Dear Editor,
The patience displayed by batsmen, and indeed to a certain extent, by bowlers in Test cricket, which, by the way should be described as five-day cricket rather than “Test” cricket is not explained by the character of the players as some people like to suggest for whatever reason. Such patience is accounted for by time that is available for bringing the game to a conclusion. Batsmen reasonably calculate in Test cricket that what they do not do before lunch, for example, can be done between lunch and tea or even later. That circumstance explains the absurdity of the drawn test which has been widely accepted by older cricket fans as a perfectly reasonable outcome, and sometimes reflective, in their minds, of the grit of the players, mostly responsible on the weaker side, of achieving that outcome. That is part of the thinking that has led to the conclusion that Test cricket is different in kind from limited overs cricket.
Players, especially batsmen, in the shorter forms of the game must take risks, and be generally aggressive as a necessary condition for improving the odds of winning, since there are strict limits on the time available to play a game that most people not raised in what was the British Empire or before, say the 1960`s, consider should not consume more than approximately three hours like almost every other team sport.
The attempts to attribute different characters to the exponents of the different formats is misplaced, as what is really at play is the different behaviours required for success in the different formats. There are many who would rather not be reminded that Chris Gayle has two triple test centuries, has batted through at least one test innings and has a few centuries in tests of over 150. Warner, McCullum, Kohli, De Villiers and several others are of that mold, and Sir Garfield said that if you can play the game well you can play any format well. There is no need to belittle the value of the shorter forms of the game which to any objective observer attracts more fans and from a wider cohort. They are valuable and necessary components of the sport.
The myth has developed that test cricket is a more serious sport than limited overs cricket, and that it is in some strange way more than sport. That idea tends to undermine, in some way, the important notion that all sport is entertainment. That perspective is critical to the future of Test cricket, which has its obvious virtues as demonstrated by its longevity. If sensible time limits were placed on “Test”, cricket its future could be assured. If, for example, each inning were limited to 100 overs in one day, test matches would be reduced from 5 days to four days with very little change in the essence of the game, but with stricter control over those activities that lead to time wasting. The ability to score rapidly, which adds to the entertainment value of the game will be acknowledged for what it really is rather than being seen as some lower form of entertainment.
Half hour earlier starts, half hour lunches and fifteen-minute tea breaks surely won`t detract from the game. There are many other refinements that can be made in the interests of preserving the game in all its forms.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
