Happy Birthday Test Cricket - 135 Today.

As the title says, it was on this day in 1877 that Test cricket was born. Below is an article of mine running through my five greatest moments in the 135 year history of Test's. It was ruddy difficult, and there are plenty others that I wanted to include, but what are your own greatest moments?

http://andy-bloxham.blogspot.com/2012/03/happy-birthday-test-cricket-135-today.html

Today, March 15th 2012, marks a very special day in the cricketing calendar. It is, of course, the 135th birthday of Test cricket.

The oldest and longest format of the game was born all those years ago on March 15th 1877, when Australia and England took to the field in Melbourne. Australia won the inaugural Test by 45 runs, with opening batsman Charlie Bannerman scoring 165 to record Test cricket’s first century.

Test cricket has greatly evolved since that day in Melbourne. Whether it be through the abolishment of ‘Timeless Tests’ to make way for the modern five day game that we all know and love, or the tinkering of laws as various flaws were ironed out, one thing has remained unchanged: the Test arena is one for only the very finest of cricketers; a place where each and every participant will face the toughest physical and mental challenges of their careers, and the stage upon which they have an opportunity to seize immortality. Plenty have taken that opportunity, achieving feats that have echoed through the ages and leaving devotees with more than just a transient memory.

To those that have entertained, to those that have left indelible memories in our hearts and minds, and to those that have given blood, sweat and tears for the glory of their nation: we salute you and are truly thankful.

In the modern era Test cricket is under ever increasing threat. A proliferation of limited overs cricket in particular has started to take its toll on this king of formats, and it is surely the duty of every single person in a position of power within cricket to ensure that the tradition, values and status of Test cricket that began on that day 135 years ago is cherished, preserved and enhanced. Test cricket remains strong, but with prudent remedial action those in power can do their part to ensure that, another 135 years from now, someone else is sat in my very place reflecting on Test cricket’s greatest moments over its 270 year life span.

To mark this special day, in ascending order, here are my five greatest moments in the history of Test cricket:

5) Don Bradman dismissed for a duck in his final Test innings

Whilst the retirement of the peerless Sir Don Bradman was a great moment to celebrate the career of the finest batsman that ever lived, it is also perhaps the most poignant in the history of Test cricket. In 1948, arriving at the crease needing only four runs to complete his career with a Test batting average of 100, The Don was bowled for a second ball duck by English leg-spinner Eric Hollies. Surely amongst the most memorable moments in the history of Test cricket.

4) Jimmy Mathews takes the only double hat-trick in Test cricket

Mathews, an Australian leg-spinner, took a hat-trick in each of South Africa’s innings during a Test match at Manchester in 1912. Incredibly, Mathews took both hat-tricks within the same day of play, and failed to take any more wickets for the duration of the Test. A feat that is unlikely to be achieved again.

3) Brian Lara scores 400 not out

In 2004 West Indian batting legend Brian Charles Lara became the first and only man in the history of Test cricket to score 400 runs in a single innings. Batting first on a placid pitch against England Lara hit a gargantuan 43 boundaries and four maximums. Again, a record that is likely to endure through the ages.

2) Jim Laker takes 19 wickets in an innings

Old Trafford, 1956. England’s off-break bowler Jim Laker took 19 of the 20 Australian wickets to fall, and became the first man to take all ten wickets in a single innings. Match figures of 68-27-90-19 provide the finest match bowling returns in the history of Test cricket – don’t expect it to be bettered any time soon.

1) The Ashes are born

Test cricket’s oldest series, and one that was named in 1882 after a mock obituary claiming that English cricket had died (with the body to be cremated and taken to Australia) was published in the Sporting Times following England’s defeat to Australia on English soil for the first time, has led to some of the greatest Test matches. The 2005 series, perhaps the greatest series in Test cricket’s long history, came close to making the top five alone. “The Demon Bowler” Australia’s Fred Spofforth took 14 wickets for 90 runs in the match as England capitulated to 77 all out chasing a second innings total of 85 to win at The Oval. Alleged to contain the ashes of a bail taken from that Oval Test match, a tiny urn was presented to England captain Ivo Bligh in Melbourne during the following series between the sides in Australia, a relic that has been awarded to the winner to this very day.

only 15 years behind you Fists

Happy Birthday Test Cricket

Ha!

Nice article as always fists.

Lara's 400 for me was not as enthralling as his 375 but hey it's matter of opinion.

In terms of the aesthetics, you're probably right, Stella, however the landmark itself is what seals its spot in my list.

So many great moments, I just wish I'd had time to compile a top 50!

Read this last night on the blog Fists, great read.

Cheers mate.

