World Test Championship cycle two years too short
Back in late 1980s, there was a debate about whether Test cricket was dying and ODI cricket was the way forward. More than three decades later, the longest format continues to survive.
The traditional Ashes series between England and Australia continues to draw crowds at the grounds. In other countries, especially India, spectators are seen flocking to the stadiums when there is a good contest.
Obviously, times have changed. Earlier, there were fewer forms of entertainment. There was no live telecast and a Test match came to one’s city once every year or two. So people thronged at the venues. Crowds may now have thinned at the grounds, but there are still millions watching on television.
The nature of Test cricket is such that it allows companies to advertise liberally at reasonable rates. The problem, really, is the apathy of administrators and lack of proper marketing.
After dragging its feet for decades, the International Cricket Council (ICC) finally put together a ranking system. Clearly, the concept of a rolling championship never worked. Who cares whether Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal is No. 1 in tennis at a particular time? But everyone wants to know who won Wimbledon, the US Open, the French Open and the Australian Open as they want to watch these tournaments.
Test cricket needs a long duration championship. A triangular tournament between England, Australia and South Africa was tried more than a century ago in 1912, and it was not a success. More recently in 1990s, an Asian championship was attempted but made no headway. One is convinced that Test cricket needs four-year championships, not two-year ones, as scheduled by the ICC now.
Like many other sports, a four-year Test championship would be just right
This way we will have a champion Test team at the end of every four years. The football World Cup, the ODI World Cup and even the Olympics is held every four years? So why should Tests be confined to two years? The logic of the ICC confounds me. A saying in Hindi goes - “der aaye durust aaye” (they came late but arrived in fine fettle). Here, the ICC came very late but not in good shape at all.
The two-innings concept in a Test match allows a team to fight back if they don't do well in the first innings. Similarly, a four-year championship will allow teams that start badly to claw their way back.
With 12 Test-playing nations, why are only nine participating in the World Test Championship? If we have all 12 teams participating in a four-year cycle, they can easily play each other at least once, and in some cases twice - home and away - as in the case of the Ashes. A series can comprise two, three, four or five Tests, as decided mutually by the respective boards.
There is no need for a final either. How can one Test match determine the fate of such a prestigious and prolonged championship? The tournament should be framed in a way where the team topping the table will be crowned champions. The ICC might think that a final adds value and interest to the championship, but it is as thoughtless and short-sighted as the number of boundaries deciding the ODI World Cup champions.
The points system was also creating unnecessary confusion earlier. Now it is a more sensible system, easy to understand with 12 points for a win, four for a draw and six for a tie. Percentages decide the leader-board, that is, points earned divided by points contested, multiplied by 100. It is simple and fair enough.
Test cricket will not just disappear. It is our heritage, a way of life. More books have been written on Test cricket than on all other sports combined. It has more stories, tales and legends, as well as intricacies, than any other sport. It has evolved over the last 145 years to what it is now. How we preserve it is up to us. The ICC should immediately re-think the World Test Championship it has devised and take corrective action right away.