The Chesterfield Files

Half of the fun at school was being able to grow up and learn about the game in the competitive world of school inter-house games. Life was far simpler in those far off days.

There was no intrusive television, either. What we had was clever, descriptive radio commentary that brought the magic of the game into our lives and being able to watch Tests at the Basin Reserve in Wellington opened a new world in the 1940s and 1950s.

Fuzzy memories recall a Christmas holiday week in Dunedin and watching the élan qualities of the left-handed batting genius Bert Sutcliffe who in that 1949-50 season, became the first New Zealander to score a first-class triple century.

Fast-forward four summers to 1952/53 recalls one of the many etched memories and the South African tour of New Zealand and watching Jackie McGlew take a double century off a Kiwi attack badly let down by too many dropped catches. Eight years later, more than half a world away at Edgbaston, catching up with the Little General and doing an interview became what was later to become an important moment.

It was on the eve of a controversial Test series. McGlew was the South African captain and that introduction was the start of what became a friendship lasting 38 years (until his death) and led eventually to co-authorship of a book titled ‘South Africa’s Cricket Captains’.

The 1960 tour of England by South Africa was controversial for several reasons. First is that it began weeks after the Sharpeville massacre, a demonstration organised to protest against the carrying of the ‘dompas’ (the pass laws) which had six to seven thousand protesting outside a black ghetto police station. Second, it became the first tour rightly targeted by anti-apartheid demonstrators.

Another reason is that it was the first Test series in which a bowler, Geoff Griffin, was called for throwing – the Lord’s Test. McGlew had a lot to handle off the field as well as on it, as the team manager, Dudley Nourse, was useless. As great a batsman as he was he was an average captain and had no idea of how to manage a side. It meant that McGlew had to play two roles.

As it was in the days before there was a coach, trying to sort out Griffin’s action was left to a former England fast bowler Alf Gower and it wasn’t a success.

McGlew and Sutcliffe had become great friends during the Kiwis visit to South Africa in 1953/54 and being able to sit in on their conversation in London in 1965 was hearing reminiscences full of anecdote and humour. At one stage, the conversation turned to crystal ball gazing and an interesting comment made about the future of the Test game in competition with at the time with the new 60 overs limited overs fad.

It was McGlew, an insurance broker, who felt commercialism would, if not handled correctly, create problems and not benefit the game as it should as advertisers would be clamouring for what he referred to as ‘more visual space’. It was an era before some countries had television and the corporate world of advertising was yet to become a bad nightmare.

Highlighting the over-commercialisation concern yet again were in three news reports on the internet last week. This is along with a Sri Lanka Cricket media release which highlighted where the game is heading. It has led to concerns over the way some administrators are handling commercial interests and the game: not as genuine guardians but as corporate bullies trying to squeeze an extra advert onto the TV screen to benefit certain bank balances.

If emails are a guide, there are those who appreciated the comments made at the tail end notes of these files last week. It highlighted (if not supported) what Indian commentator Harsha Bhogle referred to in the ‘Indian Express’ last Friday. His remarks sounded a similar theme at what has long been my concern.

Bhogle wrote, ‘what we see these days is cricket (action) is becoming that little something we distinguish between advertisements’. Channel Eye’s producers have become great perpetrators of this form of television viewing as they do knee jerk reactions to the neon dollar.

So, what if the viewer misses a ball, the fall of the wicket, an extra run, or boundary. The commercial racket has to continue. Such clumsy and nefarious television production performances shows they don’t really give a ‘Tinker’s Cuss’ of what the public think or want.

In which case and here the administrators need to be questioned on this issue, is whether they are genuinely selling the sport or are they as well, propagating it as an advertising vehicle. The danger is losing the balance between what the viewer sees and what he is allowed to see and the disruption in continuity.

One particular scene in the ICC World T20 final at Lord’s showed a player temporarily injured. The commentators were making some interesting remarks about the state of the ball, while it is understood Sri Lankan viewers were fed more meaningless ads.

This brings me to the International Cricket Council’s decision at their latest meeting to find a way to stage day/night Tests. Theory is one thing, the practical side of this argument is highly debatable. Not all are in favour and for a technical reason that too many have ignored. Also, anyone who managed to read Adam Gilchrist’s notes for the annual Colin Cowdrey lecture, will see where there are genuine problems.

What the ICC has proposed is that it is looking at the playing of day/night Tests. It has placed a time limit on it as well. The first imponderable is finding a suitable ball. The white one in use for the slogs (50/50 and 20/20) is of bleached hide and while acceptable for the shorter version, has to be changed every so many overs because it becomes dirty and is not weather resistant.

The red ball lasts longer and because of the dye, a different type of stitching is used for seam and is fit for all conditions. Experiments with a light ochre (yellow) coloured ball has not worked and the pink version has brought as much derision as have administrators with the TV adverts.

Gilchrist might have interpreted comments written in these files 18 months ago when the plan was first raised an the immediate question is how are they going to replicate the red ball for day/night Tests and with dew falling add to the batting problems. Such gimmicks should be used for the shorter game (50/50 and 20/20), not for the genuine.

The former Aussie wicketkeeper/batsman cited an example, which is quoted here to explain his views of day/night first-class cricket.

"My personal experience nearly 15 years ago with night Sheffield Shield cricket was that it struggled because of the very different playing conditions between day and night, he said.

"Often, it made for an unfair contest, especially when batting, which always seemed much more d difficult late in the evening than earlier in the afternoon. But all of this begs the bigger question - why play around with Test cricket at all?"

This to me is the question that administrators on their charge for over-commercialisation may also reach a stage where television coverage becomes an extended highlights package of games, which will also be drowned by adverts.

As for the TV referrals, hopefully there will be a major improvement in camerawork and technology. How often during the World ICC T20 event in England did something as simple as tracking a ball end up with the viewer being left pondering. As with the day/night Test ball concept, in theory it is fine, but when it comes to the practicalities, it leaves serious question marks hovering over such a system.

Umpires will tell you, while they welcome it, no system is infallible and errors are going to occur. If such an error can affect the result of a Test, what then? Blame it on faulty technology? Like cancer, such errors of judgment sucks.

This brings me to the last point, which refers to the defeat in the ICC World20 final at Lord’s as well as the Pakistan tour.

One comment, which was quite irrational, is ‘disgust’ at the defeat. Well . . . well. ‘Disgust’.

It makes me wonder if some people were watching the same game or were so caught up with the disruptive ‘one extra’ handphone service provider ad being squeezed in whereby they genuinely missed the action.

Pakistan deserve credit for the smart game plan they used to bounce not only Tillekeratne Dilshan but Jehan Mubarak to get their wickets and have Sri Lanka in serious trouble. They had worked out a strategy (as did the Irish) and it worked against Dilshan and caught Mubarak by surprise as well.

Sure, it is disappointing to reach the final and lose it, but what about admitting how Pakistan played a better tactical game?

What about asking questions of why was it that Chamara Silva was persevered with when he looked out of his depth in this format; or why was Nuwan Kalusekara, still leading the ICC ODI rankings, benched for the majority of the tournament. Question as well, whether Farveez Maharoof injured, or was it the plan to have him labelled, along with Indika de Saram, ‘not wanted on voyage’?