Good article Fists, but it deserves more debate than it has currently received. I therefore challenge a few assertions.

Firstly, my usualy bugbear: you state that test cricket is "a place where each and every participant will face the toughest physical and mental challenges of their careers"; I feel this is arguable. As I have said before quite a few players (although by no means a majority) have said that they find T20 more mentally challenging in terms of concentration say than test cricket. I think it was PSW who compared the difference between the two to the difference between an 100m sprint, and a marthon. The comparison is IMO apt: the ball by ball play intensity in a T20 is far higher, but the endurance and sheer toughness (for want of a better word) required in test cricket make it a challenging game in a different way.

The comparison is apt for another reason: were I to run against Usain Bolt, I would lose by between 2 and 3 seconds, depending on what time he ran; were I to run against a top marathon runner I would lose by at least an hour (and I would have to train pretty hard to get the margin down to that). What I am trying to say is this: the difference between "average Joe" and the very best is far less at the shorter form. Similarly for cricket: I suspect if France were to play Australia in a T20 we would lose by 180 runs or so (possibly more). If we played Australia in a test match we would lose by however many they wanted us to. But I ask the question: no one would claim that it is easier to reach the very top in the 100m sprint then in the marathon; is the same true in cricket? Or is it easier to be a very good international T20 player than a very good test player? I don't know the answer.

And here starts my second bug-bear: you say "it is surely the duty of every single person in a position of power within cricket to ensure that the tradition, values and status of Test cricket that began on that day 135 years ago is cherished, preserved and enhanced". Whilst the sentiment is admirable, the unasked question is "at the expense of what?" I suspect you are stating something that is an absolute when it really is somewhat relative. If someone said that to preserve test cricket we have to restrict cricket playing (in any format) to just the top 5 countries in the world, then I believe it is my duty to campaign actively against that.

But this is really illustrative of a problem I do have with certain cricket fans, who believe test cricket is the ONLY form of the game which counts. My personal viewpoint is that it is the most interesting, as I love the momentum swings, the cat-and-mouse, the way such a long game can change on such small things etc... But unlike some, I also appreciate the skills involved in T20, the innovations, the fact that one player can genuinely win a match on his own, the new challenges it has brought to the game.

What I dislike are people (and I have met them) who say "only test cricket is real cricket": this is of course nonsense, but more importantly it is insulting to all of us who never will play test cricket in our lives, but were certainly under the impression that we were playing cricket. Is the only real football played that in the premier league?

Which brings me nicely onto my final point: whilst I agree that test cricket must be valued, I don't believe that this should be at the expense of the other formats. But really, I think this is a false dichotomy: it is not a question of "test cricket vs other formats", it is a question of how to get the best out of all formats.

To do that, we have to accept that test cricket will change over time. It always has and always will. In particular we must stop clinging to tradition for tradition's sake. Of course changes should be thought through properly, and nothing should be introduced which is harmful to the SPORTING aspect of the game. But we should not look at all proposed changes with suspicion.

After all, traditionally cricket was played by bowling underarm, with stumps which resembled a croquet hoop, and a bat like a hockey stick; Oh and people didn't wear white either.

If test cricket does wish to survive (and this is far too melodramatic: test cricket's demise has been predicted several times already; in fact last year was probably the best year of test cricket I have seen since 2001) then it does to an extent have to move with the times. I give two examples:
- numbers on back of shirts: in what way does this damage the game? Because it makes it "like football"? But what does that even mean? In what way will putting numbers on the backs of cricket shirts hinder people's ability to play test cricket as we understand it? On the other hand, it will make the game more mainstream, accessible and fan friendly. These are not dirty words.
- Day-night test cricket: there, I've said it. Providing the sporting aspects (dew, twilight, ball) are ironed out, why on earth not? It will certainly bring more fans to the game, and it makes sense in hot climates like India (where little shading is available, and actually watching a full day's cricket in daytime exposes you to very high temperatures).

Test cricket as it is is a great game. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it better. That is surely in everyone's interests.

Mike Selig wrote:

.... Is the only real football played that in the premier league?

Most definitely not.

That's not just my view. I'm recently back from watching Woking play in the Conference South. Amongst the 1,900 crowd was local lad (since his schooldays anyway) Jade Dernbach.

Fine article by Fists and response from Mike. I'll respond to some points later.

Good article / discussion.

You could also make a case for including the first tied test between Australia and West Indies as one of the top moments in test history.

If test matches equate to marathons and T20 to the 100m, I feel that the ODIs do not stack up all that well against the 800m or 1500m where you can have some outstanding duels between top runners. But perhaps my issue with ODIs has been the proliferation of meaningless matches rather than the form of the game per se.

