ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Oh for something different! Aggressive short-of-a-length 90mph spells (Flintoff) Jagging reverse swing (Jones) Today our bowlers look tired and short of ideas - bit like watching South Africa's bowlers in the 1st Innings. Perhaps Vaughan could turn to Collingwood to make a difference? Haha!

To me these comments are why cricket will remain just an oblique sport nailed to the sidelines. Unless you want to doze off for an hour, have lunch and still not have missed much, what exactly is the point of stretching any single event such as a test match over 5 days? The volume and the attitude of the public to 20/20 has shown this to be a product that can generate the revenue and interest of cricket to another level. But there are so many entrenched views within side cricket that 20/20 will just get watered down by all the other permeations, that it will start to be a non entity itself eventually. If it were not for the Australians, as a sport it would be approaching the ranks of real tennis.

Sorry Alec. I have total respect for your opinion and all you have given to the game over the years, but it's the "diehards" like yourself which are now in very real danger of holding the game back until it dies a very sad death.

Don't get me wrong, yes, test cricket can be exciting to those that love it. But as you yourself have said:

"Anyone who is new to the game, just an on-and-off follower of the game, would have found the first session pretty boring."

...and those are exactly the people you need to grow the game - people who didn't watch or play it before.

Ultimately you have to give them what they want, not what you want.

If test cricket was really that exciting, it would be globally massive already. The IPL meanwhile has produced sold out arenas, multi-million pound deals and got everybody talking. The cricket world were sensible to only introduce T20 slowly, but now it's established it is time to push it hard.

Regrettably, test matches do not have to disappear, but must accept it's new place as merely a supporting act to the people's choice of cricket.

At long last, a test of concentration, stamina and abilty.

Thats what test cricket is and to all of those who think it boring, its not just about the game, its the day, hopefully in the sun with your friends enjoying the atmosphere.

The current innings, while some might find it boring is a true show of skill, SA batting with all the stamina and mental toughness they possess, batting to save the game. England, bowling in similar vain trying to win the game.

How can it not be exciting and interesting when such a battle is going on?

i agree with alec myself, i love test cricket and see it as sad for the sport that a test series will have to defer to the IPL.

that said, 20/20 is where the money is and that is all that matters these days.

its a shame, but the ADD generation prefer to see a slog fest and to watch dancers jumping up and down to steps tracks after every boundary.

i think the next step will be 20/20 idol, where a group of talentless young cricketers compete against each other, get a roasting from simon cowell, and then the one who gets the most phone votes gets a 20/20 contract :)

exaggeration? probably but THATS what the people want.

I agree with Alec. This Test match has been intriging, and even when some would say it was 'slow', it was actually eventful and fascinating. There have been some great passages of play and before lunch on the first day was one of them.

T20 is all well and good, but is not the pinacle of the game. Test cricket is like a novel; it changes so quickly.

I don't think the issue should be, or is, just about test cricket versus 20/20. Both forms of the game should be able to survive. Although I think it's pretty pathetic that Sri Lanka committed themselves to a Test series here next year without checking to see if their players could be bothered to play in it. Why should we have to watch their reserves just because the BCCI wants to make loads of money and impose itself on the game throughout the rest of the world? What no one seems to be saying, though, is what impact the proposal for an elite 20/20 competition will have in this country. At best, it will turn cricket into a mirror image of the Premier League in football, where the big money is retained by a few clubs, who can then afford the best players, creating a two tier competition. At worst, those counties who are unfortunate enough to contribute to the game without being allowed to host Test matches will find no one wants to play for them and will go out of business. A few counties will then take over a much reduced county game, having destroyed the fabric which has stood it in good stead for so long. And then they will find that those who have been disenfranchised,with no county team to support, won't want to watch them anyway, so leading to complete destruction of the game. Or am I just paranoid?!

You're spot on Alec. This is the grinding test of character and skill that some of us live to see. 20/20 is the 100 meter dash while this is the marathon - both require running as a core skill, but the test is quite different. If you're after instant gratification and broad brushstrokes then test cricket is just not for you.

