Is Test cricket the 'ultimate form of the game' or a symbol of British imperialism?

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Aside from being boring as ****, and completely irrelevant, test cricket seems to have a bit of a dark history.

 

Not surprising, given that most of what the UK 'gave' india - whether it be independence, parliamentary democracy or 'secularism' - was largely self-serving and embedded in some ulterior motive. And the IPL succeeded in partly eliminating this colonial legacy.

 

At least, that is what THIS british author wrote back in 2011:

 

Quote

Originally the game of cricket was exported to all of Britain’s colonies for one very specific reason, as a way to reinforce a hegemonic cultural order in the face of emancipation of the relative slave populations. Cricket was effectively a tool of colonialism, much more than just a sport for sport’s sake. Cricket and everything it stood for came to be used as a mechanism to distinguish between a civilised ‘we’ and an unworthy or uncivilised ‘them’.

Cricket embodied some fundamental aspects of Victorian society such as sportsmanship, temperament, and was very much a gentleman’s game, in which phrases like ‘good stroke old bean’ were surely uttered at numerous and frequent intervals. Due to these values cricket was more than just a game to the Victorians, even the wearing of all white was a symbol of puritanism. The structure and length of the game reveal an indication of days gone by when things were simpler and people weren’t so rushed as to enjoy themselves with a leisurely game of cricket on the common or the village green. This is obviously a rather stereotyped image but cricket today still has the ‘break for tea’, something to remind us of a more romantic period. However, we shouldn’t get carried away with the ‘romantic’ values associated with cricket as placed in a colonial context they become something else entirely.

In British colonies in the 19^th century cricket was used to reinforce juxtapositions between white colonial settlers and the indigenous population or those subjected to British rule. For example in the West Indies the aristocratic ‘planter’ class or  wealthy landowners used cricket to remind their African subjects that were in their midst that they were a separate and distinct race. As the most gentlemanly of sports cricket embodied the Victorian way of life and all others were excluded by their inability to demonstrate an understanding of these values or indeed cricket’s image of the ideal Englishman. This was not only the case in the West Indies – it was also seen in India due to cricket’s introduction by the British East India Trading Company.

As the game evolved it became more open and was about spreading these civilised values to those considered uncivilised. In the end it was India’s super elite, its princes, that helped the sport to transcend class lines, and it was the Parsi community which was the first to take up cricket in India. The Parsis, “were the bridge community between Indian and English cultural tastes” (Appadurai, 1996:92). The Parsis originally emigrated from Central Iran over ten centuries ago and over time fully integrated into Indian society. In 1668 the East India Trading Company leased the seven islands of Bombay from Charles II and found it the ideal setting for their first port in the sub-content. The Parsis followed in the pursuit of increased working opportunities and soon began to occupy posts of trust in relation to government and the public sector. British schools provided the new Parsi youth that accompanied and emerged from this work force with the means to literacy, but also to become familiar with the quirks of the British establishment. These qualities allowed the Parsi to represent themselves as being similar to the British. While the British saw other Indians as ignorant , passive, irrational, and outwardly submissive, the Parsis were seen to have the traits that the colonial authorities tended to ascribe to themselves. Over time more communities adopted the game it became the very symbol of Indian modernity. Cricket in some sense played a role in both creating a sense of community and in time a larger sense of  solidarity across classes.

But what of cricket today? There’s probably some of you thinking, ‘hey wait a minute here! This is ‘New HISTORIES Online Magazine’ I don’t care about what’s going on in the world of cricket today, I want to know more about the cricket of yesteryear, I want my history fix!’ I’m sure this is the case as people do get very passionate about history, especially history about cricket. With the creation of the Indian Premier League (IPL) in 2008 and its eight franchises, some worth 34 to 48 million dollars the face of cricket is ultimately changing, and with critics arguing to its detriment with emphasis placed on advertisement, sponsorship deals, and player signings is changing the very values, traditions and characteristics of the game which have made it so universal. There is however, no doubt that cricket is becoming more popular and re-energised for a new generation of cricket fans. In terms of the symbolism of cricket today it does act as a reminder of past imperialism but it also indicates the universality of culture itself. It displays its ability to transcend class and ethnic distinctions internally within a country but also externally, reaching across nearly every continent of the globe. Cricket reveals the malleability of culture and how it can be changed from something oppressive to something triumphant, a truly multicultural sport. 

http://newhistories.group.shef.ac.uk/wordpress/wordpress/not-quite-cricket-–-crickets-relationship-with-british-colonialism/

 

An interesting take, but a bit out-dated in comparison with the current english/australian opinion - which claims that the IPL is a form of Indian imperialism.

