By Sreelata S. Yellamrazu
In example lies the tale. The talk of too much Twenty20 has been balanced by the debate over how to keep Test cricket alive. One thing has been widely established – that Test cricket must be sustained. Preservation though is quite another story. Even as there is concern over the growing influx of Twenty20 tournaments, the month of July has shown that as far as Test cricket is concerned, the solution lies largely within the problem itself.
Having said that, the one thing that stood out from the Test series in England as opposed to that in the Emerald Isles was the quality of the pitches. If the series in England has generated a tad more interest ( again without the reference to the match fixing which would digress the topic ) despite being a non-Indian affair, it was because the pitches were sporting, despite Pakistan wanting to create tracks that would traditionally suit spin more much like they are used to back home. But with Pakistan having enough spice in their fast and swing bowling department, they were not at a significant disadvantage in England’s seaming conditions. And that is precisely why the contest was considered even and evinced greater hope for Test cricket.
Two simultaneous bilateral series in two different continents and the response has been just as varied. On the one hand, the series between Pakistan and Australia came after a great deal of haranguing that finally saw a “home” series for Pakistan being played on neutral turf with the largesse of the MCC in the name of the “spirit of cricket”. But the vagaries of Pakistan cricket, particularly in the batting department, continued to dog the team despite a change of captain, undermining the quality of the game to that extent, and this is without touching upon the match fixing that has overshadowed matters since.
There is a fine but clear line between preparing a pitch favouring the theory of home advantage and one that is underprepared deliberately to undermine the opposition. In the case of the former, it makes a case for an enticing Test series with a factor that makes Test cricket unique - playing in different conditions. However, in the case of the latter, the deliberate lack of awareness of the need to prepare spectator worthy pitches has underdone the integrity of Test cricket, which is also a significant factor in why the debate regarding Test cricket sustenance rages.
There were obvious signs of it when the Galle pitch was prepared to last the entire duration of five days for spectators to get their final glimpse of Muttiah Muralitharan in action over five days. While the aim was noble, had it not been for the ingenuity of Muralitharan and the spring action of Lasith Malinga, coupled by a feeble batting effort by the Indians, the match could have been another mindless rendering of runs a la the second Test which was an obvious dodo of a dead track that served little purpose other than to goad the batsman’s ego. The curator may have rightly stated that it was offensive to Muralitharan to question whether he could turn the ball on a glass surface. But it is even more offensive to Test cricket to have it subjected to change in the name of innovation without really paying attention to detail to the critical matters, including the preparation of the pitch, that make the sport what it is.
Playing in varying conditions, testing one’s temperament in testing conditions, is what makes Test cricket such an intriguing format. But even within the seemingly uncontrollable factors within the sport, there is still plenty of room for improvement. To then premeditate the future of Test cricket would be erroneous when it has not even been given a fair chance in the modern day and age.
No comments:
Post a Comment