Column

The Twenty20 World Championship is over, and Pakistan is justifiably over the moon if not quite clear about the future of their cricket despite winning the title. Yet, the more compelling worry for administrators and aficionados must be about the future of Test matches. Indeed, does it have a future?

It would be pretentious (and delusionary) in the extreme to believe that everything is hunky dory where traditional cricket is concerned, and I am delighted that somebody of the stature of Adam Gilchrist has chosen to address this head on in his ‘Spirit of Cricket’ address to the MCC a couple of days ago.

Gilchrist, who comes across as an interesting admix of a romantic and a realist, believes that the future of cricket lies in Twenty20, and that this could also become the most effective way to save Test matches. He advocates more frequent T20 matches as the way to promote the sport globally, and yet keeping Tests alive by reducing their number.

That might seem a contradiction in terms, but in fact could be a brainwave. By making Tests a coveted, rather than run-of-the-mill event, there is greater chance of its survival. But T20, willy-nilly, will grow to keep sponsors and spectators interested and hence players engaged.

Where would one-day cricket fit in this? Alas, not very high up, according to Gilchrist, and I would tend to agree. “Twenty20 cricket has sometimes out-rated one day cricket nearly 2 to 1 in Australia, Gilchrist says in his address and adds, “I think nearly everyone agrees that over the years, one day cricket has slowly but surely become more formulated and predictable, resulting in a less pleasing package for the cricket fan.”

What this means, of course, is that fans may not remain as enamoured of one-day cricket as they used to be in the past few decades. Some evidence of this was available in the 2007 World Cup, and if the belief is that this was because India and Pakistan were ousted in the first round itself, my doubts have resurfaced after watching the spectator turn-out for the first match between India and West Indies being played even as I write this.

Dhoni’s team is the biggest drawcard in the world despite the setback in the T20 world championships, even so, the response has been tepid. Yuvraj Singh, stroking his way to a magnificent hundred, might well have wondered whether it is the same game that he started out with in 1999; or indeed if anything measures up to T20.

One day internationals, of course, cannot be snuffed out overnight, just like that. The 2011 World Cup is round the corner, and ICC’s FTP is packed for the next few years at least. But Gilchrist’s lecture provides food for thought because it gives a rounded perspective – of spectators, sponsors and importantly even players – about how the game could unfold in the next decade.

My view is that if Test matches have to be reduced, they must still be seen as sacrosanct to keep players and spectators interested.

A staggered two-year world championship between all Test teams played out in different ‘cricketing zones’ (e.g the Indian sub-continent, Australasia, England, the Caribbeans, Africa) would not only provide engrossing cricket, but also a worthy world champion.