I wish some of you people would stop knocking it because it's not to your taste and you don't fully understand it. It's fascinating, full of emotion, can turn on a sixpence and is full of subtle light and shade.

South Africa are just sheer cussid fighters - and our England batters can learn a lot from their example here. Who will outfocus who in this one - I'm an England fan but I'm backing the Proteas to see this one out!

I agree wholeheartedly with Alec Stewart's comments.

"Unless you want to doze off for an hour, have lunch and still not have missed much"

I think you've missed the point. The excitement of Test cricket stems from the fact that whilst this is true, it is possible that you could pop to the toilet, miss no more than five minutes of cricket, and the nature of the game could have changed completely.

I find Twenty20 tedious. I find little excitement in watching batsmen score as fast as they can until they are out. It is much harder to bat for five hours or more, whilst under a lot of pressure.

The tactics of cricket and the mental ability of good cricketers are what make the game so compelling.

Do you think that we can find a decent wicketkeeper? Since Knotty and Jack, we seem to have run out of ideas. When one sees the number of catches dropped and stumpings missed, doesn't that cry out for someone who's good with the gloves? the runs then become secondary. Perhaps Reedy or Foster should be considered. Not only are they better than Ambrose but they can use the bat properly as well.

#2: Stuart Black:

'The people's choice of cricket'

Bah! If we took the people's choice of food, we'd all live on hamburgers. The fact that cricket is slower and takes time to unravel is one of its defining qualities and strengths. I am sick to death of people who want everything faster, simpler, squashed in. They tend to be the same people who talk about the 'need for growth'. Well folks, cricket is growing. Cricket is growing, Test matches in the UK keep selling and it's all been done without launching some dismal 20-over franchise in this country. The IPL has not been proven to be a success as it's way too early to see what it's impact on cricket in India is like.

I don't want cricket to be massive like football. Many cricket fans saw what happened with the 2005 Ashes win, that suddenly more of the common fan came along from football. With that, they brought a more blinkered view that gets propogated on numerous cricket forums. Professional football is a disgusting game run by fools like Sepp Blatter for the benefit of greedy agents who care for prima donnas like Cristiano Ronaldo. It is a game that brings out the worst in spectators too, be they traditional drunken fans having a punch-up to the right-wing element that exists within Italian football. I'd much rather kept cricket as a more minority sport if it meant retaining the spirit of cricket which does shine through compared to football.

Oh dear! Test Cricket RIP.

Until somebody realises that cricket is not an end in itself but a form of commercial entertainment, Test cricket will continue on its downward spiral into oblivion.

People will not continue to pay Β£70 to watch this. There will be very few of the 30,000 spectators who will be genuinely satisfied. This is not a good day's cricket.

How long until Sky get bored?

I agree wholeheartedly with Alec Stewart's comments.
"Unless you want to doze off for an hour, have lunch and still not have missed much"

What you have to remember is the rule not the exception. Why do you think the 1 day format was introduced, because the game was dying on its feet? Throw in a climate that is odds on to negate anything that requires the full 5 days and you are making a further irrelevance of the concept. What the current concept does is to restrict the counties star players to cameo performances for their county and mostly accessible to the public only by TV. If you want to take the game forward 20/20 has shown to be the answer. It will only take a couple of the major countries to take it on in a similar manner to the IPL and the rest will be history.

Test cricket an "oblique sport" in a "downward spiral into oblivion", I think the authors of these comments are influenced more by their personal prejudice than any evidence. Soccer is, allegedly, exciting but I would rather watch five days of rain, waiting for some play, than 90 minutes of soccer. I wouldn't, however, say soccer is doomed to oblivion.

'T20 is what the people want.'

Is it really? No-one asked me! Just because a few tabloid rags bang on about it doesn't mean 'the people' want it. It only means that the tabloids believe talking about it will sell their chip-wrapping along with the breasts on page 3.

