'Bio-secure' aspect was the LEAST of Test's snags

It was novel, and sometimes just a little eerie … but the first, fastidiously bio-secure, Test match ever played is safely (a key word in current context) out of the way.

The bonus? It was a good 'un, into the multi-levelled bargain, during these times of significantly harrowing pandemic … and it crucially made for compelling, spirits-lifting television viewing.

There's always a certain satisfaction to diehard aficionados of the embattled five-day game when a contest goes into the final session of the last day's play, as happened when West Indies, in a mild upset, beat England by four wickets at the Rose Bowl.

The outcome sets up the remainder of the three-Test series – the second Test begins at Old Trafford on Thursday, where the closing one will also be staged – superbly.

A chastened host nation will seek swift bounce-back, quite possibly infused by an even more steamed-up strike stalwart Stuart Broad, so debatably left out of the line-up at Southampton, despite a home record of 305 Test scalps (and career total 485).

The lanky competitor had also been England's most prolific wicket-taker in their successful defence of the Basil D'Oliveira Trophy in South Africa only a few months ago … and was publicly candid about his anger at being left out of game one.

As for the tourists, they are an inviting mere one triumph away now from becoming the first West Indies team to seal a series in England since 1988, at the back-end heyday of Caribbean cricket when Viv Richards' outfit routed the home team 4-0 with one draw.

It did not really require the spectator-less, neurotically Covid-resistant environment, to confirm that this still largely unsung West Indies side is made of more durable and disciplined stuff in both major departments, under lead-by-example captain Jason Holder, than several from those shores in recent years.

Perhaps the uniqueness of their lead-up, featuring a strictly on-site requirement at the hotel-boasting south coast venue, helped create a stronger-than-usual sense of camaraderie in the touring ranks?

Holder admitted at the toss that there had been "a bit of cabin fever" after his squad's quarantining requirements; they may have been especially gleeful to finally see full-blooded, competitive action in the Test.

The intensity of the contest - certainly from the chunks I saw of it on television - seemed undimmed by the soullessness of the empty stands and there were few betraying signs, too, that players in both teams were short of a gallop.

At the start, after all, astute TV pundit and former England captain Michael Atherton had warned, and been entitled to do so: "Normally, there would be lots of miles in these players' legs by July. For all of them, it will be a case of suck it up and see …"

The generous stock of fast bowlers in both outfits appeared surprisingly well-conditioned, maintaining healthy speed levels for solid periods and occasionally managing meaningful intimidatory success – like Jofra Archer did in his valiant effort, for England, to prevent the Windies from reaching their victory target of exactly 200.

As for the much-debated ban on saliva to shine the ball, it had noticeably little of a detrimental effect.

Perhaps aided by the dryness of the surface, both reverse and conventional swing did come into play at varying times, and as popular commentator Michael Holding emphasised more than once during the Test: "I never used saliva when I was a young cricketer in the Caribbean anyway … I used sweat from my forehead on the ball."

If some of this match's great "unknowns", then, ended up pretty much in the category of damp squib from an angst point of view, some of Test cricket's older niggles, if you like, came to the fore again.

While it may have been applicable more to the periods in which I watched, the phenomenon of sluggish over rates continues to do damage to the product.

Four or five (and sometimes more) overs a day simply go "AWOL" through poor time management by fielding teams and lethargic enforcement by umpires, and I counted at least two completed sessions where the rate only just touched 12 per hour.

Sorry, but 72 balls in 60 minutes are simply not enough action in an increasingly impatient, fast-moving world.

There is also the question, on gloomier days like we witnessed early in the Test, of whether the officials are just a tad too paranoid about poor light for batsmen, and too ready to offer it.

A pedantic devotion to lunches and teas of full, scheduled duration even on weather-disrupted days also (the not unimportant modern medium of Twitter reminded me) clearly annoyed or at very least frustrated many people.

In addition, getting play going again after the lightest of showers or drizzle somehow seems a too-laborious process at times.

The bio-secure bit? At least, while it is required to last, it's much more bearable than we may have feared.

This article originally appeared on Sport24

Photo: Getty Images