WHY IS TEST CRICKET ‘DYING’?

I will remember 2008 as the year when I heard the cry of ‘test cricket is dying’ most often? TV commentators, Indian, English, Australian and what not, said it – the print media repeatedly dwelt upon it – from what I can remember, even some current cricketers viewed test cricket to be in irreversible decline.

But why? In 2008, there have been approximately 30 test matches. While 13 of these have been played in the sub-continent (about 40%), the remaining (about 60%) have been played across South Africa, New Zealand, West Indies, Australia and England. Across the vagaries of these pitches, there have been less than half a dozen draws in test cricket in the entire year (and of the draws, a couple could be attributed to the weather). Even in the sub-continent, so often accused of producing dull dreary cricket, only 3 drawn tests come to mind immediately (and of these three drawn tests, the two between India-Australia were only a few moments away from changing to results). 2008 has also seen the second highest run chase in history and the highest run chase in India and yet....

Compare this to a few decades back, when draws were the order of a day – a result, something to be cherished – where Dravid’s batting would have been considered outright brash - where just 250 runs in a day was considered outstanding batting! For instance, India and Pakistan played a 5 test series without either side winning a test – and yet they played to packed stadiums!!

So what has changed over the past 15 years? Why are the stadiums, especially the usually packed to the rafters Indian stadiums, suddenly bereft of people? Is it the fast food diet of one-day and 20 over matches that have ruined our palate for the fine cuisine of test cricket? Has the pace of our lives changed, so that we no longer have 5 days to spare on cricket, no matter how riveting the contest? Do we demand more comfort and facilities than the amphitheatres of cricket can offer?? Is there too much cricket?? Is it the television?

We must ofcourse identify the problems before we propose a cure. So, are there any other factors?

Be (Ti)wary

For the third Test, the only reason I'd think of dropping either Dravid or Ganguly is if Kumble would consider a fifth bowling option. Yeah, so Rohit Sharma has been warming the benches when he might as well have been perfecting his game at home. It's easy to look at Yuvraj and say see what years of being benched in the Test squad did to him, but the more critical ones will recognize the merits of travelling with the team and Yuvi's portion of the blame as well. More importantly, it would be bloody crazy to blood Rohit in a decider against Murali and Mendis - he might take forever to recover. Let's not repeat Manoj Tiwary's trial by fire-breathing-Lee.

Vaughan and Dravid

Which style do you prefer? Dravid's terse letter to the BCCI, communicating his reluctance to continue as captain, or Vaughan's teary press conference? Even though Dravid left me confused, and at the back of a series win, searching for answers, I am now, very happy that he spared us his emotions.

Is the threat real?

This is a response to TM's post below. Even far away from India and the IPL, it is hard not see how shaken people seem to be by the spectre of 'corporatisation'.

Dravid first lost the Colonel's faith, and then went ahead and now has almost lost the Liquor Baron's. What is the difference? The Colonel is the chairman of the selection committee of the BCCI. The Liquor Baron represents the franchise ownership of the Bangalore Royal Challengers.

The chairman of the selection committee is responsible to those that control the BCCI purse. That the BCCI is responsible to its stakeholders, the fans of Indian cricket, will never cross the minds of the mandarins because of the absolute monopoly they hold in the product market known as international cricket in India.

The ownership of the BRC, on the other hand, is immediately responsible to gate collections and franchise T-shirt sales - the ownership in an ultra-competetive market is much more likely to feel the pinch of waning fan interest. The absolute unlikeliness of regional quotas ever finding place at a BRC selection meeting is an example. On the other hand, there is always the chance that a cricketer with a greater ability at selling T-shirts (think Beckham and Real Madrid) will get a favourable hearing.

Theoretically at least, a competetive market where the fan is free to shift allegiance, seems a fairer (or at least more democratic) judge and executioner of a player's fortunes, as compared to a selection committee that exists in a monopolistic vacuum, free from competetive pressures. Of course, there will be unfair application of what is fair in theory - and that will depend on the nature of the ownership. Is the ownership Machiavellian about profits? Is the corporate culture dictatorial?

Corporatisation by itself, is no great danger. In fact, there is good reason to argue that selection will end up a fairer process. Also, when ownership realizes the importance of attracting and retaining good employees - and the Liquor Baron will not be a stranger to the Great Global War for Talent, franchises are bound to place more thought on conditions of employment.

UB or not to UB

Vijay Mallya is pulling out his wonderfully styled hair as Bangalore stumbles from defeat to defeat to defeat to defeat (you get the point)...Charu Sharma has already borne the brunt of, perhaps the most debt ridden man in India's, anger, and is now looking for a job. As Mallya shoots his mouth right, left and centre about how disappointed he is and how cricket has a corporate element to it, Rahul Dravid and company may sson be looking for new franchisees in the transfer window (wonder if after these perfromances, there are going to be any takers!).

But the point is that corporatization is rearing its very ugly head in cricket and an out of form player is now under the same kind of threat as any other employee in India - the very real threat of being fired and losing out on 'maximizing' income during playing days. As a lawyer, it irks me that the same kind of labour legislations that protect each of us employed in India from complete arbitrariness and high handedness does not appear to protect the sons of Indian cricket. From what one hears from people who have actually seen the employment contracts, all rights under these contracts have been waived and the players are completely at the mercy of the employers - perhaps we need a challenge to these contracts in the higher echelons of our judiciary and for some of the more arbitrary clauses to be struck down! No longer is class permanent and form temporary - ask Dravid or Kallis how conventional wisdom lays bleeding at the alter of money.