“Significant progress on the future shape of all international cricket has been made at the two-day cricket structures workshop in Dubai as Members have explored how to improve the quality of bi-lateral cricket,” said a statement, attributed to the International Cricket Council’s Chief Executive David Richardson, released on Wednesday. It was meant to provide a summary of what had transpired in the two-day meeting of its chief executives' committee in Dubai through Tuesday and Wednesday.
What that progress is, though, no one is really sure.
Just a few months back, Richardson was singing a different tune. He had drawn up an ambitious plan to drastically overhaul Test cricket, which suffers from a glaring lack of context, amidst other problems. He envisaged a two-tier Test structure, with promotion and relegation between the proposed divisions. It was not a new idea and has been suggested earlier. It has its benefits and flaws. But at least the ICC looked like they were actively trying to do something about the longest and most hallowed format of the game.
At this two-day meeting, the idea was withdrawn without even a vote.
Why did the ICC not think the idea merited a discussion and a vote, if nothing else? No answer was forthcoming. Like any proposed innovation, it had both its backers and its opponents. The cricket boards of Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand, Pakistan and West Indies reportedly supported the proposal. A survey by the Federation of International Cricketers’ Associations found that 72% of players were in favour of a divisional Test competition.
What progress?
Opposition came from Sri Lanka Cricket, the Bangladesh Cricket Board, Zimbabwe Cricket and from an aggressive Board of Control for Cricket in India, who believed the proposed plan would hurt the prospects of the smaller nations.
To be fair, there were many flaws with the proposed two-tier system. Teams in the second divisions might have faced greater problems filling out their stadia in the absence of high-profile opposition. They also faced the prospect of missing out on tours by India, Australia and England, which offer unmatched revenue.
But at least there was a move, a suggestion. An attempt was being made to bring some change in a format which is, for lack of a better word, in danger. The proposal was shelved, without any kind of discussion or even an effort to broker a compromise. No alternative was suggested as well – Richardson vaguely mentioned a Test Champion playoff every two years but added that members would go back to their respective boards to “share the details of the proposed revised structures and principles”.
Does anyone really care?
After all, there should not be any surprise, because this is how governance of the game works. Every couple of years, there are noises made about bringing in reform in cricket and words such as "relevance” and “context” are routinely thrown around. Elaborate proposals are drawn up – some, like the ill-fated Super Series in 2005 where Australia took on a so-called World XI in 2005, come into reality only to be summarily consigned to the dustbin while others, like this vexed Test Championship, are discussed, announced, cancelled and revived again, when convenient.
And meanwhile, Test cricket continues its singularly forlorn existence. England and Australia see great turnouts but elsewhere stadiums are empty and the action reverberates across deserted stands. The lack of greater context means most of its events act in isolation, sometimes only working towards increasing the ranking of a country on the official ICC Test rankings, which itself has significant shortcomings.
It is not as if there are no solutions. Including more teams into the elite club of Test-cricket playing nations, which stands at only ten now, would be a start. Ensuring that each team plays all the other teams would go a long way towards a Championship-type system, wherein each match has greater relevance.
There will obviously be opposition and there will be churn. Any major shift divides opinion. But if the ICC is actually interested in keeping Test cricket alive, there needs to be a beginning, a start, an attempt to bring in some kind of change. Scrapping proposals just because of the objections of a few members means that a bad precedent has been put in place: only cosmetic reform is possible when it comes to the governance of this game.
Will Test cricket die? Maybe not. But at this rate, it will remain where it is, a lonelier, poorer cousin of Twenty20, forever paid lip service to, but never taken seriously and played as a sort of grudging tribute to its history and legacy.
