Sports

Quick On The Draw

By proposing a change in the Test ruls, Dalmiya stirs up a storm

Advertisement

Quick On The Draw
info_icon

WHEN Saurav Ganguly got the better of his critics in England, cynics mockingly said that 'greedy' Jagmohan Dalmiya would now extract a place for one more player from the East Zone since his 'investment' had paid off. The cricket board secretary's avaricious move to reduce the possibility of a 'draw' in Test cricket, emboldened by the killing he made from the 1996 Wills World Cup, hit the nail on the head.

It all goes in the name of the globalisation of the game. Dalmiya says that Test cricket has to grow if it has to survive. To do so, it cannot afford so many 'drawn' Tests. Every match has to produce a result. One side should win, the other side should lose. There can be no 'no-result'. So he wants to weed out 'draws'; not by introducing soccer-style shootouts, but by limiting the time taken and overs bowled in an innings.

Advertisement

Radical, reformist and ridiculous are just some of the epithets being hurled at Dalmiya's 'revolutionary' concept. The Marwari businessman in tandem with Board President I.S. Bindra, a career bureaucrat, had made a super-success of the World Cup early this year. PIL-COM made a profit of £25 million (approximately Rs 125 crore) from the 37-day tournament. They want Test matches to bring them similar returns.

Clearly, there's a compelling argument for five-day matches to become more exciting for their own good as well as for the good of the spectators. But is turning five-day Tests into five days of one-day matches the ideal way to go about it, instead of tackling more urgent issues such as truly neutral umpiring and preparing pitches which are as helpful to bowlers as batsmen? "

Advertisement

Yes," says Hyderabad cricket administrator P. Ranga Reddy. "No," says Ajit Wadekar, "Test cricket as it's being played now is the genuine article. The tradition should continue." Adds Ranji star M.V. Sridhar, "Saving the game with one's back to the wall and going for a draw is also a technique. The present format is undoubtedly good, but if having a draw is bad, whynot introduce day-and-night Tests?" 

Dalmiya, however, says although a draw is an important part of cricket, there's no point in playing a game for a handful of people in international sport a la Ravi Shastri, who said, "I play for myself." Draws, he says, have outlived their acceptability. He hasn't divulged how he'll go about making Tests acceptable and for whom, except to say a committee will explore the possibilities, but critics say his move reminds them of Sylvester Stallone, who felt that the 800-page War and Peace was too long and would be better as a 100-page novelette.

It's the kind of thinking that rattles the purists. Says Tim de Lisle, editor of the Wisden Cricket Monthly: "A draw is often a sign of real cricket. The ability to fight for a draw is an important cricket skill." Adds Ashok Mankad: "The art of defending a Test match can be as thrilling as any one-dayer. When you save a game in the last session of the final day, it's an achievement equivalent to victory. Any sport should have different facets. Sport should not be purely result-oriented." 

Dalmiya's drastic suggestion probably hurt his chances of grabbing the chairmanship of the International Cricket Council. The cricket establishment hates nothing more than its boat being rocked by an upstart. The Test and County Cricket Board in England changed county rules at the end of the championship last year to give three points for a draw. There have been 31 draws this year compared to 29 last year, although its benefits are arguable. The national side has drawn eight of its last 10 Test matches.

Advertisement

Dalmiya's move is obviously self-defeating. One-day cricket was born because of the slow nature of Tests. Sixty overs a side at the start, they were reduced to 50 overs for closer contests. Even the worst detractors of MacCricket admit that there is some charm in it. It complements Test cricket well. But limiting the overs and/or the time for an innings in a Test match, will mean more of the same.

Says former Supreme Court chief justice E.S. Venkataramaiah: "Test matches have their own grace. If overs are limited in a Test, there will be no difference between the two forms of the game." Former Bombay player Sudhir Naik adds: "The limited overs game has already disturbed the traditional game. Tests barely last four days." Over the last three years, India has played 53 one-dayers and 13 Tests.

Advertisement

Test cricket may be slow, soporific and worse. But, it's the real thing—the true test of skill and supremacy. It's what has brought cricket where it is today. It sprouts talent: one-day cricket had dumped both Saurav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid. Test cricket needs to be nurtured, not stubbed out. Dalmiya & Co would do well to ride an ass that carries them rather than mount a horse that throws them down. 

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement