Yesterday, the most anticipated Test cricket series of the year began in Bangalore, between India and Australia. For the next few weeks, all the action will converge, all the attention will focus, and even begrudging observers will be forced to take a peek now and then. (I use my dad as the barometer of public interest in cricket in Australia. He's not much a fan of the game -- though he does love to walk around the house loudly baritoning the word "Tendulkar" over and over like a mantra -- so I know that when he starts mentioning cricket in casual conversation, it has caught the grip of the masses.)
So why is all this attention placed on this series? What is riding on it? Is it actually important, objectively significant in some way, or is it just noteworthy because the only alternative at the moment is an ODI contractual obligation series between New Zealand and Bangladesh. There might be plenty reasons to watch the Border-Gavaskar trophy, but are there reasons to care?
To answer that question, we need to divide it into smaller sub-questions:
Why do we care?
1st-placed team in the world vs. 3rd-placed team... economic hegemon vs. on-field hegemon... white vs. brown... spin vs. pace... weeds vs. monkeys, etc. The storylines may be a little hackneyed and blunt, but they work. It's easy to sell them and put them into kinetic, bite-sized snippets for cable TV promos.
The Ashes, as a contrast, survives as an institution and a product because it stands on the massively inflated foundation of tradition. It doesn't have to sell itself because it's already so enmeshed into the identity of cricket. Without the Ashes, there's no cricket. Simple as that.
The India v Australia bilateral is different. It needs characters and narratives. It needs farewell tours, career reversals, and on-field controversy. A few of those factors are around this time, but not all. (To any series, for example you can simply add "Shane Warne" as a subplot and it would, by rule, become more interesting.)
Why should we care?
This is a harder question to answer. There is no finality to either result -- neither an Indian nor an Australian victory would prove much about the future. The balance of power won't really be affected since it is, after all, on the balance. It could go either way. But we won't know in which direction it's headed, and this series isn't going to illuminate it. India have chosen a nostalgia squad, and we won't learn much from whatever they achieve in the next few weeks.
What this series will probably measure, however, is the chance Test cricket as a while has of surviving (and thriving) in the future.
It's no secret that, in international cricket, as India goes, so does the world. (Allen Stanford may slingshot away his millions from his Caribbean lair, but he will never be able to compete with the burgeoning economy of an entire country.) Therefore, if Test cricket wants to prosper in the age of Twenty20, it needs to be driven by its popularity in India. And there's no single way to make a sport more popular in a country than by having that country win consistently at the highest level.
This series will show us how serious India can be about the Test game. They have a great chance to really hurt Australia this time, and knock them down yet another peg in the post-Evil Empire era. It's not a good sign, however, that even if they do win, it will be with yesterday's players, not tomorrow's. (More on that later.)
Will Australia care?
We know that the Australian players will, and we know the management probably will, but what about the fans? After the mass exodus of the Warne generation, it's hard to predict how much the Australian public will care about cricket for a while.
The national team has lost a few of its stalwarts -- the Gillys, McGraths and Warnes -- and the ones that are left -- the Pontings, Haydens, etc. -- are not really types to capture the public imagination. They're efficient, and admired, but they're not iconic. All we're left with is a bunch of very disciplined professionals with boring-as-batshit personalities. A team full of cricketing Jack Johnsons, if you will. (One of them ain't even trying to hide it.)
Will Australians tune in for that? Is there any point for them? After winning big for two decades, will anyone care about an Australian XI losing with dignity, or winning ugly, half a world away? I get the feeling that the Aussie fans may have gotten spoiled by too much dominance. There are plenty of other things to watch on Foxtel between 2 and 9 PM in the afternoon, after all.
Will India care?
Now here's the vital question. Will the local fans show up? And will they do so consistently, to watch the cricket, and not just to celebrate inspirational milestones from over-the-hill legends?
The crowd on the first two days at Bangalore looked incredibly sparse. And while that's somewhat understandable given that the Australians won the toss and batted (on a pair of weekdays) it's hard not to compare the scenario with, say, the first night of the IPL. On that occasion, we saw packed stands, fireworks, Bollywood starlets dropping down from helicopters, etc. As far as pure spectacle goes, Test cricket in India still seems to be far down on the totem pole. And we really can't afford it to be.
There is no way to stress this enough: if Test cricket wants to stay afloat, it needs to bring India (and the Indian public) onboard fully. There is a vested interest for just about all concerned in seeing India at, or at least near, the top of the Test ladder.
The problem is that the Indian leadership is not really building for an extended period of dominance. Take a look at the squad they pettled out for this series... you might be wondering if you had stepped back into 2003. I know that the symbolic attachment to the old-timers is too strong to let go, but the country will never get beyond where they are right now while riding a dying generation. The Big 4 have done an immeasurable service to Indian cricket, no doubt, but let's not pretend they're even a Big 4 anymore -- more like a Moderately-Sized 2.5.
I mean, Sourav Ganguly? That's what they're giving us, in 2008? Are you fucking kidding me?
You know what the sad thing is? We've already seen the future of Indian cricket, and it's bright.
Unfortunately, the future was a week ago, and no one was watching.
The Indian Board President's XI faced the Australians in Hyderabad and outplayed them comprehensively in a 4-day draw. This was virtually a full Australian XI, and they got spanked by a bunch of barely-capped young'uns with a lot of hunger and little experience.
