http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040718/focus/focus1.html

Kevin O'Brien Chang, Contributor

DESPITE THEIR pathetic record, the West Indies have created some unforgettable memories over the past five years. In 1999 there was Brian Lara's 'resurrection' 213 at Sabina, and his 'one wicket win' 153 at Kensington. Antigua in 2003 saw the fourth innings winning record 418 for seven.

In 2004 we have seen the Sabina 47 all out and Lara's 400 not out at Antigua. These were all in Tests, and I cannot remember a single one day score in the same period. This is cricket's paradox. Five dayers provide the lasting memories, but one dayers make the money.

The long game still draws large crowds in England, Australia and the West Indies. But it's dying in the Asian sub-continent. India's 'peace' tour of Pakistan saw packed houses for one dayers but half empty stands for Tests. Purists claim five day cricket is the only kind that counts. Yet in truth Tests have a small band of true devotees ­ only a few thousand watched Bangladesh at Sabina ­ and many nostalgic theoretical fans who claim to love five day matches but never attend one. Most casual cricket fans prefer one dayers.

I love Test cricket. On magical occasions like the 1999 Kensington fifth day it feels like God's third greatest gift to mankind after women and books. But I only go to Sabina Tests on weekends. Like most working people I have neither the time nor inclination to spend five full captive days at a cricket ground.

One-dayers already subsidise Tests, and, bottom-line, administrators are already questioning the financial viability ­ or 'modern relevance' ­ of five dayers. They are already being slowly phased out as tours drop Tests and add one dayers each year. The real question is whether cricket will be reduced to an endlessly forgettable stream of 50 over games, or whether some of Test cricket's special character can be preserved. Here then is a proposal for combining some of the long game's beauty and drama with limited overs excitement ­ the two day 100 over Test.

AN INNOVATIVE PROPOSAL

This is in essence two 50 overs games played back to back, with modifications. Firstly, the scores are added together ­ the day one scores are the first innings, the day two scores the second, and the highest combined total wins.

Secondly, batsmen not out after day one can continue their knock on day two ­ each team has 20 total wickets and 100 overs at its disposal. Thirdly, bowlers are encouraged to attack ­ each wicket allows the bowler an extra over and adds five runs to his team's score. Fourthly, the match is divided into 25 over segments ­ the team ahead after 25 overs has the choice of batting last on each day.

The two-day format preserves some of Test cricket's 'it might all change tomorrow' overnight magic. Allowing not out batsmen to continue for another 50 theoretical overs enables memorable records, something missing in one dayers ­ Brian Lara's 400 not out is a landmark but few remember Saeed Anwar's 194. Incentives for wickets would promote aggressive bowling to three-slips-and-gully fields ­ cricket at its best is Sachin Tendulkar attacking 100 mph Shoaib Ahktar missiles, not Michael 'no bouncers please' Bevan nudging Chris Gayle lollipops. While alternating 25 overs would reduce middle overs boredom and remove unfair 'winning the toss' weather advantages.

As to 50 overs internationals, let's replace them with 20 over ones. Twenty20's popularity in England has already created the hitherto unknown domestic cricket phenomenon of advance ticket sales. Fans who cannot take off a full workday ­ which is most of the employed ­ are flocking to after work three hour 20-overs games. There's even talk of making it an Olympic sport by 2012.

As Cricinfo put it, "What matters is that crowds have taken to it." Pakistan and South Africa are the latest Test nations to take to the 20-over format. Both countries suffered from a lack of bums on seats in first-class cricket. While the Pakistan Cricket Board believes people will warm to the new format, South Africans have already proved its popularity by showing up in the kind of numbers that make TV executives perk up. And those execs will be dancing in the stands if cricket can take its place in the Olympic family ­ Cricket boards know they're on to something, and it's more than just a fad."

TWENTY20 GAMES FOR CABLE?

Backwards looking old fogies who think everyone shares their 'in my day' view of things will mutter 'might as well play baseball'. Well, even truncated cricket is far more intriguing and attractive than 'American rounders'. You need only compare baseball's functional terminology ­ first base, shortstop, right field, fast ball ­ to cricket's poetic vocabulary ­ cover point, fine leg, third man, googly. Beauty is irrelevant in baseball - no one talks about a stylish Barry Bonds' home run. But it's fundamental to cricket's ethos ­ an exquisite Brian Lara late cut is worth more than just runs.

Yet baseball supplanted cricket in the U.S.A. precisely because busy Americans didn't have time to spend five days, or even one full one, watching a game. Cricket failed to adapt there and died. Twenty20 is giving the game another chance to become a truly international instead of a ten-country British Common-wealth sport. And those who find it monotonous can watch two100 Tests. Twenty20 games on Tues-day, Wednesday and Thursday evenings with a weekend two100 Test is a natural tour schedule.

Which makes more sense - adapting cricket to the cable TV and Internet age of instant gratification, or expecting our time-pressed globalised world to embrace unchanged a leisurely rural game invented before electricity?