Column

Andrew Flintoff’s decision to quit at the end of the Ashes series caps a tumultuous fortnight in which Pakistan lost two Tests they should have won, Bangladesh won their first Test overseas, the West Indies players struck work, and England saved the first Test against Australia by a whisker. Phew! But though unconnected, all these events also raise queries about where Test cricket is headed.

I’ll save my tribute for Flintoff till the fifth Test is played. And yet, the suddenness of his decision is not only a cause for dismay, perhaps also a pointer to how several contemporary cricketers may be thinking. True, Flintoff’s body has been ravaged by injuries, but would he have thought of retiring from Tests (aged only 32 and not physically debilitated by any account) had he not been a multi-million dollar earner in the IPL, I wonder.

The issue, however, is not whether the IPL (or any other such league) is detrimental to Test cricket. That would be blighting the introduction of something that has given the sport new energy and spirit. In an interview to DNA last week, Sunil Gavaskar expressed the view that Tests might, in fact, become more interesting because T20 will compel players to shed many inhibitions, think more innovatively, and that is amply evident already. The real issue is whether players and the establishment themselves believe in Test cricket, and therefore want it to survive.

I am not being facetious here. The danger is imminent and manifest in varying forms, and not just from a hedonistic new spectatorship, but from within the cricket universe itself. Some months back, it might be recalled West Indies captain Chris Gayle made bold to say that he didn’t care if he never played Test cricket again.

Ironically, while most players are enamoured of the lucre available from T-20 (and why not, when the establishment and spectators are too?) almost every player still reiterates that Tests are the ‘real thing’. In a sense, that is a conundrum, in another, also perhaps the panacea to the problem, as the humdinger first Ashes Test has shown.

The ICC, admirably, has shown aggressive intent in making Test cricket popular and financially viable to ensure its continuity. Suggestions of four-day Tests, and/or a match having four ‘limited overs’ innings need not be mocked at, as several ex-players have done. To me, these look excellent ideas on which to start the search for a solution that will be acceptable to players, spectators and sponsors.

But even as these efforts are being made to ensure that Test cricket survives, there are others issues that need to be addressed concurrently to ensure that they don’t ‘die’ in public perception.

Pakistan’s two successive defeat against Sri Lanka top my gripe list. It is not unknown for sides to lose badly, but if two matches are lost from a potentially winning position, it reflects a serious loss of commitment, which in turn will drive away spectators from Tests further. Likewise, that the West Indies should have lost to a lowly Bangladesh (whose Test status is dubious) because the original side had struck work on a dispute which could be easily resolved through common-sense give-and-take confounds the problem manifold.

All these issues weaken the appeal of Test cricket more than is understood. Frankly, in the current situation, only five teams make the cut to play at the highest level. For a sport that aims to retain the old world even as it aims to conquer the new, this measly number may not be good enough.