Dear Editor,
If cricket were being invented today it would likely be much more like the twenty-over version than the unlimited overs version, the only limitation on which, is the length of time during which the game must be played. One of the main reasons for this viewpoint is that almost every other team game played internationally: baseball, basketball, football, hockey, rugby and soccer, requires approximately three hours for completion.
That fact, the length of the game, does not make “Test” cricket any less good than other games. What it does suggest is that there is a consensus in the international sporting community outside of cricket about the maximum length of a team sporting event. That consensus is probably animated by very practical considerations of an economic and socio-psychological nature.
There does seem to be a view still held by many, usually older cricket lovers, that for a variety of reasons, not always easy to articulate, that Test cricket is not only a special game , but one that brings out more than any other game a variety of the best sporting characteristics in a person. I do not wish to challenge this point of view, for among other reasons I myself enjoy Test cricket immensely, and this version of the game continues to attract a very wide following. To the extent that I have a difference with those who put Test cricket on a pedestal all by itself, it is based on the simple fact that I receive the same enjoyment from all three forms of the game. As a retiree I consider a series involving all three formats as one of the most satisfying sporting experience I could have.
In support of the shorter forms of the game, a commentator on one of my letters to the editor, made the really telling point that practically speaking, few people have seen a Test match from start to finish.
I am not concerned about those who love Test cricket, but I am seriously concerned about those who, in expressing their love for Test cricket, belittle the shorter versions of the game and those who have mastered them. In the first place the evidence is clear that really good cricketers are good at both the short and long forms of the game for very obvious reasons. Good line and length, and the turning or swinging ball present the same challenges whether the ball is red or white. There is no basis for believing that the white ball is easier to field than the red ball. The big difference in the different versions is in that in the longest version there is hardly ever a need to accelerate, while in the shorter forms you accelerate or perish, which is their greatest attraction.
I may be, and I hope I am wrong, but my sense is that West Indians along with the English and Australians tend to be among the most insistent in belittling the shorter forms, and the better their players become in those versions, the more West Indians belittle those versions.
There is a high probability that the shorter versions of the game, for reasons, if only of economics, will outlast the longest form, which after all, is also only a game, and it would be a huge mistake to devalue the shorter product.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
