In the aftermath of England’s Test series with Pakistan, a contest that spanned just 11 days, Matt Barrett believes that Twenty20 cricket is having a negative effect on the quality of the oldest form of the game.
Stepping back from the malaise and inquests into English difficulties against spin bowling or the form of their middle-order during their 3-0 drubbing by Pakistan, the series highlighted worrying trends in worldwide Test cricket; namely the increasing prevalence of erratic results, mismatches, batting collapses and the spectacle ending prematurely.
Watching both England and Pakistan struggle to lay bat on ball, I was reminded of South Africa and Australia bowling each other out for 96 and 47 respectively at Cape Town in November, Sri Lanka’s collapse at Cardiff, and India’s whitewashes at the hands of England and Australia.
Since the first Ashes Test in November 2010 there have been 51 Test matches played around the world. 76 per cent (39 matches) have seen results, only 24 per cent (12) drawn. This compares to an all-time average of 65 per cent versus 35 per cent, a hefty difference that does not even account for timeless Tests running until 1939. The 100 Tests prior (July 2008-November 2011) saw a ratio of 70-30.
While I’m not suggesting that I want to see a surfeit of bore draws, not enough Tests are extending into a fifth day: the hallmark of a mismatch or low-scoring affair. A massive 51 per cent of the last 51 Tests failed to enter the fifth day, 12 per cent not even reaching the conclusion of a third day, with the worst offenders being Australia, New Zealand and India.
Perhaps most alarming is the sheer number of comprehensive defeats inflicted across the board. These 51 Tests saw 13 innings defeats and 10 defeats by eight or more wickets, or by over 250 runs.
Put simply, a full 45 per cent of Test matches since November 2011 were essentially non-contests. This is no time to blame the so-called ‘minnows’ of Test cricket. Those predominantly on the receiving end were India, Australia and Sri Lanka.
For me, this pattern of results is in no small part due to the ‘Twenty20 Effect’.
A number of exciting recent Test matches (the India-West Indies draw or New Zealand defeating Australia by seven runs) cannot disguise the fact that Test cricket is being affected by techniques and temperaments increasingly more suited to shorter formats.
Andrew Strauss aired his “concerns about the state of Test cricket” in October, declaring, “The administrators are trying to recognise the primacy of Test cricket, but there is a real difference between saying it and making sure your actions follow it.”
The balance between the three codes is currently out of kilter, as the diminution of England’s 2012 series with South Africa to three Tests demonstrates. The World Test Championship was jettisoned due to ICC Champions Trophy broadcast rights. As Twenty20 competitions take root, from the Big Bash to the IPL, the gradual yet distinctive encroachment of shorter-form cricket is clearly influencing Test batsmanship.
The squeezing of the cricket calendar to accommodate more Twenty20 tournaments and ODIs brings reduced preparation time before Tests and difficulties for batsmen in adjusting and re-adjusting to different codes within ever-shorter series. Too many good sides are being dismissed for low scores on decent pitches by solid if unspectacular bowling units. In the past 51 Tests, teams have been bowled out for under 200 on 33 occasions.
The shot selections of English batsmen in the first Test of the recent series in the UAE pointed to a lack of application. As Geoff Boycott thundered, “Their brains went out of the window” with only Matt Prior and Jonathan Trott demonstrating intent to “occupy the crease, show a great deal of patience and accept that runs arrive at a slower pace.” Similarly Michael Clarke summed up Australia’s woeful collapse to 47 all out in Cape Town stating, “Our shot selection was disgraceful… Apart from numbers 10 and 11, who else even lasted 20 balls?”
Simultaneously we see selection of players for Test cricket originally identified by national set-ups for shorter forms or earmarked as “Twenty20 specialists”. One name that stands out is David Warner. The young Australian opener has much to prove, but a phenomenal exhibition of hitting in his 69-ball century against India was a statement of intent. His early success could convince other nations to fast-track limited-overs stars into the Test side.
The flip side of the coin is Eoin Morgan, whose selection followed a similar path to Warner’s, but who is currently exhibiting the down side of picking an out-and-out shotmaker. His unorthodox technique, tailor-made for Twenty20 cricket, is being questioned and his response has been to attempt to manufacture his game into something it is distinctly not, i.e. a “traditional” Test player.
India’s successive 4-0 whitewashes away to Australia and England also serve as a warning. They have called into question not just the enduring class of their stellar batting line-up, but the quality of the next crop of Indian Test stars raised in the cut and thrust of the IPL. As obdurate Indian batsman Aakash Chopra recently argued, the IPL created a collapse in technique and concentration and “quite bafflingly, became a parameter to judge a player for national selection.”
Cricket is witnessing the first generation of Test players who have spent the majority of their careers playing one-day and Twenty20 cricket. The squeeze is starting to be felt.