 

Given how the world has changed, and countries like India are more self-sufficient today than they were several decades ago, does test cricket have any relevance?

[Khota]

Test cricket is a byproduct of a system where free labor did all your work and you could hunt/fish and drink Gin and Tonic in the evening. I am sure if you are plundering and looting and getting diamonds and gold for free you can play for 5 days.

 

This is 2020 and I find microwave oven too slow. No one has 5 days to watch jack sheet. I have been to several test matches and they are a drag on day 5.

 

If you have to hype it to me with the word that it is true than go take a hike. I decide what I like and you are no one to tell me that.

 

I know how people promote Geoff Bycott as an ultimate cricketer. That man was unfit to even play modern day golf.

 

T20 is the way to go.  Don't shove this crap down my throat and let free market decide it.

 

Test Cricket. RIP.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

8 minutes ago, Khota said:

Test cricket is a byproduct of a system where free labor did all your work and you could hunt/fish and drink Gin and Tonic in the evening. I am sure if you are plundering and looting and getting diamonds and gold for free you can play for 5 days.

 

This is 2020 and I find microwave oven too slow. No one has 5 days to watch jack sheet. I have been to several test matches and they are a drag on day 5.

 

If you have to hype it to me with the word that it is true than go take a hike. I decide what I like and you are no one to tell me that.

 

I know how people promote Geoff Bycott as an ultimate cricketer. That man was unfit to even play modern day golf.

 

T20 is the way to go.  Don't shove this crap down my throat and let free market decide it.

 

Test Cricket. RIP.

 

LOL, i actually agree with you.

 

I grew up watching test cricket, and it makes sense why the subcontinent would have liked test cricket in the 70s and 80s - it was the only form of cricket - and people knew nothing else.

 

Today, test cricket looks useless, but this doesn't stop australians and english cricket fans from pressuring the BCCI to 'make test cricket great again'.

 

I compare it with evangelical Christianity. 'Ultimate form of the game', the 'greatest game', the 'truest form of cricket'...all bullshit superlatives from narrow-minded fanatics.

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 

LOL, i actually agree with you.

 

I grew up watching test cricket, and it makes sense why the subcontinent would have liked test cricket in the 70s and 80s - it was the only form of cricket - and people knew nothing else.

 

Today, test cricket looks useless, but this doesn't stop australians and english cricket fans from pressuring the BCCI to 'make test cricket great again'.

 

I compare it with evangelical Christianity. 'Ultimate form of the game', the 'greatest game', the 'truest form of cricket'...all bullshit superlatives from narrow-minded fanatics.

Just remember anytime they have to repeatedly remind you how it is the purest form and crap, you know they have lost the arguement. 

 

In 70's and 80's there were no choices and hence the interest in cricket. Even in England there is a mass hysteria when ManU is playing. No one cares about cricket. No one.

[zen]

The people who play the game are likely to pick tests 

[MechEng]

I read about detailed history of cricket somewhere in 2016 I think and I came across what cricket was like in 17th century England.

 

During the Edwardian era there were no rules such as lbw and etc. in cricket, people played it like how we did it in gully/mohalla cricket. It was during Victorian era when the empire peaked and Victorian values were brought to the game, patience and grit was considered the gold standard of batting and bowling, playing too many shots and short pitched bowling was considered uncivilized behaviour. Victorian values were what British Empire made dominant for two centuries - discipline, order and precision. And these values shaped the game before exporting it to colonies.

 

Someone like Mitchell Johnson and Shoaib Akhtar would have been looked down upon if they played cricket 100 years ago because displaying aggression was against Victorian morals, unlike today where hostile fast bowling is encouraged.

[Khota]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

The people who play the game are likely to pick tests 

That is called being politically correct. 

 

Ask them to play full time test cricket and give up T20. and ODI. I know exactly zero would be the number of players willing to do that.

[Khota]

Let me dispel some myths. Cricket is not a Gentleman's game. They say that but they turn around and cheat. They all want to win by any means.

 

Australians would cheat blatantly.

 

Pakistan - No need to go there.

 

England _ John Lever, enough said.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Calling cricket a gentlemans game is same as calling Aurangzeb a humanitarian.

 

 

[MechEng]

2 minutes ago, Khota said:

Let me dispel some myths. Cricket is not a Gentleman's game. They say that but they turn around and cheat. They all want to win by any means.

 

Australians would cheat blatantly.

 

Pakistan - No need to go there.

 

England _ John Lever, enough said.

 

I could go on and on.

 

Calling cricket a gentlemans game is same as calling Aurangzeb a humanitarian.

