Experomenting on tests

The ICC will not be short of blueprints but its seriousness about altering the five-day format might be tested in the coming months. Here's TOI's
take on a possible new beginning for Tests... This might be a tough ask. If you are a Test cricket buff, set aside, for an instant, the associated sentiments. Forget the indulgent, intellectual delights of absorbing five days of nuanced interplay between bat and ball. The thrill of watching an absorbing draw, the mythology of unforgettable past contests. Forget the wisdom in tampering with the credentials of a classic format. Or the ethics involved in messing with the aura of tradition. Instead, place yourself in the shoes of ICC president David Morgan, and think about what you could do to better market a niche sporting product which currently thrives only on a handful of keen annual contests. As former Test cricketer Arun Lal says, "There is no right or wrong in it. The crowds are simply not coming in for Tests, just for T20. Sadly, Tests are fast becoming unfashionable and tedious for newer generations. If the audience desires change, if broadcasters want change, it is inevitable." Yet, Tests represent the pinnacle of achievement for players and change has its birth pangs. A cult cannot go mainstream without compromising. Morgan's comments on the need for reducing Tests to four-day affairs and making technical upgradations to make night Tests - read prime-time TV slots - a possibility has understandably set off a wave of resentment. Even administrators are generally cagey dwelling on the unknown. The BCCI is less traditional but it's early days yet. Some ex-India players have voiced their opinion against it, and Pakistan's Javed Miandad has said that "T20 is good entertainment and has commercial value but any move to tamper with Tests will prove counter-productive". Cricket Australia is "not initially enthusiastic". The game is steeped in convention but post-Morgan, it won't be easy to squirm out of this particular debate. The ICC's ideas, too, are far from being fleshed out. So will four-day Tests indeed become workable reality? Faster, more result-oriented, more viewer friendly, less indolent, yet true to the broad theatrical panorama of the original? Is it at all possible? The first casualty has to be the draw, although Tests have become more result-oriented than anyone would have guessed: Since the last 10 years, only 24.95% of Tests have been drawn, out of a staggering 465 matches. Since 2000, 75.68% Tests have produced results. Between 1990 and '99, the corresponding figure was 64.27%. Of the 17 matches played so far in 2009, though, 47.06% have been drawn. So where does one draw the line? "Scoring rates have gone up anyway and no one wants to bat for three days anymore. But I think draws can be dispensed with," says one-time Test opener and Delhi and Knight Riders' Aakash Chopra, who revels in the longer formats. "Only about 2% draws are memorable. The public needs results." But simply reducing the duration from 5 days to 4 won't reduce draws: most first-class matches are four-day affairs and most are dull draws. This is what Morgan doesn't mention. Clearly, it needs to be a limited-overs affair because it will be impossible to alter all known Test-match pitches so dramatically in favour of the bowler. "You can be penalised for slow over rates but you can't be penalised for slow scoring. It would be impossible to stipulate," says Chopra. The better idea would be a cap on overs. Here's our simple proposal: A maximum of 80 overs per side per innings, ensuring an innings is completed in a day. If the side batting last (on Day 4) fails to chase down the target, it loses. If the batting side is bowled out in less than 80 overs, their remaining quota would be added on to the opposition's share of overs as a bonus. For e.g., if Side A is bowled out in their first innings in 60 overs, then Side B will face a maximum of 100 (80+20) overs when it's their turn to bat. Here, too, the ICC and hosting associations will need to improve the quality of some pitches. Substandard or underdone tracks need to be phased out. Unless that is done, the toss will become vital as no team will want to bat last on a wearing pitch. Will the ICC penalise grounds which don't live up to these 'four-day standards'? The same 80-overs-a-side/two-innings-each scenario could be ideal for night cricket too, the moment a workable ball is manufactured. Batting under lights, though, will introduce a whole new element and fresh debate. The number of sessions a day could be reduced to two, with a longer break in between. In an idea borrowed from golf, matches could be compulsorily scheduled so the last two days fall on weekends, to pull in more crowds. Maybe, such 4-day Tests could even be trialled among weaker, 'second-tier' teams first. Undoubtedly, many more interesting ideas will crop up as the ICC pushes to make it a reality. "It's bound to happen," says Lal, "Earlier there was only one format, so more people watched Tests. Not anymore."