Testing Times: Cricket And The Twenty20 Squeeze
In the aftermath of England’s Test series with Pakistan, a contest that spanned just 11 days, Matt Barrett believes that Twenty20 cricket is having a negative effect on the quality of the oldest form of the game.
Stepping back from the malaise and inquests into English difficulties against spin bowling or the form of their middle-order during their 3-0 drubbing by Pakistan, the series highlighted worrying trends in worldwide Test cricket; namely the increasing prevalence of erratic results, mismatches, batting collapses and the spectacle ending prematurely.
Watching both England and Pakistan struggle to lay bat on ball, I was reminded of South Africa and Australia bowling each other out for 96 and 47 respectively at Cape Town in November, Sri Lanka’s collapse at Cardiff, and India’s whitewashes at the hands of England and Australia.
Since the first Ashes Test in November 2010 there have been 51 Test matches played around the world. 76 per cent (39 matches) have seen results, only 24 per cent (12) drawn. This compares to an all-time average of 65 per cent versus 35 per cent, a hefty difference that does not even account for timeless Tests running until 1939. The 100 Tests prior (July 2008-November 2011) saw a ratio of 70-30.
While I’m not suggesting that I want to see a surfeit of bore draws, not enough Tests are extending into a fifth day: the hallmark of a mismatch or low-scoring affair. A massive 51 per cent of the last 51 Tests failed to enter the fifth day, 12 per cent not even reaching the conclusion of a third day, with the worst offenders being Australia, New Zealand and India.
Perhaps most alarming is the sheer number of comprehensive defeats inflicted across the board. These 51 Tests saw 13 innings defeats and 10 defeats by eight or more wickets, or by over 250 runs.
Put simply, a full 45 per cent of Test matches since November 2011 were essentially non-contests. This is no time to blame the so-called ‘minnows’ of Test cricket. Those predominantly on the receiving end were India, Australia and Sri Lanka.
For me, this pattern of results is in no small part due to the ‘Twenty20 Effect’.
A number of exciting recent Test matches (the India-West Indies draw or New Zealand defeating Australia by seven runs) cannot disguise the fact that Test cricket is being affected by techniques and temperaments increasingly more suited to shorter formats.
Andrew Strauss aired his “concerns about the state of Test cricket” in October, declaring, “The administrators are trying to recognise the primacy of Test cricket, but there is a real difference between saying it and making sure your actions follow it.”
The balance between the three codes is currently out of kilter, as the diminution of England’s 2012 series with South Africa to three Tests demonstrates. The World Test Championship was jettisoned due to ICC Champions Trophy broadcast rights. As Twenty20 competitions take root, from the Big Bash to the IPL, the gradual yet distinctive encroachment of shorter-form cricket is clearly influencing Test batsmanship.
The squeezing of the cricket calendar to accommodate more Twenty20 tournaments and ODIs brings reduced preparation time before Tests and difficulties for batsmen in adjusting and re-adjusting to different codes within ever-shorter series. Too many good sides are being dismissed for low scores on decent pitches by solid if unspectacular bowling units. In the past 51 Tests, teams have been bowled out for under 200 on 33 occasions.
The shot selections of English batsmen in the first Test of the recent series in the UAE pointed to a lack of application. As Geoff Boycott thundered, “Their brains went out of the window” with only Matt Prior and Jonathan Trott demonstrating intent to “occupy the crease, show a great deal of patience and accept that runs arrive at a slower pace.” Similarly Michael Clarke summed up Australia’s woeful collapse to 47 all out in Cape Town stating, “Our shot selection was disgraceful… Apart from numbers 10 and 11, who else even lasted 20 balls?”
Simultaneously we see selection of players for Test cricket originally identified by national set-ups for shorter forms or earmarked as “Twenty20 specialists”. One name that stands out is David Warner. The young Australian opener has much to prove, but a phenomenal exhibition of hitting in his 69-ball century against India was a statement of intent. His early success could convince other nations to fast-track limited-overs stars into the Test side.
The flip side of the coin is Eoin Morgan, whose selection followed a similar path to Warner’s, but who is currently exhibiting the down side of picking an out-and-out shotmaker. His unorthodox technique, tailor-made for Twenty20 cricket, is being questioned and his response has been to attempt to manufacture his game into something it is distinctly not, i.e. a “traditional” Test player.
India’s successive 4-0 whitewashes away to Australia and England also serve as a warning. They have called into question not just the enduring class of their stellar batting line-up, but the quality of the next crop of Indian Test stars raised in the cut and thrust of the IPL. As obdurate Indian batsman Aakash Chopra recently argued, the IPL created a collapse in technique and concentration and “quite bafflingly, became a parameter to judge a player for national selection.”
Cricket is witnessing the first generation of Test players who have spent the majority of their careers playing one-day and Twenty20 cricket. The squeeze is starting to be felt.