The Guardian today is worrying about the future of Test cricket. A leader column says that 'the long form of the game is now in serious jeopardy'. In a feeble-minded Guardianish sort of way, it even allows for there being...
... a case that five-day matches are an anachronistic hangover from the days when they reflected the languorous sea voyage from Australia to England or vice versa, and that such an extended timetable has no place in contemporary sport...
There is no case. The changed times for long-distance travel have no bearing whatever on the quality of different forms of sporting contest, and five-day Test match cricket is as close to perfection as human beings have yet been able to come in this department. Another thing: by way of proposing innovations that might help preserve Test cricket, the Graun wonders about 'a world championship of Test cricket, something to match football's World Cup'. That may or may not be a good idea; I don't know. But if it is, it's not relevant to the most basic issue. Because, to be at its best, Test cricket needs not only five days; it needs to be contested over a series of five-day games, preferably a series of five of them. The passage of time is of the essence. Don't mess with the sublime.