'Test cricket will die if it doesn't change' - Geoff Boycott

[1983-2011]

Geoff Boycott on the need for day-night and four-day Tests, overpriced tickets in England, and Pietersen's struggles against left-arm spin (20:18) He talks on how test cricket needs to evolve, test cricket started with 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, 6 days, unlimited time then back again to 5 days. he is in favour of day-night and four day test match with 100 overs a day. Listen to him on here: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/518309.html He also talks about KP's problem with left arm spin, high ticket prices in england and test match allocations to different parts of england.

[1983-2011]

Transcript - 'Test cricket will die if it doesn't change' Transcript Siddhartha Talya: Hello and welcome to Bowl at Boycs. I'm Siddhartha Talya, and joining me as always is Geoffrey Boycott. Morning, Geoffrey, we've just seen Sri Lanka draw the second Test against England. How do you see the series going from here? Geoffrey Boycott: England will win. The problem with Sri Lanka is that the bowling is not strong enough. I know the batting got blown away in Cardiff, but that was a one off. It rained all morning, they weren't mentally ready to bat and were relaxed, thinking they probably wouldn't play. When they did, they probably thought they just had to survive a short period of time, but they didn't. All that happens once in a while, but it didn't happen at Lord's, where they put up a challenge. Whatever the batting does, frankly, their bowling is not good enough. It's very ordinary and they'll slip down the rankings in world cricket. They can't sustain a top place bowling like that. Murali's bowled about 40% of their overs, got 60% of their wickets. Malinga was a big factor as well. They're both gone. And from what I've seen of their bowling, I can say it's not better than three or four county sides. ST: We'll move on to our questions now. The first one comes from Jeetan in India. He says: India are missing many big names for the tour of the West Indies. They are either injured or being rested. However, all of them featured in the IPL. I think it's a case of misplaced priorities as the West Indies tour has been considered less important than the IPL. If international cricket is to retain its pre-eminence, what needs to be done? GB: How long is a piece of string? I can talk to you for three hours about what's to be done for international cricket, particularly Test cricket, to retain its pre-eminence. But let's keep it simple. Misplaced priorities? I don't think so. I love Test cricket as much as anybody and I hope it carries on for many years, but I don't think it will. I think it'll be dead in 50 years the way things are going. Very few players are going to give up the money they can earn in the IPL. It's a golden opportunity not to be missed; once in a lifetime. In a number of years' time, IPL may not be in existence. People may have had enough of it in India. You would have loved it, enjoyed it, but after a while people might say, "We've seen that, now let's move on to something else." And so the money isn't there. But turn it around the other way. If the IPL offered you US$2.4 million a year for six weeks' work and captaincy, slogging a few runs for Kolkata Knight Riders, and you are Gautam Gambhir, are you going to turn that down? That's US$7.2 million for three years. Give us a break. It's sad, but I do understand the situation. Like it or lump it, I'm a realist and you have to be one as well. No kid is going to give up that opportunity. If you ask players which form of cricket they want to be judged by, the top players would say Test cricket. They want their records to be compared with people over the last 100 years in Tests. What do they want to play for money? It's the IPL. Nobody should begrudge them the money they make in the IPL, because if the roles were reversed, it'll be very difficult for anyone to turn that kind of money down. Whether it's right to make that kind of money or wrong, that's a separate issue. But you're not going to turn it down. ST: We move on to a semi-technical question from Dattatreya in Singapore. He wants to know if it is unusual to see as accomplished a batsman as Kevin Pietersen having such difficulty facing left-arm spin. True, he didn't face it enough in his initial years for England, but he would have practised it against the likes of Ashley Giles in the nets. Champion batsmen are supposed to get progressively better against their weaknesses, but why has Pietersen been unable to get over this problem for the last three years? GB: It's very simple. It's like dealing with an alcoholic. You can tell him he needs help, that he needs to try and stop drinking, but the big problem is that until the alcoholic accepts he has a problem, he can't solve it. Kevin keeps telling all the media that he doesn't have a problem against left-arm spinners, yet he's got out some 19 times. He got out the other day, in his previous innings at Lord's, when he got 70-odd. Kevin's a wonderful guy and a terrific player, but he has to say to himself, "Listen, I obviously don't play these as well as I should." He's not totally useless against them but he does tend to make mistakes from time to time against them. He's got to put his hand up and make an effort to play them a little differently. At Lord's, when he came out to bat, the public gave him a fantastic ovation. There were not many people there after the rain and the bad light, and they just stood up and applauded him, showing their warmth and appreciation because he's been such a wonderful player for England. He's had such fantastic performances for them; they don't forget them easily, the public, neither do I. He's a fine player but he does have a bit of a problem. Kevin's one of those guys - he's confident, his ego