SportsTravelLiving.com

The last two Tests of the most recent Ashes series showed why the one-day game can never be Test cricket. In Melbourne, the action rose and fell dramatically over five days. The English team were noble triers, undermanned and undermined by their country’s own stultifying system, led by an immigrant’s son who had fallen quickly and hard from his exalted position. The story was powerfully subtended by the question of Waugh’s survival. The forces were ranged against our hero. He scored a flashing 77 to put his selection, seemingly, beyond doubt. But then, on the final day, he was forced to bat again to avert catastrophe for himself and his team. He failed, in a short and controversial innings. This dramatic last moment of suspense raised more questions. The English bowlers looked to have their tails up, as though they’d had a moment of revelation. But after the pure theatre of that near-catastrophe, Waugh’s team won the match. Ultimately, it set the scene for the bitter-sweet Sydney game.

At the end of each day, the developments of a day’s Test cricket are the topic of conversation in lounge rooms and pubs around the country. These twists and turns in the plot just don’t happen in one-day cricket, or any other sport, for that matter. It’s like comparing a rollicking novel with a clever slogan. Yes, it’s unique to former colonies, and an object of ridicule to Americans who know of it, but let America have instant gratification in all things. To seek their approval is another way of cringing.

Test cricket has something limited-overs cricket needs: a variety of finishing scenarios. Crowds don’t necessarily go to limited-overs games to see batsmen who might otherwise fail at Test level slap bowlers all over the ground. They go to see exciting contests and speculate about the way they might end.

Perhaps the best way to ensure the one-day game reflects Test cricket, and vice versa, is for the ICC to experiment with a two-innings-a-side format. Martin Crowe had the right idea with Cricket Max, invented back in the late ‘90s. It introduced the spectator to the principles of Test cricket by mimicking the two-innings-a-team format (ten 8-ball overs), but retained the compressed form of one-day cricket. It’s easy to elaborate the two-innings concept for international consumption. The one-day game’s current predictability can be rectified.

But innovations can only be judged by their intent, and the ICC and home boards should take heed. Commercially motivated interests who see youth as little more than a hormone-driven, thrill-seeking market won’t introduce anything for the betterment of the game. Their intention will be, simply, to “capture the youth market.” The equation of youth with low standards and short attention spans is an introduction of the law of diminishing fleas. If the logic is followed to its furthest degree, one day no-one will have the aptitude or the attitude to play Test cricket. What youth actually need –and what cricket needs to give them – are heroes who achieve spectacularly at both forms of the game.

Realistically, it’s only in the last ten years that the World Cup has become cricket’s greatest prize – here, in fact, in 1992, when the organisers, in a pentecostal flash, realised its potential as a cash bonanza. The two main reasons for the success of international limited-overs cricket – nationalism and slick marketing – have little to do with its intrinsic charm. The longer version, meanwhile, continues to try to resurrect its image around the world. It hasn’t been marketed all that well since the days of World Series Cricket. Test cricket needs to become a game for the masses, and quality doesn’t just announce itself to them. Only marketing and education achieve that. And, in 2003, being tradition-bound just for the sake of it won’t wash with anyone.

When the first limited-overs match was played under a roof (Australia vs South Africa) in 2000, the move was hailed “the way forward” by Steve Waugh. But traditionalists argued that the vagaries of the weather and pitch conditions make cricket the great game it is. Both parties were right. Although Test matches should be played in bright sunshine, a roof and lights do nothing except add another of those variables, without the dreary thought of no play, due to rain. This development is some way off, due to the lack of stadiums with roofs, especially roofs that open and close at short notice. But if the ICC and home boards have the interests of the game and cricket-watching public in mind, they’ll consider any valid innovation.

In 1998, the then President of the ICC, Jagmoham Dalmiya, noticing that interest in Test matches was taking a fade, devised a format for a World Championship of Test Cricket, with a scale of points for outright wins, first-innings wins and draws, and bonus points for scoring rates. No matter what else we thought of him, at least Dalmiya pretended for a moment that the dead hand of politics, the complexities of international scheduling, and delicate diplomatic issues were no barrier to innovation.

But the “championship” has become a chimera. At the conclusion of a tedious, inexcusably-long five-year cycle, the average fan gets to look at a table, its outcomes determined by dodgy mathematics, hearing nothing meanwhile until a sudden, illogical announcement that, say, South Africa is the new number one. And who’s second – Malawi? Who cares? What the public obviously want is a competition – one with real significance, like the one-day World Cup. Or a series of them, the scheduling of which is determined by Test match performance, so the significance of a Test transcends its present series, and everyone who goes along to a Test is aware of it.

If the ICC is serious about moving into the twenty-first century, it will eventually live up to its promise to grant Test status to new countries and give them international experience. However, space cannot be created for them unless established teams, especially Australia, England and the West Indies, concede that three-Test series’ are the way of the future, and the international schedule is culled of redundant one-dayers.

At the moment, the “championship” focuses on series, rather than individual Tests. A 1-0 result is no different to a 3-2 result. Furthermore, a South African victory over Bangladesh is worth the same as an Ashes win. Although we’d certainly want this to be the case in future, it’s a travesty now. The Proteas are patently paperweights compared to the Australians, and Michael Vaughan will be wizened and bald by the time Bangladesh is ready to topple England.

