Bottom line driving the push to strip Tests of fifth day

Cricket Australia CEO Kevin Roberts says four-day Tests could happen in the midterm Picture: Getty Images

It pays to be very wary when ­administrators offer up solutions such as four-day Test cricket ­designed, they say, to help to save the longest and most historic format of the game. There is only one thing, in my experience, that matters to them when it comes to making decisions on the future of cricket, and that is the bottom line. Does it make commercial sense?

Given that it clearly does, it is as inevitable as night follows day, sadly, that Test cricket will eventually be shorn of its fifth day.

Driven by commercial imperatives above all, administrators will jump at the chance to save money and ­create space in a crowded schedule for other more attractive opportunities.

It was in 1979 that all Tests were enshrined as five-day games but the move towards four-day Test cricket has been gathering momentum. South Africa played Zimbabwe in a one-off four-day Test in 2017 and England followed suit last summer against Ireland. Administrators have been testing public reaction for some time, eager to move away from five days, and a detailed report this week on the website ESPN Cricinfo has brought the issue into sharp focus.

Watch LIVE coverage of the best international & domestic cricket on KAYO with FOX CRICKET’s unmatched commentary line-up. New to Kayo? Get your 14-day free trial & start streaming instantly >

The present rights cycle of ICC events runs to 2023 and includes the first two editions of the World Test Championship. At the moment, administrators are pondering the next cycle, an eight-year period from 2023-31, and Cricinfo reported that the ICC’s cricket committee would make its recommendations this coming year, amid pressure from England and Australia, in particular, to reduce the duration of Test cricket across the board.

Why do administrators want to change? It is not, whatever they might say, to help and nurture Test cricket. Which is not to say there may not be some advantages as a result of the change, and only a fool would not keep an open mind. There may be a reduction, for ­example, in the occasional slow, meandering passages of play that sometimes occur simply because players know they have time on their side. Groundsmen may be more eager to produce result pitches — never a bad thing. It may bring greater clarity to scheduling, allowing for Thursday starts and weekend finishes.

The real reason, though, is to save money, or at least give boards the chance to squeeze some extra value from the money that broadcasters pay for the game. In many parts of the world, Test cricket is a hard sell and as a spectator sport (although not necessarily remotely) has been over­taken by one-day cricket. Fifth days are often unnecessary — more than half of Tests in the past two years have finished inside four days — and therefore costly for cricket boards and television broadcasters to operate.

Cricinfo worked out that, over the last rights cycle, a year’s worth of cricket expense and time would have been saved had there been no scheduled fifth day, as well as providing more rest for the players. Of course, if you believe that administrators or broadcasters would not fill the gaps with more one-day cricket, whether of the inter­national or domestic-franchised variety, then you have not been paying attention.

There are some obvious problems to this solution. Rain in ­England and early dusk in other parts of the world often limit how much cricket can be played and a fifth day offers insurance. At present, players struggle to get through 90 overs in the day ­because of slow over rates, so the promised 98 overs in four-day games would remain just that — a theoretical promise rather than a reality — or else we will all be doing 12-hour shifts.

Most importantly, a shortened game would mitigate against the best bowling teams. Test cricket is the gold standard because it ­encourages, above all, wicket-­taking bowlers. It is the only form of the game where the onus is on taking wickets rather than containing runs — or at least the format where you get penalised the most for containment — and you don’t want to encourage teams who struggle to take 20 wickets, as shorter games and more declarations would do. Time, after all, is the essence of Test cricket: it ­allows for the pitches to deteriorate and the game to take its natural, rather than artificial, course.

While they understandably jump at the many commercial ­opportunities on offer through T20 and franchised leagues, the vast majority of players want Test cricket to survive and flourish and enjoy it precisely because it stands untouched. It stands to reason, then, that they must be consulted widely. Productive change can only come with their consent and my guess is that they would lobby against it.

Players, believe it or not, care about Test cricket, about its history and traditions, and are usually good judges of what is in its best interests. Here is Australia captain Tim Paine this week: “Five days is the ultimate test. We might not have got a result if we’d have done that (reduced the length of the games) in the Ashes. Every game went to a fifth day. I hope it stays that way.”

Here is Faf du Plessis, the South Africa captain, two years ago: “I am a fan of five-day Test cricket. I believe the great Test matches have gone to the last hour of the last day on day five. That’s what is so special about Test cricket.”

Here is his teammate Dean Elgar: “I don’t think you should tinker with something that’s not broken. There are other formats that are being experimented with. I don’t see why Test cricket should suffer.”

Fundamentally, players don’t trust administrators to have the best interests of the game at heart. When they hear Cricket Australia chief executive Kevin Roberts talk about looking into this issue “hol­istically”, whatever that means, history suggests they are right to be wary. Players must be given a say and if the broad opinion is to retain a fifth day — as it is mine — administrators must listen.

The Times