Some players won’t get to play a Test at Lord’s – who cares?

Posted by
< 1 minute read

A cricket ground

The West Indies won’t be playing at Lord’s in 2012. Forget the rights and wrongs of Cardiff being the beneficiary, the issue here relates to the accessibility of live Test cricket.

Cricket matches aren’t played for the benefit of the players. They’re played for spectators. As such, it makes little sense to play half the year’s Test matches in one town, which is what would be happening were Lord’s to be given two Tests in 2012.

Something had to give. Either Lord’s got one Test or the Oval didn’t get one at all. We have no real preference, because we won’t be making a trip to either ground.

MCC are in high dudgeon about this, but as a general rule of thumb, if someone wearing a blazer is upset about a decision, it is correct.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. There is a perfect way to keep everyone happy on this issue – MCC included. On the days when the test should have been on at Lord’s, just tell the MCC members that there IS a test match at Lord’s that day. Does anyone seriously think they’ll notice? They can put on their blazers, ties and air of superiority, and trundle along to the ground in time for lunch, as happens now. Just to be on the safe side, they could get 15 people to mill about in the centre, and every now and again have someone walk through the long room carrying a bat so they can clap derisively.

    It’s a foolproof plan, which in this case is literally what it needs to be.

  2. Surely the issue is that the blazered gentlemen are going to turn up on the appointed day in 2012 and see an Olympic archery contest rather than a test match.

    Is anyone seriously trying to tell me that said gentlemen will be able to tell the difference between archery and cricket?

  3. The real question here is why home series against South Africa gets only three Tests, inevitably followed by weeks of limited overs cricket no-one cares about.

    If you want both formats on a tour, do it separately and play more Tests. That might even make the ODIs worth watching too.

  4. I had to wear a blazer at school, and lots of decisions left me upset at the time. Does this disprove or corroborate your theory?

    1. Would it work better if we said ‘someone willingly wearing a blazer’?

  5. What’s the point of making test cricket more accessible if no bugger, or more accurately boyo in this case, turns up?

  6. I live in Surrey, but I cannot believe that out of seven test matches this summer there is not a single one north of Nottingham. I’ve said it before and I will say it again – what a joke the ECB are.

  7. Errr the players care more, which is better to watch, it is a much more of an event than a Test in Cardiff or Southampton, it is more accessible to more people based on how many people live in London and those who are less than 2 and half hours away.

    I live in Leeds and and would happily set fire to anyone wearing a blazer (over the age of 16 – not a monster) but if we can’t have a Test at either Headingley or Old Trafford it is much easier, cheaper and a better experience to go to London for a day than the new Test venues.

Comments are closed.