One way to eliminate such absurdities is to have a World Championship structured in two tiers so that developing nations get to play each other, with the odd match outside of their group to give them experience against high-quality teams. The inclusion of nations like Holland, Canada and Kenya will demand such a graduated approach. The third match of every series should be enlivened by being worth bonus championship points, ensuring there are no “dead” rubbers. No Test should ever again occur in a vacuum.

Test cricket’s recent resurgence, due mainly to the sparkling efforts of Aussie teams under Taylor, Waugh and now Ponting, is heartening, but not sustainable. TV ratings are up in Australia. Crowds are up in Australia. But what happens when the current crop retire? Gilchrist, McGrath, Ponting, Hayden, Gillespie, Warne – they all have charisma. But aggressive cricket is only an attitude, and attitude is a changeable thing. Only when it’s built into the game; encouraged and systematised with penalties, rewards and structures, will it continue beyond the present era.

Another ingredient in the resuscitation of Test cricket has been the reconstruction of spin bowling by two of its greatest-ever practitioners, Warne and Muralitharan. No longer is it considered an ancient, moribund art. Even the most rabid adrenaline junkie would feel robbed if their only opportunity to see these guys at work was within the strictures of a limited over match. But they, too, will soon retire. What then? The quality of any game is as good as the quality of the deeds of those who play it. Test cricket must embrace quality, not retreat from it, because only Test matches can fully display the virtues that define cricket.

If the survival of cricket is now highly dependent on revenue raised from the World Cup, cricket is at the brink. The Test match must be instated as the meat of the game, or at least enjoy an equal share of power with international limited-overs cricket. But it requires imagination, diplomacy and commitment from the ICC and home boards around the world; new ways of thinking, and the right reasons.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/cricket-articles/survival-of-test-cricket-1771275.html

Watch Australia Vs. Pakistan 2nd ODI Live Streaming

Australia and Pakistan move to Sydney – the venue that caused much heartburn in Pakistan after the second Test – for the second ODI. While Australia will have fond memories of the ground where they pulled off an improbable and stunning win at the start of the year, Pakistan will be eager to erase the bitter memories that the Test left them with. A number of players on both sides are common to the ODI and Test sides, and with not even a month being over since that match, there is no dangers of memories running short.

Both sides are aware, that the ODIs will provide for a much more equal platform for competition than the Test matches did, and that showed in the first ODI, where Pakistan put up a challenging total, and Australia needed Cameron White to play an outstanding innings to take them home.

Pakistan have always been the most mercurial of sides, and several of their problems have arisen from in-fighting and disunity, but there is one thing that has united Pakistan teams across the ages, and that is playing against India. They may not be facing India on the field, but with all the off-field controversy about the IPL auctions, and the collective rejection of the players, the team is likely to be a more unified force than it has been at any point in the Australian tour. Shahid Afridi, in particular, seems to have taken the snub to heart, and it showed in his batting in the first ODI, when he blasted 48 off 26 balls. His ODI average is in the low twenties, but he continues to be the main man in Pakistan’s limited-overs plans with his ability to turn matches with bat and ball.

Pakistan also need young Umar Akmal to exhibit the temperament that, allied to his undoubted talent, will bring forth the next world-beating batsman. The only spot of bother in the batting order seems to be Younis Khan, who pottered around for 46 painful runs in the first ODI. However, the time spent in the middle, and the freedom from team politics and decisions since renouncing theh captaincy, could be just what was required for Younis to rediscover his touch. The bowling was a bit wayward, with excellent first spells by Asif and Aamer being negated, but the talent in the bowling lineup cannot be questioned. It is only a matter of harnessing it, and if they do that, Pakistan could give Australia a good run for their money.

Australia, on the other hand, showed just why they have been so dominant in the ODI format and why they hold the No.1 ranking by a comfortable margin. Although they were made to scrap initially, they found a man for the job and eventually won without any discomfort. It was Cameron White in the first ODI, but Australia have always managed to find a man for the job in crunch situations. This was much in evidence in their ODI series against India late last year, where they won despite fielding an almost second-string side. The in-born Aussie competitiveness and toughness has stood them in good stead and they seem to be able to draw on reserves of determination and self-belief that other teams just don’t have. Their only real worry is the form of Ricky Ponting. The skipper has been noticeably short of runs throughout the summer, notwithstanding his double century in the third Test. Even in the first ODI, he looked to be struggling and not fully at ease. However, the old adage of form being temporary and class permanent holds true, and Pakistan will ignore Ponting as a batting force at their peril.

Teams:
Australia (From): Shaun Marsh, Shane Watson, Ricky Ponting(c), Michael Clarke, Cameron White, Michael Hussey, Brad Haddin(w), Nathan Hauritz, Clint McKay, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle, James Hopes, Adam Voges

Pakistan (From): Salman Butt, Kamran Akmal(w), Younis Khan, Mohammad Yousuf(c), Umar Akmal, Shoaib Malik, Shahid Afridi, Mohammad Aamer, Umar Gul, Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Asif, Naved-ul-Hasan, Fawad Alam, Imran Farhat, Iftikhar Anjum, Khalid Latif, Sarfraz Ahmed

Sports Betting

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/cricket-articles/australia-vs-pakistan-2nd-odi-live-streaming-australia-vs-pakistan-2nd-odi-live-streaming-online-1771451.html