Four Day Tests... Derek Pringle asks why?
What began as an Aussie wind-up during their 16 years of Ashes dominance either side of the Millennium, is now being given serious consideration by cricket’s administrators – the move to four-day Test cricket.
Triumphant Australians love to crow and the cry that four-day Tests should become the Ashes norm because five were not needed to beat such feeble opponents as England, caused great mirth in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.
Yet few are laughing now except for those administrators who feel that they can do so all the way to the bank, providing a day is lopped off all Test matches.
Their argument for reducing the format to four days is, surprise surprise, based on money and convenience. The cost of using a Test match venue, fully staffed, with all health and safety directives observed is considerable and broadly the same whether the ground is full or largely empty, which fifth days often are.
The saving of one day’s costs, plus the perceived extra quality of a product that, and this assumes a Thursday start on their part, comes to a climax over the weekend, will, they surmise, make Test cricket a far more attractive product to spectators, sponsors and broadcasters.
The move to four-day Tests would not, they claim, reduce the value of broadcasting deals in any meaningful way.
Windswept stadia with more stewards than spectators, often the scene on a fifth day anyway, do not make for good visuals and can, they claim, put off advertisers and viewers. Then there are the production costs, not inconsiderable, which could be saved with a four-day finish. Those savings would, the four-day lobby claim, offset any shortfall in revenue that would occur through lost advertising.
That is the basic financial argument for four-day Tests. The other claim is that old marketing chestnut – the rebrand.
Live audiences for Test cricket are down around the word with only England and, providing it is an Ashes Test, Australia, able to sell out a day’s play. Elsewhere, competing interests, including white-ball cricket formats, tend to win over people’s time, money and enthusiasm.
That might all be true but rebranding Tests, be it through a four-day format, pink ball day/night Tests or two divisions, is just window-dressing. It may have a short-term impact but in the longer term, Test cricket will only survive if it is cherished by present and future generations of players and supporters.
And that will require education and strong marketing campaigns championing the heritage and traditions of Test cricket – not gimmicks.
The four-day mob also reckon the game has always evolved to meet the social demands of the times. Over its 140-year history, Test cricket has been scheduled over three, four, five and six days.
There was even a period where it was played through to a conclusion irrespective of how long that took, though that ceased after the ‘Timeless Test’ in Durban in 1938/39, when a draw was declared after 10 of play days because the boat taking the England team home could no longer delay its departure.
The ‘instant gratification’ required by modern audiences is one of the phrases bandied around by the four-day forum as a reason to reduce playing time.
Yet you wonder how well thought through their argument is. If anything, today’s culture is outcome driven and four days will produce many more draws, a woolly concept for modern minds, than five.
To counter the reduction in cricket people like Geoff Boycott and Colin Graves, the chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and a supporter of four-day Test cricket, advocate teams bowling 105 overs a day.Well they can’t have it both ways saying that we need four-day cricket to suit modern tastes and then give us a day’s play which will defeat modern attention spans by lasting anything up to nine hours, should overs actually be enforced.
Like most humans, cricket supporters are creatures of habit based around meal times.
When 117 overs a day was brought in to county cricket for the 1984 season, Essex found themselves still bowling against Hampshire at 7.45pm with not a soul in the ground. John Lever and Ray East were two of the most watchable bowlers of their era but that summer’s evening they were no match for a hearty supper and a glass of wine on the kitchen table at home.
Other arguments for the change to four-day Tests is that teams will play more dynamic cricket over the short-
Re-branding Tests is just window-dressing. In the long-term, Test cricket will only survive if it is cherished by present and future generations of players and supporters
ened timespan, something based entirely on supposition. One thing any reduction can guarantee, though, is to make bad weather more of a party pooper, rain being much more likely to cause a draw the shorter the game.
Then, who knows, we might see a reprise of silly declarations and joke bowling that used to blight the three-day County Championship.
So far we have considered the pros and cons with regard to supporters, administrators and broadcasters, but what of the players?
Any pruning of playing time is likely to hasten the death knell for the spinner unless groundsmen are given carte blanche to spice up pitches. Even so, pitch preparation is not an exact science and there is no guarantee their alchemy will not lead to three or even two-day Tests.
Shortening Tests, even by one day, would free up a lot of time. Providing administrators don’t pounce on it to organise yet more T20 tournaments around the world then that could be a positive consequence for players. But it is about the only one.
Which finds me agreeing with Ricky Ponting – that Test cricket over five days, played with red balls in daylight hours, should remain sacrosanct.
Anything else is sacrilegious, self-serving and for short-term gain.