Opinion The test of time

The epiphany,however,was not about the significance or the result of the ongoing Ashes. It was the realisation that,at its best,Test cricket evokes more vivid representations of heroism than any other form of sport.

The bulge at the back of a football net may have the same effect as the stumps shattered on the fifth ball of a grinding over; a down-the-line tennis pass may possess the mystique of a bouncer that crashes into the helmet; and a dazzling 25-foot golf putt could compare with a flighted delivery that beats a charging batsman in the air. But Test cricket’s charm lies in both its simplicity and its complexity. It’s not seen as a tussle for space and free movement,but a well-directed delivery cramps the finest of batsmen. It’s not perceived as a battle against the terrain and the elements,but the pitch and cloud cover dramatically change the nature of a contest. It’s not considered a contact sport,but the knocks on the body are all inflicted by design (if you miss,I hit).

At a time when Twenty20 is fast threatening to end the romance of the five-day game,the first two Ashes Tests showed there are some things that cricket’s shorter formats — no matter how much revenue,or excitement,they generate — will never be able to capture:

1. A long,gritty innings with the match hanging in the balance,in which a batsman frustrates,rather than punishes, his attackers — like James Anderson’s 70-minute 21 in Cardiff. (Conversely,Sunil Gavaskar’s 36 runs in 60 overs is the most infamous knock in one-day cricket)

2. A fiery two-hour spell like Flintoff’s on Monday,when he told skipper Andrew Strauss that he would be fighting a losing battle if he tried to take the ball away from him

3. And,most importantly,that Test cricket is the only form of the game which follows no pattern because the absence of an overs-restriction makes it timeless despite the five-day limit.

To expand on the third point,one of the main reasons for the development of T20 cricket was that ODIs were starting to become too predictable,an equation with only a few possible solutions — lose wickets early,crumble; lose wickets early,consolidate,slog; lose wickets early,consolidate,crumble; get a blazing start,keep going; get a blazing start,collapse; and finally,get a blazing start,lose a few wickets,slog.

Experts had felt that Twenty20 cricket would make things different because its shorter duration would end the long period of lull — usually from the 15th to the 35th overs — which ODIs had started to produce. But after two World Cups and two IPLs,it’s became clear that the patterns in T20 are almost as well defined as one-day cricket’s. There are still periods of lull,and there are still collapses and consolidations because the all-encompassing pressure of time running out remains.

Only in Test cricket can teams make the choice — go all guns blazing for a win or defend to save the match. There are no short-term targets – 10 runs needed in the next over to stay in the hunt,for example — and there is no telling how a batsman will approach the next ball or the next five overs. Its timelessness makes it not just the ultimate test of skill and patience,but also the most unpredictable form of the game.

The good thing for Test cricket,at a time when its future is being debated at every meaningful forum,is that its best was visible over the last two weeks — especially at Lord’s,in Strauss’s flawless century,Michael Clarke’s riveting fight back,and eventually in Flintoff’s memorable spell in his farewell tour.

The need of the hour,globally,is competitive pitches that bring out Test cricket’s finest qualities (and having a few more Andrew Flintoff’s won’t hurt). What Test cricket provides is unique,not just in cricket but across sports. Should something so entertaining be allowed to wither away?

kunal.pradhan@expressindia.com