Pakistan vs. England - 3rd ODI

[Zainub]

Belated hello to everyone.

This match was a shinning example of why the PCB should hire me as the Chacha's under study though I did feel a bit like an idiot when I turned up, like an law abiding citizen with nothing but my self and my 'loosely packed soft foot items' and saw people around me possessing just about everything on the banned items list in the papers the other day! I so hate papers that lie

I think Tresco misread the pitch big time, but I won't complain Everyone except Younis Khan batted well for us, and England were intent on self destruction when chasing, but credit to us all the same. And I really like the look of Yasser Arafat, he will certainly be a good prospect for us in the future. I wrote about the other, more pleasureable experiences of watching the match from just 100 yards away here.

[Rachael]

No-one is suggesting Test cricket is doomed, Ernest, merely that if Test and ODI cricket were ever seperated out as different "codes" (as Rugby League and Rugby Union were)... the longer form of the game would end up being the "poor relation".

It's all very well saying Test cricket would endure... and that it would be commercially viable... as both statements are, in a very trivial sense, true... but what that overlooks is the extent to which ODI cricket would dominate.

You reckon Test cricket would prosper in the UK... just think how Test cricket would fare in this country when INdia tour and the ODI side had all the big names like Tendulkar, Sehwag and Pathan... whilst the ODI side came over with players who had only been noticed before by those who followed the fortunes of India's U-19 side or Indian domestic cricket?

How would Test cricket's prospects hold up when Pakistan toured and Salman Butt, Kamran Akmal, Inzi, Mohammad Yousuf, Shoaib Akhtar, Shahid Afridi, Abdul Razzaq and the rest played the ODI against Tresco, Pietersen, Flintoff and co... leaving Danish Kaneria, Hasan Raza and other fronge players to square up to Hoggard, Butcher and co?

If you thion it would be any other way then I fear you seriously underestimate the global significance of the ODI game and (more significantly) the commercial realities of cricket (in which ODI cricket basically brings in all the advertising revenue and television rights money that sustain Test cricket).

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Zainub

Belated hello to everyone.

Welcome back, Zainub! Thanks for the link to the wonderful article. I can almost see you grinning from ear to ear as I sit here. Glad you had a great day: there really is no substitute for being there, as you say.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

No-one is suggesting Test cricket is doomed, Ernest, merely that if Test and ODI cricket were ever seperated out as different "codes" (as Rugby League and Rugby Union were)... the longer form of the game would end up being the "poor relation".

When I mentioned rugby earlier, I confess I had not quite thought of this point, but of course for about a hundred years or so, certainly in the northern hemisphere, rugby union was the poor relation - in a very literal sense as it clung to amateur status for decades. It's still there though, and being played at a higher standard than ever before. I dare say rugby league is also being played at its highest ever standard today. So, although I accept that the immediate effect of two codes for cricket might be to the detriment of one of them - and probably test cricket in the short term - there is at least some evidence from another sport entirely which suggests that both could survive and indeed thrive in the longer term. No guarantees, of course, and perhaps too much of a risk for anyone to take today, but, as you say, Rachael, neither code would necessarily be doomed at all.

[Zainub]

I've been a bit of a late comer into this discussion, but I have to agree with the majority's point of view. I can't ever see it happening, test and one-day cricket will always keep on complementing each other as I'm seeing it. Test cricket is the real deal, no one disagrees on that, or if they do, then they probably haven't watched the game closely enough, but one-day cricket is a very entertaining, attractive format of the game at the same time. The two formats have learned a lot from each other over the years, new concepts have come in test cricket from the influence of one-day cricket (improved fielding and better run rates for instance), while test cricket on the other hand continues to remind the modern day player and team that adhering to some of the old fashioned values of the game, of for instance bottling down and consolidating when in trouble as opposed to constant crash bang wallop strategy, does pay off.

Advocating for totally separate one-day and test teams is a naive, improbable suggestion. Whilst I do not agree that one form of the game, the limited overs version of the five day version, if such a suggestion were to be approved at the highest level would result in being the "poor relation". How can we be sure that test cricket would matter more for all sides in such a scenario? Who is to say teams from the sub-continent wouldn't put up all their best players for the one-day side and give the A-side a go at the test level. But that is not the point.

Over all the game will be poorer for it Ern if test and one-day cricket were isolated from each other. One-day and test cricket aren't different "codes" (like Rugby Union and League), they are two format of what is inherently the same game. It is just the duration that is different. And barring the ridiculous super sub rule, which violates IMHO what is very sanctity of the game (that of an even contest, of 11 against 11), all the basic laws are the same, runs are scored and wickets are taken in the same way.

Just because this England side's one-day record isn't a good as it's test one, doesn't change this fact. And IMHO you are way of the mark when you say your suggestion is meant to stop the best one-day players from "harming" the test game. The best one-day players in the history of the game, have all been equally or fairly successful even at test level, and from amongst the current lot, the likes of Flintoff, Pietersen, Afridi, Gilchrist, Sehwag etc have all changed the way test cricket is played, and the change has been for the better. They have not harmed test cricket in anyway, they have actually made it more exciting, more fun to watch. Your argument is flawed, Ern. It is good willed, but flawed all the same.

And it will never happen as far as I'm seeing it. From where I'm seeing it, test cricket will grow stronger and stronger in the years to come, I'm seeing it self sustain and it's boundaries spreading. In the meanwhile ODI cricket will continue to change, perhaps radically at some stage. May be 10 years down the line the WC will be a 20 overs per side affair, and 50 overs a side contests totally wiped of. In which scenario the need for separate one-day and test sides as Ern puts it will be even more negligible and frankly unnecessary. That might not happen, but that's besides the point. Test and one-day cricket have gone hand in hand for nearly 4 decades now, it has worked well so far for either form. And I believe, if isn't broke, one shouldn't fix it.