I reckon T20 is popular at county level because folks can get to it after work. A lot of people can't get to 4-day games or Test matches because of work, but the fact that Test matches still sell out with today's ticket prices is a pretty fair indication of what at least 30,000 people want, and that's a lot more relevant than any blogger's opinion.

Cricket, and Test matches in particular, on free-to-air TV would help a lot too, so No.13: the sooner Sky get bored the better.

Cricket doesn't need to be 'entertainment' for a bunch of ADD wannitnows from the 'me' generation. That's what football and computer games are for ;-)

Re: Alec's response to my post (#3)

I'm glad to hear Alec does enjoy T20 cricket - at first I interpreted his blog such that he perhaps viewed it with disdain. I agree with him however that this is space for both in the calendar, but I guess we differ on where the emphasis should be.

I think in fairness those who are worried about cricket becoming like football in terms of rich/poor divide and prima donnas have a point, but now is the time to look at where football has gone wrong and put the measures in place so that when cricket does expand it is less likely to happen.

I don't however agree with it as "fast food" sport or for those of "The ADD generation". I think giving it that kind of comparison paints an unfair picture. You could just as easily spin it as "Action packed". You'll never have a version that everybody likes, but unless you follow the money, your sport will die a death. The best example I can give is chess, to which today's play between England and South Africa has been likened by Alec. For fans like me, longer chess games can be fascinating, but how many casual fans want to watch a seven hour competitive game? Many of the world's top chess players continually reject calls to speed games up and the money within and popularity of the game are slowly waning. Take note, cricket!

International test cricket may be popular, but when was the last time county test cricket got regular sell out crowds to every day of play? It doesn't work for the county game as well as T20 could.

The RBman


"What you have to remember is the rule not the exception. Why do you think the 1 day format was introduced, because the game was dying on its feet?"

Dying on its feet?!? Go back and watch Test cricket crowds in the 1960's and 1970's. Packed. Not dying. The rise of ODI cricket was mostly due to it being more flexible for television stations to cover such matches, not least at night when audiences would be higher and sponsors willing to pay more for adverts.


StuartBlack:

Football lost its way because the organisations like the FA lost control of the sport. The sport is owned by the money men, be it people like Roman or Sky. The Premier League itself is more powerful than the FA. The proposals for the 20-over franchise released the other day are proposals that would pretty much eradicate the ECB's power. Already we have seen in cricket how the ICC is reduced to a pathetic puppet organisation since the cash flowed into India and how that has coincided with an apparent lack of moral investigation as typified by the Zimbabwe affair (which still perplexes me how Kenya were kicked about for corruption a few years back yet Zimbabwe manages to get off. Oh yes, ZImbabwe have a major vote and therefore the like of India will back them. Scratch your back, I'll scratch yours. Great!)

'How many casual fans want to watch a seven-hour match?'

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the casual fan. If the casual fan wants to watch cricket, then there is a 20-over competition there that lasts for quite a decent period each summer. You also have 20-over internationals and 50-over internationals. There is cricket there for the casual fan and there are test matches for the committed fan. Most businesses who go for the casual fan over the hardcore fan are the type of businesses who end up going down the tubes when the casual fan loses interest and goes off to see this year's flavour of the month.

"International test cricket may be popular, but when was the last time county test cricket got regular sell out crowds to every day of play? It doesn't work for the county game as well as T20 could."

Four-day county cricket isn't about the spectator. It's totally about the players playing the hardest form of domestic cricket going. Every county understands that it can't be commercial and will never be a revenue grabber. If you balance this up with one-day cricket, you have a good balance and balance is what we needed. A diet of purely 20-over cricket would be fantastically boring. Not everything in this world has to be directed at an audience or at commercial interests. I'm from the school of thought that says we as a planet have become way too commercial and that our capitalist/commercial ways are actually harmful to us as a species. That's an entirely different debate though.

"Oh dear! Test Cricket RIP.

