A Prisoner of Its Own History

Test cricket has a long and proud history, and will always have a group of devoted followers, the Hatter among them. Where else can one find as much drama, twists and turns, heroism and all the sheer delight of sport in as much abundance? Never miss a test match in Bangalore, is the Hatter's motto, and he hasn't had much reason to regret it.

Even the most devoted fan must say that test cricket isn't in the pink of health at the moment. The dull draw cannot be banished, and not all tests quite live up to the description in the previous paragraph.

The dull draw at Mohali did bring out a lot of complaints from scribes about M S Dhoni killing the test match. Dhoni may have been long-haired until recently, and bats in what can only be described as cavalier fashion, but he's hardly been a romantic as captain. He's proved himself to be a ruthless strategist, coming up with audacious - Yuvraj to Pietersen - as well as dull but effective - restrictive bowling at Chennai, and the dull end at Mohali - strategies. As a captain, he's aware of what he needed to do - win the first test, and then maximise the chances of winning the series. A draw would do, and a draw he chose.

Given that Dhoni so correctly follwed his incentives, the question of whether the incentives themselves are the cause of dull cricket is inevitable. And the Hatter for one would answer in the affirmative. There just isn't enough incentive in test cricket for a win to be forced. A draw is often too appealing in the context of a match or series.

Test cricket is still living in the past; its small bunch of followers cannot sustain it for too long. It's already being subsidized by ODI and T20 cricket, where enough followers (riff-raff many of them may be, but they pay) turn up to deliver a profit.

So, cricket's powers that be can continue talking about how test cricket must be supreme, and watch it slowly slide into oblivion. Alternatively, they can face the facts and help it remain viable by eliminating the draw, or at least drastically reducing the number of draws.

But who'll bell the cat and how?

Here're a few ideas, for what they're worth:

Since test cricket is all about taking wickets, make the laws a little less slanted in favour of the batsmen. More wickets mean more results.

Let's start by making the LBW rule a little less batsman-friendly.

1. If the ball hits the batsman's pad in front of the stumps, ignore where it pitched. This would help left-arm bowlers, as well as make round-the-wicket bowling more of an option for right-arm bowlers.
2. If the ball hits the batsman's pad outside off-stump, and would have gone on to hit, ignore whether he played a shot at it or not.
3. If inside-edges onto the stumps make the batsman out bowled, why shouldn't inside edges onto the pad be out LBW? Let it be out if the edge is thin enough for the umpire to be confident the ball would have hit the stumps.

Get rid of extravagant "benefit of doubt" clauses. Use the best available technology to help the umpire make calls - for example, let on-field umpires be given the benefit of input from Hawkeye (TM) and Snickometer (TM). They may be imperfect technology, but they're at least consistent. Umpires today are imperfect and inconsistent.

Allow "partial-declaration" in the third innings of a test match - allow the team declaring to resume their innings if necessary. This will allow captains to take more risk with declarations.

Disallow leg-byes? Or perhaps limit them to 1 at a time. Let batsmen earn their runs.

Reduce negative tactics by bringing in the one-day wide rules into tests when negative bowling is being resorted to. The umpires have the discretion to do that today, but they rarely do.