Sadly, we're not getting to see any of that. All we'll get is another exhibition of the fading skills of yesterday's heroes.. (I can't say I really fault them completely. I too would love to see Tendulkar get those 77 runs, and to watch Kumble claim another match-winning bag after everyone doubted/ignored him, and maybe even to catch the magic of another Laxman-Dravid special, just for old time's sake.)
But surely, the party must end at some point. No one this side of Celine Dion has extended a farewell tour for longer than the Indian Test team.
Until it ends, it becomes awfully hard to care. Even for those of use who really do.
D.S,
This season gives India the perfect opportunity to bring about the generational change - we play Oz, England and Pakistan - the sentimental series' if you will. Then we go to New Zealand - the unfinished business series if you will.
And then there is a 6 month hiatus before India play SL at home. Which is the perfect launch pad to inaugurate India's next gen.
And in the meantime, we have an entire season of domestic cricket running parallel to the various series listed above which provide the perfect finishing school for the younglings to fine tune their skills for the coming season.
Cheers,
Posted by: Homer | October 10, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Maybe you're right, Homer, but doesn't every season look kind of like that? Isn't there always a 'sentimental series', and an 'unfinished business series' (the India never seems to finish a lot of its business), and a competitive domestic series running parallel, where a lot of the players who should be in the national squad get older and more jaded?
Maybe this times it's different. We'll see.
Posted by: D.S. Henry | October 10, 2008 at 11:37 PM
"Without the Ashes, there is no cricket"? Really? Why? Do you mean "no test cricket between England and Australia"?
Posted by: Samir Chopra | October 14, 2008 at 07:14 PM
No, Samir, unfortunately what I mean is that I don't think Test cricket would last much longer if there were no Ashes rivalry anymore. Australia and England are the only two teams that seem to fill cricket Test grounds anymore. None of the others get even close. You saw the crowds at Bangalore...
Posted by: D.S. Henry | October 15, 2008 at 01:41 AM
Had India bowled out Australia cheaply on the first day and then Dravid and SRT had put on 150 at a cracking pace on the second day, you'd have seen much larger crowds. Trust me. Folks back home tend to back winning horses. Calcutta still gets very large crowds for tests as does Chennai and Mumbai (Delhi is a little behind in this regard). BTW, comparing English crowds to Indian ones is misleading - their grounds are smaller.
Posted by: Samir Chopra | October 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM
That sounds like a lot of "if"s just to get some bums on seats, Samir. IF there's an Aussie collapse, IF Tendulkar is carving, IF they get the day off from work, IF...
I hope you're right, though, and it does get better for the later Tests, for the sake of Test cricket.
Posted by: D.S. Henry | October 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM
DS: My only point is that low attendance at a test in India simply means the home team isn't doing as well. It doesn't mean folks aren't interested in test cricket at all. So the low attendance is a contingent fact about test cricket in India. Attendance in England is higher, yes, as it is in Australia. But those countries have not provided as much alternative international cricket in the form of one-dayers. Given limited purchasing power amongst the spectators, when they have a choice of what to go see, they might plonk down those rupees to see a one-day instead.
But I'm not going to dispute your central point, which is that test cricket needs to do well in India. And that it needs better, more sympathetic handling by the BCCI.
Posted by: Samir Chopra | October 15, 2008 at 07:21 PM
D.s,
I was running some numbers - in a day's play there are 90 overs. So roughly 90 ad spots. Adding another 15 spots for drinks, tea and lunch, we have 105 ad spots a day ( and these are conservative numbers).
105 *5 = 525 ad spots.
And they all get sold every match.Despite not being available on National TV.
A 40,000 people capacity stadium is half full when the Australians are batting on a weekday - 20,000 people watching live cricket in the most unfriendly stadiums ( from a spectator POV).
If these numbers cannot stem the decline of Test cricket, then Test cricket deserves a decent burial.
Cheers,
Posted by: Homer | October 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I'm not sure I understand your point, Homer. Is the fact that ad spots were sold out during the match a sign of strength for Test cricket? Aren't they always sold out, though, in advance? (It then becomes a matter of who they're sold to, and for how much.)
Who knows, maybe I am being a little alarmist (and Samir, you're right, it can be a little misleading to compare crowds/stadiums in England to Indian ones directly)... we should wait to see what the rest of the series brings.
Posted by: D.S. Henry | October 16, 2008 at 02:53 AM
My point is that there are buyers for the ad spots..And if Test Cricket was not able to draw in the eyeballs,what explains the buyers?
Posted by: Homer | October 16, 2008 at 08:39 AM
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/current/story/374208.html
Posted by: Homer | October 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I hadn't thought about that stat Homer. 20,000 on a weekday with the tourists batting. And in bloody uncomfortable stadiums. I think we'll see bigger crowds at the games from now on. The Aussies are in town, and we have a chance of winning.
Posted by: Samir Chopra | October 16, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Mind you, Mohali looks pretty empty right now :)
Posted by: Samir Chopra | October 17, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Well, Australia shouldn't be so quick to say to write off winning in India. I think they are a bit negative about it in talking up how long the drought in India was.
http://yellowmonkeysbananabucket.blogspot.com/
Posted by: YellowMonkey | November 30, 2008 at 04:18 AM
hi good blog interesting subject I hope to publish more on this blog while I contribute to these two links.
http://www.xlpharmacy.com/viagra/generic.php
http://www.safemeds.com/viagra/generic.html
Richard I. Norman
233 Brown Street
Pleasanton, CA 94 566
Posted by: buy viagra | May 28, 2010 at 05:20 PM