 

 

It used to be in 1800s. Back then even playing cricket was considered to be a very high class thing like today's equivalent of fine dining at a Michelin star restaurant.

[Nikola]

I still enjoy test cricket more than anything specially when it's played between two competitive sides. IPL is fun as well. Problem is tests in india are quite boring and doesn't excite alot people unless they are fan of particular player. Another big reason for this is opposition teams are pretty weak in these conditions. Test matches played between top 3 sides (Ind/Aus/Eng) home and away are still exciting though.

[Khota]

9 minutes ago, MechEng said:

It used to be in 1800s. Back then even playing cricket was considered to be a very high class thing like today's equivalent of fine dining at a Michelin star restaurant.

Based on my experience if there are two teams and one gets to win, the gentlemans concept goes out the window.

[Khota]

8 minutes ago, Nikola said:

I still enjoy test cricket more than anything specially when it's played between two competitive sides. IPL is fun as well. Problem is tests in india are quite boring and doesn't excite alot people unless they are fan of particular player. Another big reason for this is opposition teams are pretty weak in these conditions. Test matches played between top 3 sides (Ind/Aus/Eng) home and away are still exciting though.

Good. I can't stand it anymore. They need money from BCCI to keepit alive.

[MechEng]

2 hours ago, Khota said:

Test cricket is a byproduct of a system where free labor did all your work and you could hunt/fish and drink Gin and Tonic in the evening. I am sure if you are plundering and looting and getting diamonds and gold for free you can play for 5 days.

 

This is 2020 and I find microwave oven too slow. No one has 5 days to watch jack sheet. I have been to several test matches and they are a drag on day 5.

 

If you have to hype it to me with the word that it is true than go take a hike. I decide what I like and you are no one to tell me that.

 

I know how people promote Geoff Bycott as an ultimate cricketer. That man was unfit to even play modern day golf.

 

T20 is the way to go.  Don't shove this crap down my throat and let free market decide it.

 

Test Cricket. RIP.

As much as I love limited overs cricket, I'm an aggressive purist when it comes to food. Food in microwave tastes horrible and it is bad for your health as well. Nothing beats the 12 hours slow cooked daal makhani you get in old Delhi restaurants.

[Nikola]

2 hours ago, Khota said:

Good. I can't stand it anymore. They need money from BCCI to keepit alive.

Depends people these days don't have time to watch cricket else world cricket actually doesn't even need BCCI and it's money to run test cricket. BCCI can play 2 or 3 ipl edition per year along with random paytm/pan masala leagues with srilanka/west indies/bangladesh.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Nikola

[Straight Drive]

Love watching test more than T20i.

[Khota]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

As much as I love limited overs cricket, I'm an aggressive purist when it comes to food. Food in microwave tastes horrible and it is bad for your health as well. Nothing beats the 12 hours slow cooked daal makhani you get in old Delhi restaurants.

Good. For some of us left over beans and rice for 1:30 in uwave is pretty good. Slow cooked food has its place but that is not part of daily cooking. I am not so sure 5 days test have any place in 21st century.

[Khota]

2 hours ago, Nikola said:

Depends people these days don't have time to watch cricket else world cricket actually doesn't even need BCCI and it's money to run test cricket. BCCI can play 2 or 3 ipl edition per year and doing random paytm/pan masala leagues with srilanka/west indies/bangladesh.

You do know tests on their own lose money?

[rtmohanlal]

Still test is the  ultimate form of cricket if played  in sporting wickets. Makes a spectacular  enjoyment. But the  important point is as to how followers of tests   manage  their other constructive  routine actions  . Highlights are there, LIVE telecasts are there which can be effectively enjoyed . To claim that

some 50 days on the average (MAX time for 10 tests)   in a year  affects other activities in life is a lame excuse.   

 

I  still enjoy tests . Infact hate  T20 like any thing and  that thrash IPL , the lesser said the better

Edited May 16, 2020 by rtmohanlal

[Khota]

6 hours ago, Stumped said:

in England tests bringing in by far the most money each summer.

There are several other test playing countries and none of those make money. also if you scan the crowd in England most of the folks are retired/old. No young crowd at all.

[Straight Drive]

14 hours ago, Nikola said:

Depends people these days don't have time to watch cricket else world cricket actually doesn't even need BCCI and it's money to run test cricket. BCCI can play 2 or 3 ipl edition per year along with random paytm/pan masala leagues with srilanka/west indies/bangladesh.

Depends on which people you consider. For someone retired like me, watching atest is not a problem. There are audiences in every age group. Its just not the teen or middle aged people who form the viewer base.