Reduce one-dayers to lift Tests

by A. C. de Silva

CRICKET: One-day cricket seems to have come to stay for long. The sweeping manner in which this type of cricket had won the hearts of the paying public, forces most people to believe that it is about the good thing that had happened to cricket. With the financial success achieved through these one-dayers, the game's administrators the world over should now think in terms of laying emphasise more on the purpose and class of Test Cricket.

These limited overs cricket should not be overplayed. It should enjoy only the status of an 'off season game'. The most fascinating aspects of the game could be witnessed and enjoyed if only the game was played in the conventional fashion. Anyway, in the years gone by, the scope for a detailed discussion on the selection of one-dayers seemed limited because of the lack of the needed popularity. Those were the days when Tests were considered as the real Test. It is heartening that the authorities began to experiment with spinners in later years.

Those were the days when one-day cricket did not catch the imagination of the players and administrators of many countries. The first two World Cups, and a few international during tours were about the lore one-day exposures. Then the common thinking was to have more bowlers who were good enough for the job of containment.

Too crowded

Had the one-dayers been as popular and as important as they are now, the players would have benefited, but at the same time they may have become stale. The crowded programme would certainly tell on the style of mental and physical preparation for an international encounter.

So, the one-day series involving three or even more countries once or twice a year instead of clubbing them with a Test series. If one goes deep into the matter it would not be impossible of framing an international calendar of events for one-day games would not be impossible.

I think that one-dayers, except from the entertainment value and fabulous money involved, have very little to offer the players, to show improvement in technique and other aesthetic aspects of the game. In fact there is no large scope for them to do that. While the batsmen (except for the initial overs) could hardly afford to plan their innings, no bowler could be aggressive. The fielding side have to be on the defensive for the most part of a game, except those players belonging to a combination like the West Indies, the Australians or the Englishmen.

Pressure on skipper

In this type of game, the pressure is always hectic on the skipper, who would be forced to take on-the-spot decisions which might make or mar the fortunes of his side. Here it all begins and ends within a limited period, which naturally, do not provide any time for recovery especially to the bowlers.

A bad spell is a bad spell, and there is not going to be another spell, as in innings-specified encounters. Even to the fielders with remarkable reflexes, it is the fielders innings-specified games that serve as endurance Test.

To safeguard the values of the game, the innings-specified cricket should be given more attention. All cricket associations should draw up a calendar each, in such a way that even the talent in the lesser age group (say, right from the schools tournaments), would be playing more innings-specified matches. At no level of cricket there should be more than two over-specified tournaments per season.

That would help the established as well as the aspiring talent to understand the demands of these two styles of games and also to prepare themselves suitably.

Too much of one-dayers would only produce bowlers with a defensive approach in the long run.