Published: Nov 29, 2013, 02:37 PM (IST)
Edited: Aug 23, 2014, 08:14 PM (IST)
While there is enough talk about hectic scheduling in international cricket, having a two-Test series further adds to the irrelevance of a bilateral series. Abhijit Banare looks at Graeme Smith’s statement on the same.
How disappointing it would be for cricket fans across the world if the Ashes would have been played as a two-Test series instead of five? Michael Clarke would have been under no pressure to sledge James Anderson to keep them on the hook in the second Test. A five-match series in itself has its own roller-coaster ride just like the game unfolds with each session making the momentum shift.
South African skipper Graeme Smith recently urged his country’s board to go beyond the two-Test series and play much more matches. It’s a shame that the World No 1 Test side is busy playing the same opposition over and over again.
“When it is at least a three-Test series, it has a little more definition in your own mind. Ultimately it is up to the International Cricket Council (ICC), as the main stakeholders, to lead the game forward. As players, we are totally reliant on them. We have no decision-making in these things and we would love to see them putting the game in good light, leading us forward into a good space.”
In a subtle way, Smith made a few crucial points. A three-Test series surely brings some definition or purpose for players to compete. Perhaps one can compare a two-Test series with a three-match One-Day International (ODI) series — whoever wins first holds the edge. Whereas in a three-Test series, there is at least scope for a fightback from the opposition.
If the ICC wants to carry the format forward, keeping a check on this type of exhibition-style Test series is necessary. The rules of a bilateral series have been flouted time and again. The minimum requirement by the ICC asks for two Tests and three ODIs. Some of the series have been held in parts while a few others have been postponed completely.
South Africa last played four Tests in a series in 2009-10 against England and since then they have played 11 series with just three matches being the maximum. The series against a formidable Indian side was a fine opportunity of witnessing an Ashes-like engrossing encounter which could not only have generated a lot of interest but also kept both the formats alive. Yet the politics of the game ensured one of the most awaited series is down to merely being a handshake series. And a few months down the line, it is unlikely whether anyone would remember a two-Test series as a historic series. One can understand having few matches with lesser-ranked teams as it may not culminate into larger financial gains but with two formidable teams in action it doesn’t make much sense depriving fans of exciting action.
While there is talk of hectic scheduling of matches in international cricket, the concept of travelling all the way to play two Tests is just adding to the mess of scheduling and nullifies the purpose of the encounter between the two teams.
(Abhijit Banare is a reporter at CricketCountry. He is an avid quizzer and loves to analyse and dig out interesting facts which allows him to learn something new every day. Apart from cricket he also likes to keep a sharp eye on Indian politics, and can be followed on Twitter and blog)
