Test cricket in crisis! Again! That's the headline you could draw from an MCC survey that finds just 7% of Indian cricket fans prefer Test cricket to other, lesser, forms of the game. On the face of it this is indeed a troubling , dispiriting, finding. The survey, which was conducted by TNS Sport, sought, via the internet, the opinions of 1500 fans in India, New Zealand and South Africa to try and discover why Test match attendances have been falling and what might be done to reverse that trend. Peter Roebuck, always a gloomy bugger, summarised the findings thus: "It's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there" and worried that the greatest form of the noblest game is now on the brink of extinction outside England and Australia.
Perhaps. But I think that's too simplistic a view. I doubt MCC would claim the survey to be anything other than a snapshot but that doesn't make it worthless or, actually, as depressing as the headline figures might suggest. Take that 7% figure in India for instance: on the face of it this is alarming and so too is the fact that 58% of Indian cricket fans say that Twenty20 has decreased their interest in Test cricket. But more than 80% of Indian cricket-watchers say they follow Test cricket "regularly". That seems a healthy figure.
And as for Twenty20 diminishing interest in Test cricket, well, I'm a little sceptical of that. Perhaps it has right now and may still do for the foreseeable future but if, for instance, your favourite restaurant has, for years, offered only venison or chicken and you always choose to eat venison then the sudden appearance of hamburgers on the menu might reduce your interest in ordering venison this week. But that doesn't mean you no longer like venison.
Unsurprisingly TNS found that "Those for whom Test Match cricket remains their primary interest are amongst the most attached to the game as a whole, whilst the fans of domestic T20 demonstrate a farm more passive level of interaction with cricket." Fancy that! Guess which goup the game's administrators want to appeal to however? It's not those of us who like the game fine as it is. On the contrary, one sometimes thinks that the ICC views those of us who actually really like cricket as part of the problem, while those with little to no interest in it are the great solution.
I'm all for political parties ignoring their base, indeed I often think it necessary, but some things are more important than politics and cricket, obviously, is one of them. Twenty20 and ODIs have their place but it is a limited place. But there's an obvious discordance between the cricketing establishment's insistence that Test cricket must remain the pinnacle of the game and their hyping of every other format of the game. Come and watch Twenty20 and see that cricket isn't actually boring after all! By definition this implies that Test match cricket is boring. But it isn't.
As Norm puts it: "The product in its integral sense - the Test match and the Test series - is not only 'good enough', it's fine, and rather better than fine. Popularity matters, and the economic basis of the game can't be ignored. But you don't judge the quality of everything by how popular it is. The danger of doing so is that Test cricket will not be looked after properly." Wise words. The ICC talk a good game but their seriousness is undermined by their relentless pursuit of more money and to hell with whether this is necessarily in the best interests of the game.
Test match cricket is a bit like Shakespeare: difficult, demanding patience and sometimes incomprehensible to the uninitiated. But that hardly makes Shakespeare useless or irrelevent even in our busy, crowded, modern world. It takes times, and a good teacher, to make Shakespeare interesting to teenagers but, once they're hooked, they'll be with him for life. Something similar might be said of Test cricket. Fathers: this is your job!
As it happens, I also think the death of Test cricket is somewhat exaggerated. Cricket is unlikely ever to be the most popular sport in South Africa or New Zealand, for instance. It just needs to be popular enough. The best thing that could happen, right now, is a revival of West Indian cricket. But it's not the format of the game that is preventing that.
And it's possible that a credible Test Championship might help. The MCC's survey seems to suggest it might. One thing the report mentions that might definitely help attendance, is letting people buy tickets for a session, not the whole day. That is, it's easy to imagine that there are plenty of people who might be able to take half a day off work to see play after lunch or leave work early to catch the evening session but who are unable, for whatever reason, to devote the whole day to the game. This seems an easy, sensible, overdue reform.
I also agree with Patrick Kidd's view that too many pitches are too bland and fail to provide sufficiently interesting cricket. That said, this isn't a concern that features prominently in the MCC survey. Nonetheless, it's not helping cricket. But, again, there's a simple answer to this problem: prepare better cricketing wickets. The current Test in Kanpur is an excellent example*: the groundsman says that the ball will turn sharply from day three, but the flatness of the wicket at the start ruined Sri Lanka's chances of winning the game as soon as they lost the toss.
Ultimately, however, perhaps the biggest reason for declining Test match attendances is that, actually, watching cricket on TV affords a much better view of the action than going to the bloody Test itself. And the more the ICC persists with its misguided insistence upon referral systems and other pieces of technology the more that will be the case. The nature of the game is such that half the seats in any cricket ground in the world are, actually, pretty uselss for seeing what's happening.
Of course, you want spectators in the ground for the atmosphere they help provide. Perhaps the simplest solution, then, is to use the profits generated by Twenty20 to pay people to attend Test matches...
In the end, however, the only thing wrong with Test cricket is the game's administrators' lack of faith in it. If it's played properly, and in the right spirit and on proper cricketing wickets there's nothing wrong with it. And nothing better either. The answer is simple: Let Test cricket be Test cricket.
