With the first Test rapidly over within two days, it was not surprising to see the capitulation of the Poms probed from every media angle.
What was surprising was that almost equal attention was devoted to the burning question of how the teams (particularly the tourists) would deal with the lead-up to the second match, blown out to 12 days.
With so much time between matches, should the rustiest of the Englishmen take part in the day-night fixture against the Prime Minister’s XI in Canberra? Should they stay in Perth for a while and practice at the WACA?
Should they go straight to Queensland and acclimatise for the Gabba Test?
And for that matter, how hard should they be training? How many days off are necessary for recovery? Should they be allowed to play golf?
Seemingly lost in all this speculation was any sense of grievance that Cricket Australia, the broadcasting networks and the sports-loving public had been shortchanged when, expecting a five day encounter, they were served up just 40% of the product.
Today, it seems, we are expected to take this in our stride. And nod in passive acquiescence as coaches inform us that the boys will now be taking four or five days off before regrouping for the next encounter.
It wasn’t always the case. Many readers would be able to recall that during the 1970-71 Ashes series, the washout of the third fixture in Melbourne led to the hasty scheduling of the historic One Day International match on what would have been the fifth day of the match, as some compensation for the disappointed public.
Less well known is that an extra (seventh) Test match was squeezed into the tour itinerary to make up for the lost match. This would leave the tourists with only five rest days for the last six weeks of the tour.
Yes, times have changed. But I am still surprised that there is no groundswell of opinion that, having effectively contracted to provide five days of entertainment, the teams are not held to account.
For example, the first Test was scheduled to take place over five days from 21-25 November. The players were selected because they were fit enough to play for five consecutive days. They did not need to be anywhere else during that period.
So why didn’t they keep playing? Yes, the match had been decided but there was nothing stopping them from providing us with cricketing entertainment during the remaining three days.
(Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
The networks had already put up the money. The players and staff had already been paid. So why are they simply able to catch an early flight out of town for an unearned break?
As to exactly what form of cricket they would play and what they would be playing for, there are a number of alternatives.
I do not intend to evaluate all of the alternatives in this article. Rather, I will simply lay out my own preferred model.
This model should have ICC approval and should be applied to all ICC-sanctioned Test matches.
The first principle is that cricket must take place (weather permitting) on every scheduled day of a Test.
If a match finishes before the scheduled final day, then another match will be played on the free days. So, in the case of five-day Tests, if a match finishes on Day 2, a three day match will be played; if it finishes on Day 3 it will be followed by a two day match, while a Day 4 finish will result in a one day match.
The results of these additional matches will count toward the Test series.
They differ from actual Tests because first innings points are available. So a first innings win would contribute 0.5 to the test series score, while an outright win would contribute 1.0.
Various deterrents to negative play and encouragements to positive play could also be factored in. Given that these additional matches will be played on 4-5 day old wickets, there is plenty of scope for exciting finishes.
There is no reason to fear that they would just produce dull draws.
Harry Brook. (Photo by Alex Davidson/Getty Images)
The one exception to these arrangements that I would allow would be if the match pitch was rated unsatisfactory by the ICC representative.
To continue play on such wickets could be dangerous to players or could exacerbate an unfair advantage.
The frenetic pace of Bazball (or Pant-ball or Trav-ball) has had a tendency to shorten the length of Test matches in recent times. But this is not an anti-Bazball article, nor a desire to punish teams that like to keep the game moving.
It is written more from the perspective of the fan, which differs from that of the modern player. I am sure that modern players and coaches would be aghast at this suggestion but all I am really asking is that they play cricket on the days that they have been scheduled to play it.
I am sure that this is what lots of fans on all sides (not to mention broadcasters) would like to see. After all, what Aussie fan could resist the prospect of winning a five-Test Ashes series 7-nil?
>Cricket News
%20(3).jpeg)
0 Comments