Duality to trinity

Long has test cricket been referred to as the “longer form of the game.” Now, thanks to Twenty20, the media has begun referring to it as “the longest form of the game.” Well I never…

So does that mean that the language of the game will have to change? May be not all of it, but yes, cricket writing and commentating will have to jettison some oft-used expressions from the past and find new ones. Much like the game itself, the vocabulary also needs some refreshing. Which is just as well – it may help eliminate some trite, tired and over-used expressions. However, the phrase-challenged pundit may just find it a bit tough for a while.

Classical economists for whom cricket is a second love can no longer say “on the one hand, and on the other” because they now need a third hand to hold up the new baby. Unless, of course, one day cricket dies out (as some cricket futurists have forecast) and we return to the old economy again.

Old English scholars who write about cricket in their spare time will have to resist using expressions like “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” when referring to the similarities between test cricket and one-day cricket. Of course, they can extend it and say “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander but not for the swan” but that’s not quite as succinct as the original, is it?

While the formality of the toss will perhaps remain unchanged, bean counters need to toss out terms like “two sides of a coin” when referring to the forms of the game. They can become philosophical, though, and refer to the three forms as “two sides of a coin, plus the truth”, thus setting into motion an interesting argument on what truth is.

Punters will continue to play an invisible part of the game in all its forms, but the game is not a “two-horse race” any more. And you can be sure no one will bet against it.

The pedantic commentator can no longer use trite expressions like “the long and short of it”, and that is the long and short of it.

The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey

That one line from Brian Johnston sums up BBC’s Test Match Special for me. Witty, wicked, irreverent, but without an extra word.

TMS has completed 50 years of existence. While the BBC has a matter-of-fact piece on it, Peter Baxter gives a personal perspective in Test Match Special – 50 not out.

It is a tribute to their quality that notwithstanding competition from newer forms of media like television and the Internet and a decline in the popularity of test match cricket (especially when England was so depressingly unsuccessful at it for a such a long time), TMS has survived and thrived for so long. And this without changing much – the commentary still has an old-world charm about it and does not rely on statistics and gimmicks to sustain itself. I reckon the key to their longevity and success is the depth of knowledge of the commentators and the joy with which they appear to be doing their jobs. Not to mention their wit and humour.

Granted cricket does offer its share of opportunities for innuendo, what with terms like no ball, wide, hook, slip, fine leg, third man and, if I may be permitted some shameless self-promotion, cow corner; but it takes a fine bunch to take advantage of these opportunities and make hay with them. And then take it to a different level with incidents like the classic “leg over” commentary.

The wikipedia entry on TMS provides a good level of detail on them.

Great half century, TMS. Hope you make it to three figures.