*Still, it's not all bad. As I write this, Tendulkar and Dravid are batting and there's the promise of VVS Laxman (my favourite batsman currently playing Test cricket) still to come. For that matter: All Praise Rupert Murdoch! Without him we'd see so much less cricket from other parts of the world. Indeed, depending on who's playing where, there are occasional days in which it is possible to watch 18 hours of Test cricket in a single day. Insomnia and cricket-friendly job and family permitting, of course...
Filed under: Cricket (152 more articles)
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
1 The danger for the Lib Dems - James Forsyth
2 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray
3 The strange survival of Labour England - Fraser Nelson
1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray (82)
2 Don’t let’s be beastly to the bankers - Fraser Nelson (71)
3 An Israeli strike on Iran? - Daniel Korski (66)
4 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell (55)
5 The government will have to fight for Lords reform - James Forsyth (39)
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
Left Back in the Changing Room
Are you making the right impression?
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Fergus Pickering
November 25th, 2009 5:32am Report this commentAh, a man who appreciates VVS Laxman has a lot going for him. The fact is I can't remember much about T20 or one day cricket, except that it was fun at the time, but there are passages of Test cricket that just improve with age. I can remember Cowdrey and Geoff Pullar (now who else can remember Geoff Pullar at all?) scoring 290 before tea against the South Africans. That was a passage of play that told me everything I could ever know about Colin Cowdrey's batting. He just put bat to ball, no effort at all, and it bounced back from the bounday boards. I have NEVER seen a batsman who could do that the way Cowdrey could. And (this was on television) I watched Dexter score seventy and put England in an impregable position, and then I watched benaud bowl us out in about forty-five minutes. I can see Brian Close heaving away cross-batted and NEVER once connecting except to drive a single straight six and thenheaving away again, the bloody fool. Oh the PAIN! No, T20 can't do that. On the other hand days of inexpressible tedium (far too often involving Geoffrey Boycott), don't forget those. T20m is bread-and-butter stuff, but you've more chance of a good day out and, since it doesn't really matter, you can watch England with your eyes open all the time.
Austin Barry
November 25th, 2009 7:36am Report this commentFergus - Geoff Pullar! A Proustian moment. Opened the English innings with Ramon Subba Row in the early sixties - a lost world of helmetless batsmen, green-spiked batting gloves, white business shirts with rolled sleeves (or flapping in Fred Trueman's case), fielders who only slid off bar-stools, smoke-wreathed dressing rooms and hug-less celebrations. You've made my morning.
Sir Graphus
November 25th, 2009 11:26am Report this commentAustin, a Ron Manager moment, if you don’t mind me saying. We really must salute those players who faced Roberts, Garner, Croft, Thompson, Lillee et al with no protection at all.
I, too, love test cricket. As a genuine no 11 batsman, and connoisseur of great bowling, twenty20 leaves me cold. The poor bowler seems merely there to tee up the batsman for an artless swipe at the ball.
Tiberius
November 25th, 2009 1:19pm Report this commentIt is down to the administrators to resolve the issues of Test cricket, and you highlight a number of potentially helpful moves, Alex.
I formulated a theory as a teenager that as long as Test cricket was being played somewhere in the world, things can't be all that bad (which is why cancelled tours of Zimbabwe and Pakistan worry me so much).
Quite simply, if there is no Test cricket, there is no sport called cricket (and possibly no peace in the world!)
Sir Graphus
November 25th, 2009 4:13pm Report this commentIt’s a very interesting theory indeed, Tiberius. You must have been some sort of prodigy to come up with this as a teenager.
Where the British Empire established the game of cricket, peace and prosperity have ensued (leaving Pakistan for the moment). And where we failed to do so, conspicuously the dark heart of Africa and Afghanistan (& ignoring Canada for this argument), then toil and tribulation are writ large in the nations’ history books.
kiwi
November 27th, 2009 1:04am Report this commentThe survey wasn't about test cricket as such. It was about small crowds turning up for test cricket in New Zealand, South Africa and India. Apparently, the MCC is happy with numbers in Australia, England and other parts.
I can't speak for South Africa and India (and am thankful for that) but as a cricket aficianado living in New Zealand I can say why I don't attend tests. One reason is the same as a friend's. He spent a whole day at Eden Park in Auckland a few years back, the second or third day of a South Africa - New Zealand test. Something around 200 runs were scored. Bad enough, but the real killer was that just one wicket fell. One wicket! In six hours' play! Worse for him, it fell at a time when he was behind the stands, buying a drink. All he got was the roar.
Will he attend another test? Not bloody likely!
And for all those wonderful Cowdrey and Pullar moments there are enough days like the Eden Park ones to keep whittling away at the spectator base.
The other reason for small crowds down this way is that Kiwis tend to be doers rather than watchers. With everybody living either on or within easy drive of the coast, the call of the sea, given the wonderful temperate climate, is near impossible to ignore when summer comes around.
kiwi
November 27th, 2009 7:01am Report this commentOne more point. No less an authority than Neville Cardus considered test cricket to be an aberration. To Cardus, village green cricket was the true game, each "higher" form getting further away from the ideal. No doubt he'd have been horrified by T20, but any game that takes fifteen two-hour sessions to complete — and even then peters out to a no-result 50% of the time — is in serious need of admendment.
Back to top