Can Test Matches Get Even Better?
Tony Wadsworth |
The recently completed England/India Test series went beyond virtually everyone’s expectations for competitive, utterly absorbing, five matches. The commentators roared their approval of the unpredictable twists and turns, the improbable come-backs; the sublime skills displayed by the likes of Shubman Gill, KL Rahul, Rishabh Pant, Joe Root and Harry Brook; and the bravery of three players performing, in turn, with a broken finger, a fractured foot bone and a dislocated shoulder.
High level praise has been sung about a number of other recent Test series; and yet this continues to have a Freudian undertone. There is an apprehension that Test cricket may well be doomed – at least, in the form we know it – with the timing being uncertain but felt to be not far off. Every day of an enthralling Test match lived through is accompanied by this dread. The mixture of emotions may cause many cricket enthusiasts to be in danger of being overcome by a state of virtual paralysis.
This may well apply to the likes of: Huw Turbervill, James Coyne, Melinda Farrell and the stalwart David Frith of The Cricketer magazine; AE Housmann, a sage bibliophile; Tiana Ealdred, a recent debutant on the Cricket Web site; former England captain, Michael Vaughan and his coach Duncan Fletcher; Jon Hotten of The Nightwatchman journal; former England player and recent commentator Isa Guha; Vishnu Padmanabhan of The Economist magazine; in Ireland, recent international player Clare Shillington; in Australia, Ronald Cardwell and Julee Horan of the Between Wickets journal; Greg Baum of The Age newspaper in Melbourne; and in New South Wales, the writer of biographical tomes, Peter Lloyd; in the USA, Kylan Watson of the Philadelphia Tribune; Sean Gregory of Time Magazine; in the West Indies, Vaneisa Baksh; in the teaming city of Lahore with its 14 million residents, sports journalist and commentator Mirza Iqbal Baig; in Sri Lanka, Srian Obeyesekere; in India, former Test luminary turned eminent commentator Ravi Shastri; in South Africa, journalist and commentator Natalie Germanos; in China, Saurabh Mukerjee of the Shanghai Daily newspaper, and Mike Chan of the South China Morning Post; in Greece, Joseph Nikitas, President of The Hellenic Cricket Federation (based in Corfu); in Kenya, Lameck Onyango former national player and currently the head coach of the Women’s national team; in Afghanistan, writer Timeri N. Murari; and in Zimbabwe, Craig Irvine the current captain of the national men’s team; and in South America, Hernán Pereyra, President of Argentine Cricket Association; whilst not forgetting that remote South Atlantic archipelago and Cecil Alexander, Captain of the Falkland Islands team.
Not all Test series during the post-Covid pandemic era, 2023 to the present, have been hotly contested, a number only weakly so. And it is in this respect that I propose a change to the game’s regulations to reduce the incidence of one-sided contests, raise spectator enjoyment of these matches, and so lessen the perceived existential threat to Test cricket.
My proposal is to impose a limit on the number of overs to be received by both team’s first innings, setting this maximum at either 100 or 110 – which, typically – occupy one full day’s play plus 18, or 28, overs which would take up a further 1 hour and 20 mins, or 2 hours and 4 minutes, of playing time (based on a grand average for Tests for the past two and a half calendar years, at 13.6 overs being delivered per hour).
These maxima for overs to be received were my intuitive educated guess at what would be reasonable limits to impose and so I have tested these “working hypotheses” by investigating their likely impact. This has been done by taking the match results and innings-by-innings statistics for four of the major Test participant country teams from the start of 2023 (calendar year) through to the present, with a cut-off at 6th August. These teams being those of England, Australia, South Africa and India, being the four biggest guns of post-Covid times.
The focus has been on establishing, for the teams’ first innings, taken together:
- Proportion of matches won – and how many of these wins have been big (denoted by a margin of 100 plus runs or 6 plus wickets).
- Proportion of losses – and number by small, moderate and large margins.
- Proportion of draws due to a high scoring match, and proportion due to bad weather.
- Also, concerning the wins: number gained when going in to bat first and when going in second.
Findings
In summary:
| 100 Plus Overs (41 cases) |
| 25 WINS (61% of total cases) – 19 BIG (46% of total cases) |
| 6 LOSSES – 3 small, 2 moderate, 1 large |
| 10 DRAWS – 4 due to high scoring match, 6 due to bad weather |
| Note: 14 Wins when batting First – 12 of them Big |
| 11 Wins when batting second – 8 Big |
| 110 Plus Overs (28 cases) 16 WINS (57%) – 12 BIG (43%) 4 LOSSES – 2 small, 1 moderate, 1 large 8 DRAWS – 4 due to high scoring, 4 due to bad weather Note: 11 Wins when batting First – 10 of them Big 5 Wins when batting second – 4 Big |
The proportional findings for the 100 and 110 over limits are very similar, the notable differences being a slightly higher percent of wins and big wins with the former with its expansion of cases by just on half.
The details contained on a conventional spreadsheet are available on request to the author.
A restriction down to 90 overs has not been looked into, as would make a Test match format seeming too much like a two innings (two-day) ODI match.
Consequential Impacts
The principal impact of both scenarios is that instead of having a high frequency of matches dominated by one team and a more or less inevitable (or foregone) conclusion well before the actual end of the match, the dullness for spectators (not my experience but I am a “ Test nut”) would be alleviated; and hence the overall level of enjoyment derived from watching the match would be raised.
This might help to alleviate the perceived “ threat” of the demise of Test Cricket.
There are a number of other, beneficial, ramifications to be recognised:
- With five days of scheduled play, and no restriction on number of overs received, there is no pressure on the side going in to bat first to score at more than around 3.3 runs per over, unless the team were behind in the series. For the average number of overs received with the 41 cases examined being 123 per team innings (when 100 overs are reached or exceeded), this implies a team total of 405 runs. This lack of pressure could easily engender an ultra-conservative approach to batting.
- Tickets for ground admission to watch the play on Day 1 might be in less demand as a consequence.
Note that from the start of 2020 through to end of 2024, the other eight Test countries besides England, taken together, batted at that fairly leisurely (average) rate of 3.3 runs per over – equivalent to 55 runs per 100 deliveries faced.
- The work load and stress on fast bowlers – with long run ups and high energy – would be more manageable and extend the span of their cricket career.
- The cost of Test match tickets in England is now between 90 and 160 pounds. This is expensive in anyone’s budget! Value for money therefore needs to be a consideration.
- Eventually, the sale value of broadcasting rights may be an issue if overs received is left unrestricted! Since this is what funds professional cricket the world over, this also needs consideration.
- Spectator enjoyment via TV and at the ground needs to be paramount.
In conclusion:
- There’s not a sizeable difference between the two proposals, though I have a moderately strong preference for the 110 overs limitation.
- Most of the game’s rules and regulations exist to impose penalties for certain actions. However, this proposed stipulation would be there to avoid certain, as specified, situations occurring and would reward attractive cricket for the benefit of at-ground and television spectators. While, at the same time, making a contribution to the survival of this “pinnacle” format of the game.
Leave a comment