Is Test Cricket As We Know it Gone?

Everything seems to be getting shorter and shorter, the advent of 20/20 cricket is designed to appeal to fans who cricket wouldn't normally attract by the longer versions of the game. (It seems absurd to be calling one day internationals a longer form of the game!). However are we running the risk of changing the game as we know it? Already we can see that many cricketers simply don't have the skill set or mind set to play test cricket, Bangladesh being a great example. They have talent, but they don't like batting or bowling for very long before they either throw their wicket away or try something absurd!

Night cricket remains a possibility to attract viewers that may not have time during the day. Adam Gilchrist warns we are not ready for it yet, and I agree. There are "ball issues" but for me the problem is the limited venues where night cricket will be an option. It requires areas where the dew and conditions don't change the conditions so much that the nature of the game is changed and favours one side. Other than Australia, I'm not sure any other country can provide this.

So the question remains, should we tamper with test cricket?

I think test cricket is dying. The purists who love the game will always remain, but cricket can't exist with such small numbers of die hard fans. Not in this economic climate. I don't like changing the fundamentals of the game but how about these ideas of mine?

1. Ensure 100 overs per day

I believe more results would help attracts viewers to the game. A draw can be fascinating, but it should be the exception not the norm. I am thus in favour of giving the players as much time as possible to produce a result. My first change would be to ensure the game consists of 100 overs per day.

How often do game almost produce a result in the last session of a test? Another 50 overs over the course of a game would be massive. Play could start half an hour earlier and lunch could be reduced to 20 minutes like the tea break. I'm sick of teams not bowling their 90 overs in a day too, so harsher penalties need to be enforced. Do players really need to run in from such a long distance sometimes!

2. Limit the first innings

What about a scenario where teams have a limited number of overs in their first innings? I know this takes away a fundamental aspect of test cricket, but how often do we see batter friendly pitches in the sub-continent where after 2-3 days the game is effectively a draw? What if we limited each teams first innings to 100 overs each. I have taken note of this and in most parts of the world, teams don't last 100 overs in the first innings , so those that argue it would limit teams, and they'd have to change their game, that may not have to happen.

Also would it be exciting in the middle of a test to see a side running out of overs and having to up the ante to score runs! The second innings could remain unlimited. Thus we'd have a minimum of 3 days to complete the last 2 innings. If the first fielding side bowled the first side out before 100 overs, could they be credited those overs to their first innings?

3. Change the rules

Tidy up some of the rules. The 2 that really get me are wides and defensive fields.

To encourage more positive bowling, I think wides should be policed much better. The off side wide could stay much the same as the ODI and 20/20 currently operates, and the leg side wide could be relaxed slightly compared to those formats, to ensure leg side play can remain part of the game.

The second rule I'd change is the fielding restrictions. I am not a fan of seeing captains place most of the fielders on the boundary of 3/4 of the way back to stop boundaries being scored when a team is attacking. I think there should be a limit. Maybe they need a circle like the shorter forms of the game and maybe there could be a limit such as 4 or 5 fielders outside the circle. It then makes run chases more exciting and doesn't penalise a side who is attacking through their batting.



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sanjay_Deva