***
No-one
forgets their first day of Test match cricket. I can even remember the date:
Friday 13 August 1976, the summer that an endless heat wave turned a green
nation brown and had people queuing at standpipes in the streets. It was at
Kennington Oval, the second morning of the fifth Test between England and West
Indies. There was a great sense of
ritual to the day: lining up to click through the turnstile, buying a scorecard
and a seat cushion, waiting for the five-minute bell to ring and the umpires to
come down the pavilion steps, watching the fielding side walk out and then the
batsmen, and hearing for the first time the strange silence made by many
thousands of people saying nothing as the bowler runs in for the opening ball
of the day…
To
a kid like me it was huge and vivid, almost overpowering. Everything was bigger
and faster and further, from the vastness of the outfield to the speed of the
ball and how it was bowled, hit and thrown, and then the crowd, packed shoulder
to shoulder on narrow wooden benches (hence the seat cushions – 50p for the day
and worth every penny) a powerful force in its own right.
Out
in the middle was IVA Richards, 200 not out overnight and in the mood for more,
getting ever closer to one of the great and apparently unapproachable records
of the game, Garry Sobers’ 365. Richards didn’t just stroke the ball to
boundary in the way it seemed on television. The movement that looked so
languid when mediated by the cameras had a heft and a snap that could only be
appreciated in the flesh. The ball rang from his bat with a sound I’d never
heard before, a bright crack with an echo of its own.
Richards
got 291, bowled by Tony Greig just when it seemed that he might go after
Sobers’ mark. It was his final innings of 1976, a year in which he’d made 1,710
Test runs, a record that would stand for another 30 years. Towards the end of
the day, Clive Lloyd declared and Michael Holding came out and bowled at
England’s openers, Woolmer and Amiss. He ran in from somewhere near the
boundary at the speed of a 400 metre sprinter, the ball an indistinct fuzz as
it flew from his hand.
That
game was Test match number 781. As I write, the Ashes series is about to begin,
and the first of those will be Test number 2090. There have been almost twice as
many Test matches since 1976 as there were before it. That day, though, remains
indelibly in my senses. It exists there as well as on paper and in the
archives. That is the essence of Test cricket.
It
is hard to think of a game that sits at greater odds with the speed of the
times it is played in. It was created in an era of leisure, its durations
designed to fill tours when men crossed the world by boat. It is almost
entirely anachronistic and yet its rhythms, which are symphonic, still exert
their deep pull. When Test cricket is good, it is unmatchably good, its
inherent tensions ratcheted up by the days used in their creation. Many of the
greatest Test matches of them all have been played in the last couple of
decades.
The
questions over its future have been asked almost since it started, but they
have been answered so far by its constancy. That can’t make us complacent about
its ability to survive. Nothing lasts forever, and Test cricket is subject to
external, societal forces of commerce, time, and multi-media. As much as it is
loved in some competing nations, others can be ambivalent to it. For every
sold-out Ashes series, there is some dubious exercise in Dubai or Sharjah or at
an empty Caribbean outpost constructed for a long-forgotten World Cup.
Test
matches have co-existed peacefully with one-day internationals since 1971 – it
is poor old ODI that’s looking more and more like a busted flush, its format
exhausted by players who know it too well – and less so with the rise T20 cricket, the short-form’s
heightened and logical conclusion.
Whether
it can withstand these forces are the questions that Mike Jakeman has set out
to answer in this challenging and very necessary book. To me, the very fact
that the book exists states the case for Test cricket: that someone would
devote the time and energy and skill is more evidence of what it does to you.
Yet there are some deep enquiries here, and the answers aren’t always in view.
It is recommended reading, and if you’ve picked it up and come this far, you
probably already know why.