This see-saw epic exposes the folly of four-day Tests
GLORIOUS BATTLES NEED TIME TO BREATHE
Steve Smith looked up at the night sky, his face a scowl of regret and frustration. he had blown his reviews, dropped a catch and england’s batsmen were closing in as relentlessly as the dark.
A test match that had once looked to have been heading incontrovertibly in Australia’s direction was now in the balance, and edging towards a gladiatorial conclusion.
Overnight it was too close to call. the odds favoured Australia, who needed six wickets, the momentum was slightly with england, requiring 178 runs, even given the famous frailty of their middle order under pressure.
Yet there was also a sub-plot, a conversation, that did not concern Smith, Joe Root or any of the players under the lights, but should resonate with those outside the ropes who continue to love the long-form game in all its see-saw glory. Nobody, but nobody, should be advocating four- day test matches this morning. Not having seen this play out. Not having witnessed the 2017-18 Ashes so far.
the first test in Brisbane needed space to breathe on the fifth morning, to give Australia their deserved victory. And this would have petered out to an unsatisfactory draw last night rather than freewheeling wildly into its final day, had there been a 20 per cent reduction in allotted time.
the argument is that, given four days, players will adapt. Score faster, get through the overs quicker. take more risks, make funkier declarations. And maybe they will.
But it won’t present the same challenges, make the same demands of concentration, athleticism, determination. it won’t be as intelligent, as complex, have the same ebbs and flows. it won’t be like this second test in Adelaide, the first day-nighter in Ashes history. that is gimmick enough, surely? Playing test cricket under floodlights at 9.30pm on a tuesday. We’ll live with that. the rest, leave the hell alone.
Whatever happens on day five — and it’s england, so only a lunatic would rule out the prospect of a crashing anti- climax from the tourists’ point of view — this has been a cracking test match. And it wouldn’t have been without the space to grow and develop organically. it wouldn’t have been as compelling, have swung first in Australia’s favour, and quite significantly, before inch by inch coming back towards england.
At the conclusion of england’s first innings, the very thought of victory would have seemed ludicrous. Adelaide is the city of churches and not even a tourist who visited every one of them and fell to his knees in prayer would have thought he had secured enough divine influence to change the course of this match.
england had bowled so poorly, batted so abjectly that they, and the Ashes, appeared a lost cause. they were going to depart for Perth, two down.
And then the second half began. england, and James Anderson in particular, were magnificent in skittling Australia for 138.
Anderson recorded five for 43, Chris Woakes, who had looked mediocre with the ball until this point, four for 36. And, against all expectations, Australia blinked.
TheY would not have done so, had just four days been scheduled. Over four days there would only have been two options. Australia bowl out england and win. england bat for the rest of the day, save the match, and draw. Option three, the one that caused the first beads of sweat to break on Australian brows, required a five-day time frame.
What could have been done to reach a four-day conclusion? Well, Australia could have scored quicker having been put in. they were slow on day one. Yet the wicket was tricky. Not quirky, and always fair, but it still needed mastering.
Australia needed the best part of two days and plenty of patience to build their score of 442. had they tried to force a score, gambles would have been taken, some unsuccessful, and the score would have been much lower. that isn’t test cricket. What has made this match so enthralling is that england will have spent the best part of three days trying to counter Australia’s mighty firstinnings total.
to have manufactured and massaged an outcome, to have infested periods of play with the ethic of twenty20 cricket, just to make an unnecessary deadline work, is counter-productive.
those who follow the longer game do not want it to ape the Friday night bash-ups. they love its subtlety, its variation.
And yes if, on occasion, runs have to be scored quickly, then that is all part of the big picture — not a regularly occurring and artificial device, without which the game no longer works.
to the shame of english cricket, the eCB are one of the leading proponents of four-day tests.
Officially, they have a neutral stance. Behind the scenes, that is not the case. tom harrison, the chief executive, is certainly an advocate.
So how would he make his case, overnight in Adelaide, to the members of england’s travelling army who are spending personal fortunes to watch test cricket and would have been repaid with an inferior, mediocre, dead spectacle.
the Barmy Army were in full voice at the end here, mocking Australia’s absence of reviews, revelling in what was at the time a wholly unexpected reversal of fortune. it was wonderful, boisterous theatre. Sport at its absolute best.
As nobody sells fifth-day tickets for test matches any more — because more than 40 per cent of them no longer last that long in the modern era — admission at the Adelaide Oval will be by gold coin charity donation. in Australian parlance that is a $1 or $2 coin — so, at the current exchange rate, top price £1.13, bottom 56p.
Whether england last one session, or pull off one of the greatest comebacks in modern Ashes history, it represents the best value for any elite sports event this year.
And that is what four-day tests would deny the fans. Whoever supports the plan should be banned from every cricket ground in the country. every country.