A Test Match with a shorter version mindset? No way!

Raju Korti
The just-concluded second BGT Test at Adelaide, ending in a three-day rout, should once again reignite the debate on whether Test cricket should be reduced to four days. The growing trend of shorter Test matches in the last many years, has led some to question the viability of the five-day format in today’s era of aggressive cricket. However, as a purist and a firm believer in Test cricket’s endurance-based charm, I argue that cutting down its duration would compromise the essence of the format.

Pic representational

The statistics paint a compelling picture. The frequency of Tests finishing early has risen significantly. In the last five years alone, 37 matches ended in three days, 71 in four days, and only a third stretched to the fifth day. Faster scoring rates, evolving player mindsets due to shorter formats, and increasingly bowler-friendly conditions have contributed to this shift. As a result, only extraordinary circumstances -- like pitches offering nothing to bowlers or significant weather interruptions -- allow matches to extend to a fifth day.

Supporters of four-day Tests often cite financial and scheduling benefits. Economically weaker cricket boards struggle to sustain the costs of an under-attended fifth day. Matches finishing early also lead to logistical headaches, as seen in the India-Afghanistan Test, where ticket refunds became necessary. Moreover, reducing the duration could tighten cricket’s packed calendar, making room for additional matches or giving players more recovery time. On paper, a four-day format could inject a sense of urgency, forcing teams to adopt riskier, more aggressive strategies. The promise of more decisive results might attract modern-day spectators, accustomed to the fast-paced thrills of T20 cricket. Yet, this very aggression undermines the beauty of Test cricket. Unlike its shorter counterparts, the charm of a Test lies in its ability to test endurance, adaptability, and patience. 

The format is not just about winning or losing; it’s about the journey -- the ebbs and flows, the resilience shown over five gruelling days, and the psychological battles fought session by session. Reducing the format to four days could have unintended consequences. Rain interruptions or slow over rates would push more games into drawn territory. Teams might prioritize quick, risk-heavy cricket, sacrificing the tactical depth that defines Test matches. A batter carrying their bat through the innings, or a bowler crafting a spell with meticulous precision over multiple sessions, would become rare feats. 

The argument for shorter Tests also overlooks a critical point: the issue isn’t the format but the pitches, scheduling, and player preparedness. Instead of altering the duration, governing bodies should focus on curating balanced pitches, ensuring adequate rest between series, and promoting the traditional values of Test cricket alongside its modern demands.

Cricket’s essence lies in its diversity of formats. Tests are its crown jewel, embodying endurance and strategy, while ODIs and T20s cater to instant gratification. Diluting the uniqueness of Tests by shaving off a day risks alienating its loyal fan base and diluting its identity. The debate over four versus five days isn’t just about numbers; it’s about what we value in the sport. 

While there’s no denying the evolving landscape of cricket, Test matches must retain their identity. The solution lies not in truncating the format but in addressing the broader structural issues that have led to shorter games. Let’s preserve the soul of Test cricket -- the format that separates cricket from every other sport.