Dear Editor,
I believe that cricket boards should provide contracts for players of all varieties of the game. Let me make it clear. I love all forms of cricket played by skilled performers. Because I am retired I am as eager to watch an entire Test, that is to say the unlimited overs match, as I am to watch the limited overs variety.
The answer to the question posed in the caption was not always complicated, but it is no longer simple, as a consequence of the distinction sought to be made by important cricket people between the different varieties of the game. Essentially the Tests, enthusiasts say, are literally a test of character in all its varied manifestations.
Careful observation reveals that patience is regarded as a key attribute of successful Test cricketers, while the shorter forms of the game are characterized by rapidity in execution. In Test cricket, being able to stay at the wicket for long periods is the true test of batsmanship, while in the shorter forms of the game, the quality of an innings is determined by its velocity, by and large. It is not unfair to say, however, that it is often patience rather than technique that determines how long one can bat in a Test match. Even in bowling, the time-frame for bowlers getting wickets extends to days, while in the shorter forms, it hardly ever extends longer than between one and three hours.
No one expresses a preference for Test cricket because it is more exciting or entertaining. The basis for the preference is character, the capacity to carry the fight over longer periods, sometimes even in different conditions, and to a lesser extent, the glorious uncertainty of outcomes during the long period required for the completion of a game.
What is the significance of all this? It is that Test enthusiasts tend to believe it is the demonstration of character that makes cricket a great game, rather than its entertainment value? There are, however, many more important areas of life in which the importance of character comes up for assessment. It is therefore difficult for those not weaned on Test cricket to accept the rationality of a game being a significant character testing venue. There is, therefore, a real danger that the younger generation will reject the notion that there is any other value to cricket than its entertainment value. It is mainly for this reason that I believe the tendency to maintain the hierarchical value structure between the different formats is dangerous to the future of the game. In fact it is of major significance that there are almost no differences in the identities of those who excel in the different formats. Countries should provide the same sort of support for players in all formats.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
