How Tests passed the test

View from Oz

Now and again, the death of Test cricket is predicted. Luckily for the "gloomsters", they have not bet their lives on its demise because the patient's vital signs are such that the recent inventors of the bionic heart won't be getting a call from the International Cricket Council.

The statisticians tell us we've not seen a day like the first in this Test – run-rate 82 per 100 balls – since 1985, when England's rate was 74 against Allan Border's Australians. Still, there was a reason of sorts for that mayhem – on paper, the Australian bowling looked classy enough, led by Craig McDermott, Jeff Thomson and Geoff Lawson, but the team had their minds on distracting matters, such as South African rebel tours.

The brilliance of Edgbaston 2001 was without qualification, and in two simple parts: England's batsmen dealt effectively with Brett Lee's wobble and Michael Slater played possibly the most brilliant innings of his turbulent batting life. Slater's impact play reminded me instantly of the Indian batsman VVS Laxman's recent demolition job on the Australians, the bursts of quick, decisive footwork, strokes flashing to all parts of the ground, body language all confidence and joy.

Such batting offers a theory as to why Test match grounds are again hanging out the "house full" sign. It is possible the product might never have been better and, in the richest of ironies, the reason might be one-day cricket, once freely tipped to scuttle Test cricket. Early fears were not groundless. Correct batting techniques were threatened by the new breed of sloggers. Leg spinners were superceded by military medium pace. Worse, every one of these "slogathons" seemed to be played to a full house and, worse still, there was always a winner.

Recently there has been a meshing of the strengths of both formats. The result is remarkable. From 1979-1988, 49 per cent of Test matches ended in draws. In the next decade the number of draws had fallen to 34 per cent. In the last three years only 26 per cent of Tests have been drawn. So far in 2001, only three in 23 have been drawn.

Some aspects of Test cricket are constant. It remains good theatre – it's just that modern patrons prefer fancy dress and painted faces to felt hats and suits. There are the stars: Waugh, McGrath and Warne remind us of Border, Lillee and Grimmett. But the way a Test is played out has been changed forever by the combination of the pace of modern life and new technologies.

When we see slow motion television replays of leg-befores, should we pity today's Test umpire or congratulate him on educating himself because he's studied the evidence post-match?

There was a time when any forward lunge by a batsman entitled him to what all bowlers called "bias", but what was known as "the benefit of the doubt". When Craig White missed sweeping Warne and George Sharp gave him out it was a decision that would rarely have been given two decades ago. Today's TV technology invites us to think that yesterday's theory could have been wrong. In this era, the probability of more leg-befores and more run-outs via the video replay lessens the chance of a Test finishing in a draw.

A possible negative: the current fetish to replay no-balls that result in wickets. It is unhelpful – unless it leads to a revision of the ridiculous front-foot law which stifles enterprise from the batsman and impedes good umpiring.

Cricket has among its fans some who refuse to concede any aspect of the modern game can match the "good old days", but they do soften over fielding. White's catch of Matthew Hayden was stunning and who hasn't marvelled at Ricky Ponting's laser-like direct hits from short cover? That's the one-day influence. And it's likely a Test batting line-up chasing a fourth-innings target paces itself better because of one-day cricket's "equation". After tea at Edgbaston, 236 runs were scored at 6.84 an over. That's "happy hour" cricket, the catchphrase for the last 10 overs in a one-day innings.

Of course, the game could be going through a cyclical stage. Much of cricket's attractiveness depends on captains and we've appreciated the Bradman era, the Hutton era, the Benaud era, the Ian Chappell era, the Clive Lloyd/Viv Richards era. And Steve Waugh is a winning captain with a "no fear" attitude.

The influence of one-day cricket seems undeniable and, once such a positive mindset is established the fans will not accept compromise. Mid-Test, the Edgbaston scoreboard is according to script. Australia choose three fast bowlers and send England in, even though the pitch is brown and slow. Warne and McGrath clean up. Steve Waugh makes a hundred. This 24th Test of 2001 will only finish in a draw if it rains or England's middle order make a better fist of handling McGrath and Warne.