Steve Waugh is one of the most respected names in the history of cricket. He was a gritty batsman, who made mountains of runs in international cricket, and a more than capable bowler too, till an injury to his spine made him stop bowling. But he will be remembered by cricket fraternity as one of the greatest captains of all time, with a winning ratio of 72 per cent in Test cricket. He led Australia to glory in the International Cricket Council (ICC) World Cup in 1999, besides being at the helm when Australia had a dream run winning 16 Test matches on the trot. He also contributed towards making Test cricket more result oriented by insisting that his batsmen score runs at a rate of four runs per over, so that bowlers had ample time to dismiss the opposition twice during a span of five days. He is also credited with bringing modern man management techniques into play to improve the performance of his side while at the time deploying “mind games” to gain an upper hand over the opposing sides.
Over the years, Waugh also developed a reputation for not speaking out of turn or indulging in the hyperbole. Unlike many of his compatriots who moved to the commentary arena and the press box, Waugh has stayed away from indulging in scathing remarks on the players or making controversial statements. His words have always been precise and to the point, with seldom an attempt at playing to the gallery. Hence when he made an intervention through a post in social media platform Instagram, lamenting about the future of Test cricket, followers of the game, the world over, sat up and took notice.
The reason for Waugh’s outburst was the decision of Cricket South Africa (CSA) to send a “shadow team” to play two Tests against New Zealand in February. South Africa announced a brand new side comprising seven “uncapped” players, led by Neil Brand, who himself has not played international cricket in red-ball format till date. In his post, Waugh termed it as the “defining moment in the death of Test cricket” and sought that the ICC, along with cricket boards of India, Australia and England intervene to protect the “purest form of the game”. He suggested that all players be paid a premium of same match fee, which could be a good starting point.
In an interview with Sydney Morning Herald immediately afterwards, Waugh made it clear that the ICC does not care about the future of Test cricket. He pointed out that West Indies were not sending a full strength team for the Test series against Australia this summer. Moreover, the senior players of West Indies and South Africa were not selected for the tours of Australia and New Zealand respectively in order to allow them to take part in domestic T20 tournaments. “If I was in NewZealand, I would not even play the series. Why would you, when it shows a lack of respect for New Zealand cricket?”, was Waugh’s parting shot.
As could be expected, Waugh’s observations evoked responses from many quarters. Pat Cummins, currently leading Australia, presented an optimistic picture saying that decline of Test cricket was not “as dramatic” as it gets spoken about and expressed the hope that it will emerge stronger in 10 years’ time. Usman Khwaja, his teammate espoused the cause for pay parity stating that players from many countries are not getting paid well for playing Test cricket. Shan Masood, captain of Pakistan, took a neutral position saying that he was not qualified to speak on the matter but wanted cricket boards to send their best sides for playing Test matches.
This prompts the question as to whether Waugh’s fears are real or not. Was he making a mountain of a molehill by trying to make a general statement based on an isolated instance? After all it is not always that countries send less than full strength sides to play Test matches. England used to second strength teams for touring the sub continent till the mid 1970s, by following the practice of allowing their established frontline players the option to take rest, thus preventing them from being exposed to the harsh climatic conditions. But since 1980, no Test-playing nation has attempted to send anything less than their full strength side for playing longer duration version of the game in any part of the globe. Only players who were injured or otherwise indisposed were not made part of the touring party.
But the reasons behind decisions taken by the Cricket West Indies (CWI) and CSA not to select top players were not related to injury. Instead, this was on account of demands from organisers of T20 leagues, who wanted these players to take part in these championships. It is no secret that players also look forward towards playing in such championships as they offer much higher financial remuneration. In administrations like those run by the CWI , where earnings of players are not very high, cricketers cannot be faulted for preferring to play in tournaments that offer more money. After all, a sportsperson knows only too well that his/her best years will not last forever and the tendency to maximise earnings during this phase cannot be found fault with.
The approach of some of the cricket boards in placing domestic T20 leagues above Test cricket pose two types of challenges. The first involves an increase in the influence of the organisers of such leagues and the franchisees in the conduct of the game in the country. Since most of the franchisees are big business houses, there exists the possibility that they will be guided more by bottomline in their financials than by love for the game, which may prove to be detrimental to the cause of cricket and cricketers in the long run.
The second challenge is the one pointed by Waugh and pertains to the declining spectator interest in Test matches. There is no doubting the fact that Test cricket remains the purest form of game and offers the ultimate test to the abilities of a cricketer. The high quality of batsmanship and bowling witnessed in Test matches are never seen in other versions of the game, where cricket is more of the “slam bang” variety. But the certainty of result, edge-of-the-seat excitement, thrills and close finishes that mark the limited overs versions have led to increase in number of followers for the shorter formats. Further, the excellent packaging of such games in the recent years as the ultimate form of entertainment has resulted in shift of loyalties from all except the most committed supporters of Test cricket to this bandwagon.
Will the solution offered by Waugh help to sustain this format of the game? It is a fact that barring India, Australia and England, the financial health of most of the cricket boards is not very encouraging. Almost all the cricket administrations are dependant on T20 leagues to fill their coffers and will find it difficult to survive without this source of funds. Hence they should not be expected to take efforts to clip the influence of the organisers of such leagues and franchisees there. Intervention, if any, will have to come from the ICC, with the active support of the three boards who have the financial muscle to support such a cause. The commencement of the World Test Championship by the ICC was a step in the correct direction and was expected to provide a fillip to this format. However, the eagerness shown towards securing maximum points in matches at home has seen pitches being doctored by the hosts to suit the home bowlers, thus taking the excitement out of the game.
India is undoubtedly the financial powerhouse of international cricket and it is certain that rest of the cricketing world will look up to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to take the lead in this regard. Providing better salary and amenities to all cricketers playing Test cricket by the ICC is a good way to ensure the participation of top players, without the individual boards being placed under additional financial stress. This will also help the boards to break free from the stranglehold of T20 leagues and their organisers.
The events that unfolded in the recently concluded Test between India and South Africa at Newlands, Cape Town, during the week that went by tells us that salary parity and payment of higher remuneration to cricketers will not be sufficient to save Test cricket. A five-day match getting over before tea interval on the second day is a poor advertisement for the sport. A total of 23 wickets fell on the first day, with the home side getting dismissed for their lowest ever total since readmission to international cricket and the visitors losing six wickets on a trot without scoring a single run. The entire game lasted only 107 overs or 642 balls, which was all the time required for fall of 40 wickets. All these point towards the pathetic quality of the pitch prepared for the match, which effectively robbed the paying public that had taken tickets for watching a five-day game. It is the responsibility of the home board to prepare pitches where good quality cricket can be played. If they fail in this task, which lies at the core of the sport, no amount of incentives or salary hikes can salvage the fate of Test matches.
In conclusion, it must be accepted that Test cricket is facing imminent danger of extinction. It will need concerted efforts of the ICC and all cricket boards to prevent this from taking place. It is the hope and prayer of genuine followers of the game that the traditional form of cricket survives these testing times.
(The author is a former international cricket umpire and a senior bureaucrat)