Until somebody realises that cricket is not an end in itself but a form of commercial entertainment, Test cricket will continue on its downward spiral into oblivion.

People will not continue to pay ?70 to watch this. There will be very few of the 30,000 spectators who will be genuinely satisfied. This is not a good day's cricket.

How long until Sky get bored?"


What people aren't considering is the number of people who would lose interest in the game if Test matches disappeared. I would follow the game a lot less if tests ceased to exist.

1) Today's cricket has been 'attritional'. However, it tells me a hell of a lot about the players out there which is a fascinating part of the game for many many cricket fans.

2) Think of the talent we would lose when the long-form players cannot adapt to the short-forms of the game, the great batsmen who simply cannot play and score in the way those forms require. They still have talent, they can still make great shots and put together great innings in a way that can be just as arresting and exciting.

I went to a T20 game and I wasn't that impressed - ok, that's just one game but the point is I am not rushing back to see another. T20 isn't a silver bullet. All it does is create a game in which the result is 'in doubt' for the longest amount of time (relative to the total length of the game). Tests can and do go to the wire and it is far more exciting. Think of the tension you felt before Harmison came into bowl to Kasparowicz with EVERYTHING to play for - 2 seconds deciding a match. Think of the joy you felt when Jones took the catch. I don't see how T20 will offer moments like that.

Completely agree with Alec here it's been fascinating and tense to see who will crack first in this game of chess. Mackenzie and Smith haven't batted quickly but they have batted really well so full credit to them. 20/20 and test cricket can easily survive IF the ICC give periods in the international calendar for these 20/20 tournaments to be played. What we can't have is the Sri Lanka issue happening again, which could be possible if no spaces in the international calendar is given. The thing to worry about is ODI cricket which doesn't really have many particular fans, like the tradiotnalists who want a tense game which slowly unravels love test cricket (me) whilst those who enjoy full-agression, party-atmosphere cricket love twenty-20. The main problem with ODI is that the 2003 and 2007 world cups have been disastorous in many sense which hasn't helped that form of the game

Today's cricket is actually fairly unrepresentative of how most Test matches have been in England over the last few days. A real attritional day's cricket hasn't happened that often. It's come after three days of very good attacking cricket and SA should be credited for showing the patience and technique to survive, albeit on what is a fairly dead wicket.

I cant stand 20twenty, and absolutely loved todays test match cricket. I still think there is going to be a twist to this match, and I still think England are going to win tomorrow. Thats the joy of this form of cricket. There is plenty of time ( a whole day left) and many things can happen.
LONG LIVE TEST MATCH CRICKET

I maintain that the majority of spectators who paid good money to watch today's cricket will leave disappointed and some will not come again.

Many of the tests are played in front of poor crowds. You just have to see sky coverage of WI v Aus. It is even creeping into England. I was at the 1st and 2nd days of the Trent Bridge Test v NZ , there were vast swathes of empty seats at Trent Bridge - something that you really didn't see even only a few years ago. I have been to each Trent Bridge test for the past 18 years.

Cricket is fortunate that its supporters have a seemingly limitless well of goodwill towards the game (hence all the supportive comments on this blog) and will tolerate, with marginal fuss, some really quite atrocious attitudes towards the paying spectator.

Over the years going to Trent Bridge I have seen ridiculous delays for bad light and cynical post rain delays designed purely to delay the progress of the game to ensure it goes into a 4th day. The spectators know this and laugh it off with a benevolent chuckle - but this will not go on for ever.

