Zimpapers Logo

CAPE TOWN — As ICC members consider the potential benefits of four-day Test matches, it is no secret which factor is at the front of their minds — money.

While the issue of finance may look different at opposite ends of the Test scale — in England where five-day Tests are healthy, the ECB want to maximise corporate income; in Zimbabwe, it is about cutting costs — the language remains the same.

Yet the question for cricket fans around the world and players wanting a sense of job satisfaction is: what could be gained or lost from a cricket sense by a gradual switch to four-day Tests?

While “tradition” is one of the first arguments against four-day Tests, it is often forgotten that the Boxing Day match scheduled between South Africa and Zimbabwe later this year would be far from the first four-day Test.

A total of 134 four-day Tests were played between 1906 and 1973, when New Zealand and Pakistan contested the last series in that format. While the vast majority of Test matches have been five-day affairs — 1845 in total — there have also been 99 timeless Tests, 119 three-day Tests (the last of them in 1949), and 77 six-day Tests.

In other words, the last four decades excepted, there has in fact been a tradition of flexibility.

The more interesting debate is around how it would change Test cricket as a spectacle.

One of the arguments put forward for reducing matches to four days is that fewer Tests are going into a fifth day in any case.

The advent of Twenty20 cricket is widely blamed for batsmen’s inability to bat time, but in truth we could go back further — Test matches have been declining in length each decade since the 1980s.

T20 has just exacerbated what one-day cricket set in motion after its introduction in the 1970s. The effect has been particularly pronounced in the past four years.

In 2017 thus far, more Tests have finished inside four days than have gone to five — the first time this has happened.

Notably, only 14 of 31 Tests have reached a fifth day in 2017, despite the fact that 12 games were weather affected.

While those tables do not in themselves prove that the declining length of Test matches is purely down to the introduction and growth of limited-overs cricket, when you look at batting trends more closely there is a clear connection.

The number of balls per dismissal in Test cricket has been coming down every decade since the 1970s, while the number of runs scored per over has increased. The balls per dismissal in 2003 — the year when T20 came along — was 68.10.

That ratio has not been breached since, and the corresponding number in 2017 stands at 58.11 — the lowest in the last 15 years.

However, it is worth noting that the scoring rate has not risen consistently in that period. In 2003 it was 3.20 runs per over, and after peaking at 3.38 in 2005, it has ebbed and flowed since, with 3.24 scored in 2016 and 3.26 this year.

Those are the trends as they are now.

Although they can be drawn out to present a reasonable case for shifting to four-day Tests, they do not tell of the dramatic changes that could follow.

If we think that limited-overs cricket has had a major impact on Tests, the introduction of four-day Tests would have the biggest effect yet.

Administrators point out that if days can be lengthened to 100 overs — and it is a big “if” given recent over-rate trends — then only 50 overs, or a little more than half a day, would be lost by moving to four-day Tests.

For the record, of the 162 Tests played since January 2014, 135 ended with a result, with 112 of those finishing inside 400 overs.

But if 400 overs is the maximum that can be played, then batsmen, bowlers and especially captains will need to change their approach from the start. Test cricket would move closer to being a long limited-overs match.

Scoring rates will likely rise, bowlers will need to attack more knowing that they have less overs in which to take 20 wickets, and captains will have to become more aggressive.

This excites administrators who believe that packing the action into a shorter space of time will make the game more attractive.

Yet a large part of the allure of five-day Tests is the timeless feel about them, and the lack of urgency — especially in the fast-paced modern world.

The mere act of restricting them will take away the essence of the game we have known.

That will be seen in the raw numbers, but perhaps more importantly, it will be felt in a new sense of urgency. The experience of the game will shift, subtly but noticeably, from feeling towards spectacle.

Ultimately then, it is a case of time and numbers against sensuality — a dilemma that infiltrates so many aspects of our modern society.  Trust cricket to reflect the times we live in — cricbuzz