What warrants a Test match slot - Limited overs performance or performance in first class cricket

From Bob Woolmer’s famous book “Art and Science of Cricket” we come to know, in 1893, Rev. Holmes wrote, “We know as much as the history of cricket as we shall ever know now, and we have been told everything relating to the science of the game. There is no fresh ground to be explored”.

Had Mr. Holmes been alive today, he would have to eat his own words.

No other sports have ever gone under so many major and minor changes over the last hundred years like cricket. It evolved, overcoming with reasoned thought and some luck to exist which was threatened by the occasional crisis. For the last fifty years, various revolutions stimulated this game to progress further. The introduction of limited-overs cricket in late 60s injected a new life, while in 2003, the emergence of limited-overs cricket’s offspring Twenty20 cricket, turned the world upside down.

The popularity of cricket’s newest format is sky high and more than infusing various new concepts about the game, it has allowed the overflow of cash, a major reason for it’s love among the modern day cricketers.

Since the emergence of instant cricket, it has posed a challenge to the game’s most sacred format, Test cricket and the razzmatazz of Twenty20 Leagues, have dented the interest of focusing on longer formats, especially, First Class cricket. The habit of selecting a player in the Test team on the basis of his form in instant cricket has become a regularity. They might seem to be a correct move for a certain period, but in the long run, the theory hit the nails on the head.

Alex Hales’ first class career started well, but his form in the limited-overs format overshadowed his zest for the first class matches. He used his height to a great extent in Twenty20 and one-day cricket and his ability to hit the ball hard, makes him a deadly customer in colour clothings. The hierarchy of English Cricket decided to include Hales on the basis of his excellent form in limited-overs cricket. Hales was given the task to partner Alastair Cook at the top of the order, but as soon as the colour of the clothes changed, Hales’ batting became pale.

He could fetch runs from those balls delivered in and around the off stump in a Twenty20 or 50-over cricket, but in test cricket, he was found wanting outside off. Neither he could guard his off stump well, nor his feet moved well enough to counter the moving ball. He struggled to get behind the line of the ball and thus, walked to the pavilion quite early.

Then there is a player named Glenn Maxwell from Australia, who is an absolute murderer of the cricket ball when it comes to Twenty20 cricket, but whenever he comes out to bat in Test cricket, the runs dry up and technically he is found wanting.

Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, a bowler named Mohammad Shahid was included in the Test team one year back on the basis of his performance in First Class cricket. He is a medium-pacer, who can bowl in long spells and proved a point in the Test against South Africa where his ability to stranglehold the batsmen created an ideal platform for the strike bowlers to fetch wickets and thus, triggered a collapse in the first innings. Shahid bowled tirelessly, defying the heat and humidity and his nagging length and incisive line suffocated the top order batsmen. He earned such abilities via bowling on unhelpful conditions in the domestic circuit. His selection, ahead of some celebrated performers in the limited-overs format, earned criticisms, but in the end, they ended up in praises for the man.

Hales and Maxwell created an aura through their ballistic batsmanship in the limited-overs format which vanished in the twinkle of an eye while playing in white clothes. Whereas, Shahid’s workhorse like approach towards the game, didn’t create an aura, but it helped him to deliver the goods when it mattered the most in the best format of the game – Test cricket.

Players like Hales, Maxwell and Shahid always triggers the debate of whether a player should be selected in the Test team, depending on his performance in limited-overs cricket or first class cricket.

Modern day cricket fans and a few of the critics and experts, wish to see a decent limited-overs performer in the Test squad with immediate effect. In the cricket talk shows on television, they argue and debate to back their thinking, but they always miss the most important point, to be a competent Test cricketer, one needs to be a very good performer and spend enough time in first class cricket.

What the first class cricket can teach a cricketer, the pomp and grandeur of Twnety20 and one-day cricket cannot teach at all.

First class cricket has always served as the backbone of international cricket and the ideal place to develop cricketers into top class performers. The three or four-day matches are not just cricket matches, but a platform where a young cricketer learns the importance of being patient and disciplined enough when the going gets tough.

A batsman learns the art of occupying the crease, the importance of leaving the ball and learn to curb his aggressive intent, adjust his back lift and foot work and guard his offstump against the moving ball by playing first class cricket. While a bowler learns to adjust his line and length according to the demand of the situation and how to inject variety in his bowling and use the popping crease when the wickets are not falling.

It also helps in maintaining the fitness and temperament which are highly essential to play cricket at the top level.

Then there are those tiny details of the game which can only be mastered in the tough arena of first class cricket.

Either a batsman or a bowler can’t be judged through ballistic hitting or four or ten overs of bowling. In the limited overs format, even a poor stroke or bad ball can produce results, but in test cricket, they are equivalent to death.

The demands of Test cricket is always high. The slightest of chinks in the armory of a batsman or bowler can make his life difficult in Test cricket. And for which, playing enough domestic cricket is a must.

Damien Martyn had been a limited-overs performer for Australia since his debut as a Test cricketer in 1992-93. For a brief period, his technical insufficiencies halted his entry in the Test team, but he didn’t wish to end up as a limited-overs performer, but worked hard in Shield cricket which transformed him into a very good batsman both technically and temperamentally.

Even the likes of Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer reached their peak of excellence only because of breaking down sweat in Shield cricket.

Imran Khan was an average bowler at the start of his career and ten years later, he was one of the ferocious bowlers in the world during the 80s. Imran’s development as a genuine fast bowler was due to bowling long spells in a hectic fashion in County Cricket and Shield Cricket. By bowling on variety on tough and challenging conditions, he learned the pros and cons of fast bowling and ended up as one of the legends of the game.

Meanwhile, one cannot earn the tag “The Wall” so easily until and unless he has polished his technique by playing first class cricket. Ask Rahul Dravid about the secret of his astonishing success in test cricket, he will tell you about the value of first class cricket.

Obviously there are exceptions, but exceptions or extraordinary talents cannot be the yardstick.

Colin Powell said, “If you are going to achieve excellence in big things, you develop the habit in little matters. Excellence is not an exception, it is a prevailing attitude”. If a cricketer wish to become the ultimate legend of the game, he needs to develop the habit in little matters and he can only develop this by playing first class cricket.

A cricketer should be judged on the basis of his performance in Test cricket while, he should not be selected in the Test team on the basis of his performance in limited-overs format.

This game of glorious uncertainty needs the ultimate legends and not bits-and-pieces cricketers.