I still maintain that professional cricket is purely entertainment and that players have a duty to entertain. Today's play was only acceptable if you see Cricket as an end in itself - which some evidently do. The public will vote with their feet.

i am a big fan of Test cricket i always watched as much as i could on Channel 4 when they still had it, many years before the 2005 Ashes triumph, and thoroughly enjoyed it. i also find that 50 overs cricket is good fun too, sometimes a bit boring admittedley, but a good close series between good teams is great to watch, and at its peak is far greater than twenty20.

i have to say that 2020 is a game for those who are not great criket lovers over a stretch of time, people who prefer shorter more intense sports, such as Football and Rugby. i think that this is unfortunate becuase it reflects badly on Tests and One day matches which all in all are more entertaining at their peak, as 2020 can be rather repetetive, and at its worst can be a total bore for some, as the games can be over in a flash!

i think some forget that cricket is a game for those with patience, hence the way test cricket is played, and a good series like this is great to see as it helps with reminding us that it is good fun to watch! and its a shame that people seem to have lost patience with these great forms just for a neat bag of tricks and a cheap shell of a game, which i addmitedley am a fan of in its own way but would be less interested in seeing too frequentley!

Only a real man would appreciate today's play.

If you don't understand chess, stick to draughts. If you don't understand bridge stick to snap. If you don't understand Test Cricket stick to 20/20.

Dusto:

Players have absolutely no duty to entertain. That is true for any sport. The prime objective is to win by whatever means. In football that can mean a fluid passing side like Arsenal or a side more dogged and resilient like Arsenal under George Graham.

Today's play was totally acceptable. South Africa were up against it and went for survival. What did you expect them to do? Set themselves a target of six runs an over and aim to overhaul England by close of play? It was a slow day but it was one that still demonstrated superb batting skills. Batting is as much knowing what to leave as it is about scoring boundaries.

The West Indies attendence at Tests is a problem. It's a problem that has been going on years and is partly due to poor performance at international level and the continuing push of American sports via cable television into the West Indian culture. In England, it's somewhat unlikely that football, cricket and rugby in both formats are going to be dislodged as our main events by basketball.

Cricket supporters do have more patience than other sports supporters. We've all had rain interuptions and delays and other ludicrous incidents interupt play. Cricket is a long drawn out game and this is why it has so many unique qualities. I would suggest there is no other sport out there than has such a rich history of literature connected to it as well as such a fine commentary tradition from Arlott to Benaud. The idle passages of play let authors, journalists and commentators explore the game in greater detail. Cricket is a game that does come from a bygone era. In that regard, it is as deserving of preservation as a Victorian mansion or other historical treasure. Even if Twenty20 does take over the world, there will always be an Ashes tournament.

If the public can't accept that there are dull days of sport then they are welcome to not attend. That is the unpredictability of it. And let's be honest here, over the last three years, when have England ever been predictable?

Why should cricket be ripped apart to cater for the "casual fan"?

I like watching test cricket, I have done so since the age of 6. If I could sit and watch cricket at that age then so can anyone else, especially adults.

Why are people acting like children, with a 5 second attention span? Is that clever?

T20 cricket is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go into the depths that test cricket goes to, we need both and that is important.

People saying that T20 should be the mainstay of cricket in the future are missing the point. At its heart test cricket will always be the true test, of technique and temperament. If casual fans enjoy T20 as an entry point into the game then all well and good, but don't come around elbowing the die-hard cricket fans out of the way by side lining test cricket in the process.

Its high time people realised that these sports existed well before wall to wall tv coverage of them. Ideas like having no-ad sets in tennis or tie-breaks in the 5th set to get the matches over with destroy the sports for the sake of TV coverage. Imagine if the Wimbledon final had gone to a 5th set tie-break? We would never have seen the fantastic climax.

I'll wager there isn't a cricket fan here who found the IPL climax anywhere near as gripping as the Ashes series of 2005. Test cricket didn't seem dead then did it?

I can only agree with jmb (post no. 28)...

And hope that some live coverage of the game is returned to free-to-air TV channels.

Twenty20 is needed for cricket's future development, as is the longer form of the game.

What has happened in cricket is what happened in music.

Modern day classical recordings are only possible because of the mass market of rubbish 'tunes' that keeps music producers afloat - just.

Anyway 20-20 didn't fall out of the sky as a readymade. It is played by people who learned to play powerful scoring shots in county or test cricket. It relies more on the lengthier game than perhaps it realises. No top line cricket means no watchable 20-20 in the longer run.