gets in the way of common sense sometimes. He just won't accept that, yes, if I keep getting out to them there must be something I must be doing wrong. That's the first thing he has to accept. Once he does that, it's not a problem In the second innings at Lord's he played a lot better. He played straighter and through the covers, which he should play with the spin. He couldn't resist going against the spin occasionally, getting his feet and the ball in a damn tangle. He played quite well and his confidence should go up now. ST: Our next question concerns an issue that has been discussed extensively in the ICC in the recent past. It comes from Alan in the UK. He says: Geoffrey, you've been in favour of day-night Tests as well as four-day Tests. Do you think there is an urgent need to spice up the format and innovate, despite there being more outright results and fewer boring draws in the last few years? GB: Yes, I do. It's not a personal thing. I just love cricket. It's not a matter of how I played, when I played and how players in my time played. In the game played today, the runs scored per over is actually quicker than it's been for donkey's years. It's a wonderful spectacle in terms of wickets falling and runs scored in a day. But we could make it better. Quite honestly, it's about preserving Test cricket for the generations to come. Our objective, when we're alive now, is what parents want to do for their children to make their life better. We who are in the game, i.e. ex-players and administrators, should want to leave Test cricket better for the next lot of kids coming along. Throughout history, cricket has always changed to mirror the times we live in. It hasn't always been the type of cricket we see now in Tests. First there was underarm bowling, now there is over-arm bowling. There were three-day Tests, then four, then five and six and we've had timeless Tests and it again went back to five. So it shows that it shouldn't necessarily be five days forever. It's changed, evolved, and has always been doing that. I could go on about the history of the game. It used to be two stumps earlier, now it's three. The new ball, now taken after 80 overs, previously had to be taken after 85. Once, in 1948, for an England v Australia series, it was 55 overs for a new ball. They've done all sorts of things, trying to keep the game alive with the public. My point is this: except for England - our climate is different, and Test attendances are healthy - the crowds are down in most parts of the world. The game is dead unless we get venues with bums on seats watching the cricket. You have to get people to come and watch. Whatever helps people to come, watch, sit, and spend a few hours at the cricket is the most important thing. Empty grounds are no good. It's all right saying, "Well, television gives you a lot of money," but that's easy. You might as well keep the grounds locked, have two sets of players and just play for television. How boring a game would that be? Over rates and crowds have gone down, except in England. The pace of life is faster and people want everything now. They've all got mobile phones in their pockets. With a push of a few buttons, they can go find what they want on the internet. The administrators, however, are slow to change. Since money comes from TV, it's easy. In hot climates, people can come to Test matches when it doesn't affect their daily lives, such as going to work. You can't keep taking days off work; jobs are difficult to come by these days. But you could take children to the cricket after school if there are day-night Tests. I'd think of many things, such as selling seats through family tickets. Two grown-ups pay and you have two children getting in free. Children are the future, you know. You get them interested, they grow up, become adults and pay adult money to watch because they love it. My point is this: you've got to do something to keep Test cricket alive. We have to try, T R Y. I don't have all the answers, but if you don't try something, sure as hell Test cricket will be dead in 50 years. There have been no crowds in Pakistan for 20 years - I know we can't go there now. Crowds in India are down; you can't get anybody there unless it's a Saturday. Eden Gardens used to be full for Tests, with people queuing up outside in big numbers. There's no one watching in the West Indies. The turnouts in South Africa are poor. Their crowds are good only when they play England, because we take thousands of people there on holiday to swell the stands. My view is: try something. Improve the over rates, get it done in four days. It's not about the time but how many overs are bowled. Test matches have 450 overs; we have five days of 90, we could have four days of 110. You can do anything you want, but you've got to have the will to try and get people into the game. I'm passionate about it. I'll be dead in a few years, it's not going to affect me. But I care about the game and I fear that the next generations in many years' time may not see Test cricket and enjoy it like I have done as a player and a watcher. ST: Time for another technical question, and it comes from Rajni in India and it concerns bowling. He says: we saw Lasith Malinga gain plenty of success with his slingy action. Jeff Thomson had one as well. What are the advantages for the bowler when he has an action like that? GB: On the whole, batsmen get used to bowling actions that are fairly predictably normal, with the arm coming over the top, next to their ear, like a cartwheel, sideways on. So when somebody comes along with something different, it just catches people out. For instance, you mentioned Jeff Thomson. He did sling the ball. When he got near to bowling the delivery, his right arm went behind his back and he actually hid the ball from the batsman just before bowling. That was a bit different - the