Future Tours Programme Discussion

[Sarun]

As I was wondering whether India-Pakistan Test Series in August 2013 would happen, it made me wonder about FTP in general.

Future Tours Programme

Seems like the coming Bangladesh tour of Sri Lanka is going pretty unnoticed.

The link shows that 2013 April & May WI-SL series but I hear it is postponed.

I did search around the Cricket Web Chat section and found no similar threads (also resulted in find a T20I in Olympic Games thread), so I'm OP'ing this.

What do you all think of FTP? Do you think it is adequate? Should it ensure more balanced schedule for teams involved? Is there a window for Domestic T20 tournaments needed (different topic but pretty much almost all countries are trying to avoid scheduling games during IPL season - which is during Indian school summer vacation moths of April & May)?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It's between individual boards to organise a bilateral series. Hence why Australia and England are playing a lot of Test cricket.

 

[Sarun]

Should FTP ensure a minimum amount of series against each other for test playing nations?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I would be happy with that. They should also ensure tour programmes for under-19 team and the A teams.

 

[Sarun]

And (ODI & T20I) matches for Associate ODI level members. Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, Afghanistan are all underplaying.

 

[hendrix]

Should FTP ensure a minimum amount of series against each other for test playing nations?

well, I think so.

I'm also of the opinion that restricting bilateral LO series to 3 t20s, 3 ODIs only would be the best for the game.

Noone cares about meaningless t20s and ODIs.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

4 Tests, 3 ODI's and 1 T20 should be the format ideally.

 

[hendrix]

or even scrap t20 internationals except for world cups and ask the public to go to more domestic games...

 

[Furball]

Should FTP ensure a minimum amount of series against each other for test playing nations?

Isn't that the whole point of the FTP?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Isn't that the whole point of the FTP?

BCCI and PCB say hello.

 

[grecian]

or even scrap t20 internationals except for world cups and ask the public to go to more domestic games...

or scrap ODIs, after all t20 series don't tend to go on for eons.....

 

[centurymaker]

well, I think so.

I'm also of the opinion that restricting bilateral LO series to 3 t20s, 3 ODIs only would be the best for the game.

Noone cares about meaningless t20s and ODIs.

NO... you are overall in the minority. I'm sure there's a lot less viewership for tests than there is for limited overs cricket.

4 Tests, 3 ODI's and 1 T20 should be the format ideally.

nobody wants to watch one-sided thrashings...like SA v NZ (that tour should have had more ODIs and T20s as it turned out).

when a side like WI goes abroad, it should be 2 tests as it is normally, and when they play at home it should be 3 tests as is the case these days.

when India of now goes to places like Aus, SA, a test series shouldn't be more than 3 tests.

when it is NZ vs WI, have 4 Tests.

Ideally, there should be more competitive cricket.

Not-
Aus vs SL
SA vs NZ
India playing 4/5 tests Overseas
Those game are effectively over inside a day, if not in a couple of sessions..
This is not TEST cricket.

 

[hendrix]

NO... you are overall in the minority. I'm sure there's a lot less viewership for tests than there is for limited overs cricket.

Yeah I was about to qualify the statement.

People watch t20 internationals, but if they were replaced by domestic t20 competitions do you think the crowds would switch, or do you think they'd just stop watching cricket?

I think if you put more of a focus on encouraging domestic spectators it's a good thing.

People enjoyed the HRV cup this year because there was a clear format and it was part of a competition. Random t20 internationals are basically just for bragging rights - there's not enough at stake.

 

[L Trumper]

Should FTP ensure a minimum amount of series against each other for test playing nations?

That is what FTP dictates, but boards will have to agree accordingly. When FTP was announced Ind & Pak are not on playing terms. That is why they don't have any matches between them. Apart from that general rule is that each country need to play against all other test playing countries home & away over 6-8 year period. Obviously it cannot be mandatory since there will be lot of problems planning that much ahead. But FTP give you basic idea of who will tour whom at a given point. There are going to be changes here and there but most teams do follow it to a certain extent.

 

[theegyptian]

England have the optimal strategy for the next few years. Play loads of series against Australia and India whilst they're rebuilding, whilst avoiding South Africa until 2015/16 when Kallis will have gone and the rest are coming towards the end. Ingenious

 

[Furball]

That is what FTP dictates, but boards will have to agree accordingly. When FTP was announced Ind & Pak are not on playing terms. That is why they don't have any matches between them. Apart from that general rule is that each country need to play against all other test playing countries home & away over 6-8 year period. Obviously it cannot be mandatory since there will be lot of problems planning that much ahead. But FTP give you basic idea of who will tour whom at a given point. There are going to be changes here and there but most teams do follow it to a certain extent.

I'm almost certain there's been space left in the FTP should India and Pakistan ever kiss and make up.

Also, England won't play Zimbabwe on political grounds and, like India, have decided that hosting Bangladesh is pointless.

 

[brockley]

So has Australia it unilaterally has decided never to play test cricket vs Bangladesh,vs Zimbabwe.

 

[straw man]

when a side like WI goes abroad, it should be 2 tests as it is normally, and when they play at home it should be 3 tests as is the case these days.

when India of now goes to places like Aus, SA, a test series shouldn't be more than 3 tests.

when it is NZ vs WI, have 4 Tests.

Although I disagree with some of your post, I think this is right. I believe the ICC should mandate a minimum number of tests between two teams based on how competitive they expect the series to be. The most obvious way to estimate competitiveness would be to use the existing test ranking points system - I know it isn't perfect but I think it's a reasonable guide to how competitive each team is. So based on this you could say:

If team A has 90 points and is playing at home against team B

- If team B has 130+ points then 2 tests minimum
- If team B has 110-130 points then 3 tests minimum
- If team B has 80-110 points then 4 tests minimum (numbers are lopsided i.e. play more tests against better teams at home but not away)
- If team B has 60-80 points then 3 tests minimum
- If team B has 60 points or fewer then 2 tests minimum

Adjust the numbers as necessary though those look about right to me.

You'd have to take the points at a time something like 6 months before the series to allow for scheduling.

The teams that should benefit from this would be lower ranked teams like NZ, SL, Windies and even Bangladesh, which otherwise do not play enough tests and whose capabilities are slipping away to a worrying level.

 

[Sarun]

What I meant was more like: Should FTP ensure that teams play against each other aka penalize teams for not playing certain series? Or is the current setup satisfactory? Should it be more methodized? Like Ashes, and India-SA tour every 2 years or so. Would that be good. Perhaps a regular India-Pakistan test series.

 

[Sarun]

So has Australia it unilaterally has decided never to play test cricket vs Bangladesh,vs Zimbabwe.

As mentioned before, same goes for India, England etc.