Test cricket faces test of popularity and longevity
FOR many years I have been an avid follower of Test cricket and have come to the conclusion that Test cricket, much as though I hate to admit it, is on the way out.
There are so many reasons that it is almost inevitable the “Ashes” will represent the demise of not only English cricket, but Test cricket internationally.
First, something that hits the man in the street hardest is the phenomenal amount one has to spend for a day of Test cricket. It is bad enough as a single person, but heaven help the poor chap who takes his family along, keeping in mind it is not only the ticket cost that is going to empty his pocket.
Second, the rules of the game are becoming so confusing (take for example the referral system for an LBW decision that can go either way with exactly the same delivery but dependent on the umpire’s decision and whether it is referred by the fielding side or the batsman). On this score, I include the “armoury” that batsmen wear.
I am surprised they do not let them take shields as well. I realise players must be protected but, as in any sport, injuries are going to occur, and I feel with all this protective gear the majesty of batting has gone out of the window.
Third, and this I feel is the crux of the matter, Test matches seem to almost hinge nowadays on the preparation of pitches and the winning of the toss. (Weather conditions obviously have a small part to play in this regard.)
Spectators are not going to flock to the ground to see a match (Test match) that’s over in two or three days, which seems to be the norm nowadays.
Let’s take the current series between England and South Africa.
First Test at Lord’s – England win the toss, bat first and thrash South Africa.
Second Test at Trent Bridge – South Africa win the toss, bat first and thrash England (both sides had virtually the same teams competing with the exception of Rabada in the SA side).
Third Test at the Oval – England win the toss, bat first, and thrash South Africa. Notice any consistency and can we expect the same to happen at Old Trafford to whoever wins the toss?
Fourth, I am not going to enter the fray that erupted over Graeme Pollock’s comments and retorts by many others, but are selectors influenced in their selections?
Another point is Faf du Plessis’s comment after the loss at the Oval.He stated they knew that Vernon Philander (great cricketer, by the way) was not fully fit before the match but hinged his selection on winning the toss and giving him a day or so to recuperate.
Unfortunately, the toss was not won and we know the rest. Surely you cannot select a player not 100% fit for the match.
Last, I am afraid our selectors bungled again in their selection of Heino Kuhn as an opener before Stephen Cook who is playing in English county cricket and is familiar with conditions. Is it any wonder the Americans do not understand the game and have, as yet, not tried to enter the fray? Brian Pittman Fish Hoek