batsmen were seeing the ball a bit late and it caught people out. Malinga bowls round-arm fast. It is a bit disconcerting. The arm is not high, it is shoulder-height. But his angle is brilliant. Although he is delivering the ball not too close to the umpire, it's away from him and is round-arm, if you watch, the arm comes over the stumps and the delivery of the ball is virtually wicket to wicket. Very few bowlers can do that. The angle is different, the action is different, it just upsets the eyeline and catches people out. There's nothing magical about it, but we just get used to certain things. It's happened to me sometimes. Ninety percent of the time, you face fast and medium-fast bowlers who bowl right arm. When you face some left-arm seamers, you've got a problem because you're not used to it. If all your life you've grown up facing left-arm seamers, you wouldn't have a problem. Look at left-hand batsmen who face right-arm bowlers - they get used to it with the ball going across them. But when somebody goes round the wicket… say Flintoff to Gilchrist in the 2005 Ashes. He blew him away, swinging it. Gilchrist couldn't handle the different angle from round the wicket. He's a fantastic batsman but Gilchrist was made to look like a selling plate. It's when you get something different that it becomes a problem. Eventually, if you practise against it a lot, you'll get used to it. ST: We now move on to the question that Geoffrey has picked as his favourite for the show and it comes from Vijay Rajan in India. It concerns an issue that Geoffrey has spoken about during commentary and also dwelt on briefly earlier in the show. Vijay says: I'm keen on watching the England-India Test series but I'm discouraged by the exorbitant ticket prices. I agree games might be sold out due to the demand, but how can Test cricket really be a family outing when tickets are priced so high? There is money being made out of television rights. Shouldn't tickets then ideally be subsidised to give the spectators a better deal? GB: Yes, yes and a thousand times yes. In England, I've been saying for a long time that prices are too high. The poorest seats may be £50. Normally it's about £70 for a good seat, and at Lord's and The Oval - since London always has the highest prices for everything - it's £90-100 a day. I repeat, a day. How does a man go with his wife and two kids? They haven't had an ice-cream or a lollipop or something to drink, and then they have to travel to the ground… It's barmy, isn't it? It's too expensive for people. The fact is, though, the administrators - I've spoken to them - say, "Look, why should we decrease the price when people keep paying it?" In some ways you'd like to say, "We won't come, to show you this is too high and just ridiculous." You're dead right. I mentioned we need children at the ground as well. I would make 10,000 tickets available at all Test matches [in England] for families. Two grown-ups, two youngsters; have a family ticket for two adults, who pay, and have two children under the age of 18 get in for free. Make it 5000 otherwise and have a ballot, helping them get in for a reasonable cost. Children are the next generation of grown-ups who'll pay full money. There's a lot of things one can do but it's the will that's important. The administrators here just say, "Well, we get the money." But it may change. Test attendances are going down all over the world and it may change in England as well. We've got an economic crisis in England because the banks have got us into trouble. Everybody's having to pay more tax, wages are being squeezed. It may start to hurt cricket here if they don't get full houses, when people just don't come and pay the money. Administrators won't change until less people turn up and fewer are prepared to pay. I am concerned. I'd like to see bigger stadiums with more seats before we can charge people less money to watch. You and I are on the right wavelength, Vijay. Unless we get bums on seats to watch, there's no spectacle. Who the hell wants to get a hundred or take five wickets in front of an empty stadium with two men and a dog there? You'd want to get it in a full house, with the thrill and excitement of so many people cheering. That's what it's about; you want a live audience there. But try telling the administrators. It's got too bad in other countries except for England: they can't get people in for love or money. And once people stop coming, it's very difficult to get them back, as they'll move on to something else in life. ST: And as a slight follow-up to that, the next Test will be held in Southampton at the Rose Bowl. You're seeing Test cricket move to some of the smaller centres in England. Is that the right way ahead? GB: In England, it's a tester. We've got nine grounds now, wanting Test cricket. Cardiff and Hampshire, which has just come on stream. We only get six to seven Tests a year in England, so there's going to be two or three missing out. Overseas teams, when they come to England, all want to play at Lord's, so when you have two Tests a year there, there'll be fewer grounds getting Tests. And they can't do a business plan without a Test. So when Hampshire gets a Test or two in the next five years, and the crowds aren't good enough, then there'll be people saying, "We shouldn't be going to Southampton." It's a big conundrum and we're waiting to see what the crowds are like. It's difficult. It's all right saying we want a Test match, but you've got to also fill it with people and that's going to be a big test when we get to next week. ST: Thanks a lot, Geoffrey. That's all we have for today's show. Do send in your questions using our feedback form and we'll have Geoffrey back in a couple of weeks to answer them. Until the next time, it's goodbye from all of us here at ESPNcricinfo.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