Corporalhumblebucket wrote:Good article / discussion.
But perhaps my issue with ODIs has been the proliferation of meaningless matches rather than the form of the game per se.

I think so. I also think ODIs have suffered recently as Australia until say 2009 were so far ahead of the rest of the pack it was frankly boring. The 2007 world cup for me was too long (how much time spent on the super 8s? Just to qualify the sides we thought would qualify anyway?), but more importantly incredibly predictable. Australia won all their matches, and apart from a crazy hour of De Villiers and Smith when it looked like SA may chase down 380 frankly never looked like even being in trouble in any of them. At least in 2003 England and New-Zealand had them in trouble.

Then there's been the endless tinkering with the laws: the amazingly stupid "supersub" idea (I wouldn't mind cricket allowing an injured player to be subbed, but this "one tactical substitution" essentially just gave the side batting 2nd an extra batsman); the never-ending powerplays (first two bowling powerplays - that'll be overs 11 to 20 then; then one bowling and one batting, so overs 11-15 and 46-50; then that was too predictable, so let's force teams to take the powerplay when they don't want to - overs 16-20 and 36-40 then).

It's a shame because when Australia were really at their peak, for me around 2001, they played some truly great cricket in ODIs, and attacking cricket at that. 3 slips for fast bowlers was the norm (and short extra-cover in the first 10 overs was practically outlawed), Warne frequently bowled with mid-on and mid-off up, even outside the powerplays there were rarely many fielders on the boundary, and usually plenty catching. Steve Waugh used to say he didn't need a 5th bowler (Watson hadn't emerged as an all-rounder yet, so 5th bowler duties were shared between Symonds, Martyn, M. Waugh) cos he always fancied he could bowl the opposition out inside 40 overs. Quite often he was right.

Less spectacular but arguably more effective, Australia under Ponting were simply professional. But they were also the first side I remember to start using their best fielders at mid-on and mid-off, particularly when spinners were operating. In fact, it was Ponting's ODI side which for me moved away from "specialist position" (e.g. point) to "specialist role" (e.g. catches above waist high).

I still like ODI cricket, and watch it at any opportunity, but occasionally by its very nature it can be quite formulaic. T20 has probably taken over the mantle of innovation. And I agree with the corporal, the recent tri-series went on far too long for example.

BUT I do get annoyed when people say ODI cricket should go. Partly because at the moment it's the longest format available to countries like mine. But partly also because for me it's the same kind of stupid statement as "test cricket is dying". There is a place in cricket for all formats.

I know it's come up in other threads before but certainly at county level I considerable prefer 40 rather than 50 over matches. The shorter version seems largely to by pass the often tedious middle overs.

Agree fully with all comments that say there is room for all types of cricket within the game. Revenue-wise, one-day stuff provides the sort of income that allows teams to carry on playing the longer forms of the game which relatively few spectators watch.
I can understand those who worry that Tests could get swamped by the demand for limited over matches. But I don't understand, or agree with, those who want one-day stuff banned, or considerably cut down on. If you don't like the one-dayers or Twenty20, then don't go.
Twenty20 doesn't float my boat but I can understand its appeal.

Mike Selig wrote:

If test cricket does wish to survive (and this is far too melodramatic: test cricket's demise has been predicted several times already; in fact last year was probably the best year of test cricket I have seen since 2001) then it does to an extent have to move with the times. I give two examples:
-....
- Day-night test cricket: there, I've said it. Providing the sporting aspects (dew, twilight, ball) are ironed out, why on earth not? It will certainly bring more fans to the game, and it makes sense in hot climates like India (where little shading is available, and actually watching a full day's cricket in daytime exposes you to very high temperatures).

Test cricket as it is is a great game. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it better. That is surely in everyone's interests.

Mike - an encouraging example of County Championship cricket moving with the times and not totally unrelated to your example shown above.

I was at the Oval today for Surrey's CC opener. Accoring to a public address announcement, the match was only able to start on time as the umpires, Nick Cook and Richard Illingworth, had agreed at their discretion to it being played under floodlights (which remained on all day). Given we didn't see even a hint of blue sky until after 3 o'clock, there would have been little cricket without this decision, apparently unique even though common sense demanded it.

Another good article Fists. I'm not going to get into the debate on what form of the game is best (anyone with half a brain knows that Test cricket is the ultimate sport going) but I wonder if the highlights of 20/20 will be just as memorable as these in 135 years time?

Probably B9, the shorter format produces exceptional moments in a condensed period of play, the ones that make it right to the top will be displays one-off feats of brilliance.