If you follow my writing, you might be aware of my concern for the future of Test cricket. I am deathly afraid that it is on the decline and could disappear sometime in the not too distant future. But I have to admit also that fears of Test cricket’s demise are almost as old as the game itself.
Over the years, Test cricket has faced various threats, real or imagined. In the early 20th century, some thought it ate up too much time. During the Bodyline era, concerns were raised about excessive violence in the game. Later there was the Packer affair, the rise of ODIs in the 1990s and, more recently, the challenges posed by the T20 format.
As of now, the predictions have all fallen flat. And though many of us think that this time things might be different, we still hope that Test cricket will survive. Losing it is losing too much: too much of our childhood; too much of the game we love.
But our worries remain. The crowds for the recent South Africa-Australia Test in Gqeberha were sparse as they are at many Test venues around the world. T20 games, however, attract huge turnouts, which is an indication of the relative strengths of the two formats, at least in some countries.
And yet, if we want a good reason why Tests should survive at all costs, we need look no farther than this game. Considering the circumstances under which it began and unfolded, it was a fascinating experience.
The South Africans were defeated with relative ease, by 214 runs, in the first Test in Durban. Rain affected the start of the second game but South Africa lost two wickets for next to nothing when it began late on the first day.
They lost quick wickets again when play finally got underway the following day and were in serious trouble before being rescued by the herculean effort of captain Temba Bavuma, with the assistance of Marco Jansen and Simon Harmer. Jansen returned with ball in hand to sweep Australia away for 99 in their first innings. And then, under the weight of having to follow-on, fell for 295 to lose by an innings and 31 runs.
Australia’s defeat was heavy. And yet the contest was anything but one-sided. The game and the circumstances surrounding it contained interwoven plots and subplots that came together to form a fascinating story.
There was the return of Kagiso Rabada from a hamstring injury, for example. How ready was he to resume his role as leader of the attack after his setback? Well, he answered that question quite early by bowling as though he had never been away, capturing his first of six wickets in the game with his fourth delivery.
Most importantly to South Africa’s victory was the continued high-quality batting of their captain, who has grown immeasurably as a batter since being thrust into the leadership of the side.
He seemed untroubled for much of his innings, which was telling since the vast majority of the other players appeared to have difficulties coping. His composure amid the struggles of so many other batters was as impressive as the size of his innings.
Marco Jansen’s bowling was remarkable. That is not unusual, for he is an elite performer with the ball, capable of doing damage to most batting units. But his batting made a solid and very important contribution to his team’s victory. He went to bat with his side in some trouble at 110/6.
When he got out, having scored 85, the score was 242. He played with the kind of skill and aggression that must have relieved the pressure on Bavuma, and for the first time in the game, the visitors would likely have felt that the momentum was shifting away from them.
Simon Harmer, South Africa’s main spin bowler, made 82, adding 183 with Bavuma. It was his first time passing 50 in a Test. He also took two important wickets in the second innings.
There are more stories too, some on the Australian side, such as Scott Boland’s and Travis Head’s continued excellence and Marnus Labuschagne’s continuing troubles. Could Matt Renshaw dominate this game as he did in the first Test? The answer was no, and he fell for 12 and 11 respectively.
Most of us who follow the game closely will agree, I believe, that affection for Test cricket is waning. This might be more apparent in some places.
In the Caribbean, for example, grounds that used to be packed when their team was on top of world cricket, now have very few spectators watching Tests. And the story is the same in places like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
This loss of interest also means that Test cricket has become a much less lucrative enterprise for some countries. This could well spell trouble for the game, especially when placed alongside the T20 format which appears to be making money hand over fist, as the saying goes.
And yet, though we have good reason to fear for Test cricket’s future, we sincerely hope that the predictions of its demise are faulty. It has survived threats before and will hopefully survive this one but there are no guarantees.
The Gqeberha Test showed that this format produces extraordinary drama. We saw fortunes change, players rising to challenges, and performances acquiring greater significance as the contest unfolded. We can only hope that enough people recognise its value before it is too late.