A test series is a war
A one day match is a battle
20/20 is two drunken guys fighting in a pub

TheRBman

You referring to the worlds second most popular ball sport (apparantly) as being on the periphery? Weird.

Did anyone of you catch Ashwell Prince go to his century? It was a hard fought battle in testing condition and when he did reach his hundred, one could make out what it meant to him! That for me epitomizes what test match cricket is all about. It's a game for men, or a place where children become men. I believe all forms of the game have their place in world cricket, so long live Test Match Cricket!!

Top stuff Alec.

In a world of consumables and a throwaway lifestyle yesterday's play was the perfect antidote.

Compare the joy, relief and optimism of finally getting Smithy yesterday, to the quick 'hit' of getting him in a Twenty20.

The emotion is so much greater and so much more acute. Something that has been striven for. Something more worthy.

Sadly Twenty20 or ODI's could never ever offer such a comparable emotional experience. One that enriches your life and makes you more embellished for it.

That's test cricket.

Surely we can get a more human perspective on all this? Let's regard test match cricket as tantric sex. ( Who's going to deny it? ) Four days of foreplay and denial before the explosive last day seals the event. Tell that to a woman and she will not believe a man could be such an exponent of artistry and patience.
50 over cricket on the other hand is what she would expect from us. Dependable and occassionally quite exciting. Maybe twice a week.....certainly on a sunday at least.
But 20/20 ? It may be a knee trembler sometimes but it lasts for such a short time that if you told your audience that that was all they were going to get like it or not they would soon be out of the door for good.
So to become an all rounder practise is required so let's have a go at of all of it...........err cricket that is.

20/20 is cricket for people who dont like cricket. Despite all the big hitting and supposed tension it is unbelieveably boring. I watched pretty much all the IPL and in the most part it was dire. Yesterdays play kept me by the radio all day listening, anything could have happened at anytime. If test cricket goes so do i, 20/20 has nothing.

those who write of "product", "slogfest", "add generation" entirely miss the point. some might be surprised they even bother to read the test match reports.
there is no direct conflict between 20/20 baseball style game and test cricket. those who understand the development of an innings, of a blower searching away for that perfect delivery to dispatch a batsman and the ebb and flow of a game will appreciate test cricket. those who enjoy an evening's smash and run and/or who want a summer substitute for football will enjoy 20/20. the two groups are different sides of the same coin.
It might be worth mentioning it has never been easier to keep up to date with developments in a test match - desktop score cards and the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's running text commentary are just two of the ways to stay in touch.
Finally, the 40 over limited over game is more likely to be threatened by 20/20 than test matches.

The groundsman at Lord’s
Laid a pitch fit for bores.
And the Saffers said β€œTa very much”.
They fought hard for a draw
And, what is more,
Kicked poor Ryan hard in the crutch.

The MCC blazers
Shone bright as lasers
In the gathering, darkening gloom.
Then Cook had a bowl,
And Strauss had a foal,
And they sang Die Stem in the Long Room.

The Lashings World XI, pound for pound better than a test match

Last week our commentators were moaning about the price of tickets to the test matches, and quite rightly. It's not good for the test match game, but who can blame you when a ticket costs Β£70. Especially when you could spend Β£10 to watch Lashings World XI 'down your local club'. It's an awesome opportunity, with famous players commentating on the game, Richie Richardson captaining the team and legends such as Herschelle Gibbs opening the batting. These players are by no means past it and rarely loose, but games can be competitive. I was fortunate enough to watch Dorridge Cricket Club push them all the way, unfortunately the fifty five runs scored off eleven balls by Chris Cairns and Phil Simmons had taken the total out of reach for Dorridge. If you need your love of cricket re-igniting, this will definitely do it, especially if you get to see a few Caribean swipes to the leg side boundary.

www.ukonlinenews.co.uk/sport.htm