce the length of Test Matches from five days to four days from 2023 was a dreadful way to start the new decade. Cricket Australia and the England and Wales Cricket Board have been reported as being in favour of such a move, being put forward by the International Cricket Council’s Cricket Committee and that will be voted on early in 2020.
There are so many issues wrapped up in this announcement, but the biggest goes back to the power grab made by the ECB, Cricket Australia and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in 2014. This move saw 62% of the revenue in International Cricket go to these three nations; the three that needed the money the least.
At the time there were accusations that the ICC had become ‘a private members club.’ The former ICC president, Ehsan Mani, went on the record as saying that $300 million would be cut from the ICC’s Development Program over the next 10 years, and that money would be redirected into the coffers of the big three.
What was more worrying was that once this takeover happened it meant that the big three would control all matters relating to anti-corruption, ethics and integrity issues. They would also run the rule over all of the ICC’s committees.
Unbeknown to many Cricket lovers the ICC has allowed four day tests as an option to Test playing nations for a number of years. All Test matches currently played as part of the World Test Championship they stipulate must be five days long. Test matches outside of the Championship may be four days in duration. In 2017 South Africa played a four day test against Zimbabwe, the first four day Test since 1973. While in 2019 England played Ireland in a four day test.
The motivation behind this move is they claim due to the number of Test matches that do not make it to the fifth day, but still incur costs to the host nation. It has also been claimed that most Test matches outside of India, Australia and England run at a loss, so this move would alleviate costs and give host nations the opportunity to reduce their losses.
If this is true, surely those running the event of a Test match need to look at the way they are operating. Clearly they are failing on some level. The cost of the venue may be too high and prohibits them making profit, security costs could be too high, ticket prices may be an issue. By that fans may feel the price is too much compared to other sporting options or events. It is no longer value for money. Certainly the claim in the past ten years or so has been that once inside the ground the costs are simply too high for refreshments and food. Surely this is an area that needs to be explored to make it more attractive to fans to come to the Cricket. Having spectators able to sit out of the sun would be another obvious improvement.
If you want fans to come you must give them value. As written about in the past having the same Test match program recycled during a series with the centre pages changed to reflect team changes is not acceptable.
The biggest issue affecting Test Cricket is the imbalance in terms of a contest between bat and ball. The pitch, the bats and the boundaries being brought in from the fence all favour the batsman. The quality of bowlers in modern day cricket is well below the levels of yesteryear. There are few who are able to rip through a top order. There are few who can take wickets all around the world. The game is being dominated too much by the bat.
How many bowlers hunt as a pair in the modern game? One pinning down one end while the bowler at the other end attacks and tries to tempt the batsman to score, but ends up taking a wicket. The game is littered with great bowling double acts who had the ability to make life hard for the batsmen; Statham and Trueman, Hall and Griffith, Miller and Lindwall, Lillee and Thomson, Warne and McGrath. The latter pairing being the last in recent times, with Broad and Anderson, only being a potent force in England.
Yet in spite of that few of the top batsman in World cricket appear to have the ability to bat for long innings. Steve Smith was the key to Australia’s Ashes victory in the last English summer. The reason being, while everyone else in the Australian batting line up threw their wickets away with loose or ill-advised shots, he ground out a big score. England lacked anyone who could match his powers of concentration and judgement.
A four day Test will eliminate the opportunity to witness such strength of character and concentration. Batsman will be forced to try and push the run rate along, and there will be more loose shots played, which means bowlers will pick up wickets more easily.
One of the great challenges of Test cricket is the wicket’s deterioration over five days. That is why the make-up of a team in a Test match is much more important than in any other format of the game. You need a balanced side that can exploit those changes, or combat them. In four days those changes that have historically seen matches change late on day four or five simply will not happen.
A four day Test could well spell the end completely of spin bowling, except possibly on the sub-continent. Just as Shane Warne brought spin bowling back into vogue, and showed what a force it can be if executed with guile, skill and thought, the four day Test could see the art disappear completely. Especially if the ICC continue to allow host nations to produce tracks that so heavily favour the batsman. The statistics on the number of teams winning away from home reflect how big an impact this has, and once again kills the contest.
Four day Test matches are not good idea, as the mental strain of thinking you have to survive a fifth day will not be there, and as a result draws will become the order of the day
It will no doubt distress many fans to know that from September 2018- September 2019 there were 183 International T20 matches played, 170 One Day Internationals and just 44 test matches.
When the Big Three took over the running of the game India were given a six-week window free of international cricket so that all the best cricketers could participate in their Indian Premier League. Is it therefore any wonder that they see the future in the shortest version of the game, which was never meant to be taken seriously at International level?
Is it therefore any wonder that they are about to rubber stamp four day Test matches? After all they have said that by reducing Test matches from five to four days that will free up an additional 40 days a year in the International calendar.
The International players union have seen through this move and has already stated that it is worried that these 40 days will be filled with either more One Day Internationals or T20 matches. One of the series that is expected to fill that gap is the proposed 50-Over Super Series between, yes you guessed it, England, India and Australia, plus one invited nation.
There is no doubt that the cricket landscape has changed. There is no doubt too that the power started to shift following India’s first victory in the 1983 Cricket World Cup. That success saw a nation switch its allegiance from Hockey to Cricket, then as the next generation inspired by Kapil Dev’s team came to the fore, so too did India’s economic rise. A second victory as joint hosts in 2011 established India as a force to be reckoned with when it came to the finances of the game.
The two former powerbrokers in World Cricket, England and Australia, opted rather than to fight for the game and protect its history instead to grab onto India’s coat tails. In 2014 when these three nations took control of the game, the two Chairmen Wally Edwards of Australia and Giles Clarke or England claimed that they had to go along with India to stop them breaking away. One wonders what would have happened had they shown more backbone. Had they not remembered the proverb, all that glitters is not gold.
It is wonderful to read the players come out against the plan to reduce Test Matches from five days to four, but do they have a voice? The fans do, and one feels the only way that this idea can be stopped is by action taken by the fans, the paying public.
Rather than re-inventing the wheel those elected need to manage the business of the sport in a way that makes it sustainable. Clearly that means changing the ways a Test Match event is put together and sold to the public. In those countries where attendances have been low, maybe the sport needs to look at loosening the controlling reins a little to allow a few more characters back into the game. Fans want to see characters, they want to dislike opposition players, there is nothing more boring than media trained automatons, whose every word and action is controlled.
It is not the game, or the Test Match that is in trouble, this is a smokescreen. The four day test match is not about saving money and protecting the game we love, but all about making more money. That is why every player and every fan needs to fight this proposed move.