"Who made them boring?" Looking straight at the camera, a deadpan Richie Benaud responds to Geoff Boycott's call for four-day Tests because five days are, apparently, boring

Link: http://www.espncricinfo.com/quote/content/page/156062.html

[1983-2011]

will the test cricket die in India with the poor performance abroad and the senior players retiring in near future?

[special K]

Test crickets already dead. The only countries that rate test cricket above ODI's is Australia and England. Ashes countries the only two who know how to play the real game.

[deathmonger]

Test crickets already dead. The only countries that rate test cricket above ODI's is Australia and England. Ashes countries the only two who know how to play the real game.

why this kolaveri di?

[Number]

[conspiracy] bcci will make sure it does. [/conspiracy]

[howzatandall]

Test crickets already dead. The only countries that rate test cricket above ODI's is Australia and England. Ashes countries the only two who know how to play the real game.

Ashes is retarded, I see better quality cricket at club level

[tothepoint]

why this kolaveri di?

:cantstop: this guy is totally mad :hysterical:

[Bradman99]

I'd rather see it die the traditional way, then to try and make it something it's not...

[Old guy]

I'd rather see it die the traditional way' date=' then to try and make it something it's not...[/quote'] agree but night test wont hurt imo

[special K]

Geoff Boycott wants four day tests. India don't even want to play for four days anymore.

[Sundar88]

Test crickets already dead. The only countries that rate test cricket above ODI's is Australia and England. Ashes countries the only two who know how to play the real game.

Certainly true in the case of Australia since they have always been the best in Test Cricket. England however are a joke, they've played the game for at least a century longer than every other country except perhaps Australia and they've only managed to reach the no.1 rank for about 4 months, prior to that they were only good when there were just 2 teams playing Cricket (no competition). Limited Overs Cricket was first introduced in Australia (ODI's) and England (T20) because Test Cricket was already dying there. The truth is, Test Cricket on its own has never been commercially viable. In today's fast paced world nobody has the time to sit and watch a boring 5-day game that may or may not lead to a result. While there are certainly many self proclaimed Cricket "purists" who consider test cricket a superior form of Cricket and people such as yourself who play to this gallery of oldies just so they take you more seriously, clearly there's not enough of you to make test Cricket commercially viable. At the end of the day every sport needs money to survive and test Cricket simply isn't able to do that.

[special K]

Certainly true in the case of Australia since they have always been the best in Test Cricket. England however are a joke, they've played the game for at least a century longer than every other country except perhaps Australia and they've only managed to reach the no.1 rank for about 4 months, prior to that they were only good when there were just 2 teams playing Cricket (no competition).

Mister, we've won 30 more tests then we've lost since 2000. India only 15, so we've been twice as good as India since 2000. Also 3 series win against Australia compared to India's 2 and a series win in SA.

[deathmonger]

Mister' date=' we've won 30 more tests then we've lost since 2000. India only 15, so we've been twice as good as India since 2000. Also 3 series win against Australia compared to India's 2 and a series win in SA.[/quote'] We've won three series against Aus too. Also 3 series win against you lot compared to your 1.

[special K]

We've won three series against Aus too. Also 3 series win against you lot compared to your 1.

Where you won three against OZ since 2000? You beat them in 2008 and 2010. You lost in 04 and drew in 01. These are all your home series.

[wobblydoggy]

We've won three series against Aus too. Also 3 series win against you lot compared to your 1.

You have never won a series in aus

[deathmonger]

Where you won three against OZ since 2000? You beat them in 2008 and 2010. You lost in 04 and drew in 01. These are all your home series.

we won in 2001 you idiot please check facts.

[deathmonger]

You have never won a series in aus

talking of series against eng.

[Sundar88]

Mister' date=' we've won 30 more tests then we've lost since 2000. India only 15, so we've been twice as good as India since 2000. Also 3 series win against Australia compared to India's 2 and a series win in SA.[/quote'] That's because you probably play more test matches than anyone else. India definitely have won 3 test series against Australia since 2000, the first was in 2001 when VVS scored that infamous 281, next in 2008/09 and the third in 2010. Conditions in Australia and South Africa are more familiar to England than to India. If you want to truly compare how both teams have performed in conditions alien to them, India HAS beaten England in a test series in England in 2007 whereas England have not beaten India in India since 1985.