Saviour or predator?

Ever since the Twenty20 phenomenon burst so successfully and spectacularly onto the international scene there have been constant rumblings about the death of Test cricket. The MCC's World Cricket Committee has heightened the debate by recently expressing similar concerns.

They also proposed a World Test championship as part of a plan to revitalise the longer version of the game. With all due respect, this was discussed at length (at the behest of then ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya) by a number of ex-players in 1999, and some good suggestions were put forward. Ten years on, we still only have the computer rankings to decide the pecking order of Test nations, rather than a fully fledged competition played out on the field.

The main barriers to improving the image of Test cricket have been erected by the ICC itself. They are the ones who have done the most to devalue Test cricket. Firstly the international schedule is an abomination that resembles a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing. Not only is it disjointed, it places an unreasonable burden on the best players. The increasing number of back-to-back Test matches being squeezed into an ever-growing schedule isn't a recipe for getting the best performance out of the players. Those players who compete in all forms of the game face not only an increased risk of injury but also having to prioritise their exertion levels. The latter point could be a clue to the lack of genuinely fast bowlers in the game.

It was also the ICC that allowed Bangladesh to enter the Test arena when they were quite obviously not up to standard. After almost a decade of competition they are still no closer to justifying their premature elevation. Also, the ICC only suspended Zimbabwe's Test-playing status rather than retracting it at a time when their standard diminished rapidly under the rule of a badly corrupted regime.

And it was the ICC that proposed the ill-advised Australia versus the World XI match at the SCG in 2005-06. At the time it was seen as a possible solution to the number of mind-numbingly one-sided series being played in Australia. The ICC then reinforced the futility of a poorly thought-out proposal by also awarding the match Test status.

In order to return Test cricket to a more prestigious position, a number of issues need to be resolved. However there are two chances - Buckley's and none - of this happening while the ICC remains heavily politicised and consumed with self-interest. As long as the ICC is scheduling some tournaments and the individual countries continue to organise other matches separately, the international itinerary will never be co-ordinated and manageable. And the number of nations with Test status will never be properly evaluated until the ICC becomes an authoritative and impartial ruling body.

Test cricket can't afford to have players of the calibre and drawing power of Andrew Flintoff retiring prematurely, and Chris Gayle eulogising the merits of the shorter version of the game in preference to the more testing five-day matches. It also can't afford the continuing trend of diminishing crowds at Test matches in all countries bar England and Australia. Adding to those concerns, West Indies are in disarray thanks to the ongoing arm-wrestle between the players and the board, and Pakistan is a no-go area.

The only way many of these ailments are going to be corrected is by a united and co-operative effort. They can only be fixed by an administration that has the authority to run cricket globally, with the priority being the best interests of the game.

The proposal by the MCC's world committee to play a Test championship is commendable and a much-needed solution to revitalising the game. However, it will be a wasted effort if all it provides is more one-sided contests between players who are over-burdened by a schedule that lurches along like a manual car driven by a learner.