A different extinction event?

FILE: Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne plays a shot against England during day four of the first Ashes Test, at Edgbaston, Birmingham, England, on June 19, 2023. - AP Photo
FILE: Australia’s Marnus Labuschagne plays a shot against England during day four of the first Ashes Test, at Edgbaston, Birmingham, England, on June 19, 2023. - AP Photo

CRICKET is a tough taskmaster. It is complicated to conquer, and confusing to the untrained mind.

It is more of a player’s game than a spectator’s. That is because, in its purest form, it can take days to unravel and crown a winner.

For the cricketer, plus those who love the game, the joy and pleasure are derived from the feelings that they revel in and relish, from the appreciation of a well-played stroke or a beautifully bowled over.

Trying to gain an advantage, a player or captain has to use the power of the mind, psychologically, in order to overcome his opponent, by implementing strategy, guile and cunning.

This is one of the reasons why the feelings that flow from a batsman when playing a superb stroke, or from a bowler deceiving a batsman, getting him out in the process, plus the fieldsman or wicket keeper diving to take a superb catch, releases instant gratification that conveys itself to anyone watching, giving them instant satisfaction.

>

The beauty of the game wraps itself around the player, transferring itself to the spectator, who shares in the joy that the cricketer exudes.

Cricket is a unique game. Hence it is not as widely popular as football (soccer, to the Americans), the most popular ball sport in the world. Football is far easier to follow than cricket, and a game lasts 90 minutes. Cricket, in its shortest form, takes approximately three hours.

However, the real test of a cricket team is in a two-innings game, giving the participants a maximum of five days in a Test match – less in a first-class or club game – to bowl out the opposition twice, for fewer runs.

That is the real proof of the better cricket team. The pitch comes into play, as it cannot be watered or grassed once play starts; hence it may become dry and dusty, changing its character during the game.

Thus the intricacies of the sport do not lend itself easily to popularity.

It is not only challenging to play, but it’s also expensive: players’ equipment, balls, stumps, bails, the labour costs to prepare pitches for both match and practice, scorers, rollers of different weights and so on.

Consequently, cricket took many years to receive popular recognition; and it is only now, because of the abbreviated game of T20, that it has caught on quickly among many countries, as T20 is a simpler game to understand, because of its brevity.

However, Test cricket, the reality of a cricket contest, requires more skill.

-

>

At the start of the 20th century there were only three Test-playing countries. England, Australia and South Africa. One hundred and 24 years later, there are 12.

The West Indies, in 1928, were the fourth country accepted. They were united as one for the sake of cricket, as it was found at the time that, as a group of British colonies, in order to welcome them as cricketers, they could play as one unit. Their backgrounds were similar and together they could produce a strong enough cricket team to compete in Test cricket after gaining some experience. They were accepted by the authority at the time, the Marylebone Cricket Club.

The improvement of their cricket came about because of the competition provided by the better teams of England and Australia. They were apt students, quick to learn and with their naturally pleasant and enthusiastic dispositions, ensured that they rose to the top and became exceedingly proud and happy cricketers.

And now, there are those who actually want to disband this group and write off the WI as a cricket entity? And others who want to introduce a two-tier Test-match system? With 12 teams?

In the early days, the MCC saw the wisdom of assisting those who showed an aptitude to play the game and were willing even though they needed financial help; and it was provided.

If this nonsensical idea is passed, it will see the end of the art and beauty of Test cricket.

It would be of no value, as the attraction would lose its lustre, and thus the talent would not develop the way it should.

Already the standard is falling worldwide. The classic game is disappearing.

Although it attracts great crowds in a few countries currently, within a decade or so, they would be bored with watching the same teams over and over. Those with eyes to see must notice this.

>

Then again, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Comments

"A different extinction event?"

More in this section