Test cricket should have 6 days of play

[deira]

I seriously think they should have 6 days of play, i really hate when the game is drawn. Results are always so much more exciting and commercially I think it would be better too for the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

Or maybe we should just produce sporting pitches..

6 days of "whoever can score the quickest and make the best declarations wins" cricket would be horrible.

 

[sideshowtim]

Nah. No need. We're getting more results in this era than ever, so it'd be rather pointless and just play further into batsmen's hands.

 

[deira]

well i agree there should be a rule to make the pitches always sporty not one sided

 

[Josh]

Do we really get that many draws in test cricket these days to warrant a 6th day??

 

[Cevno]

The games would draw still with 6 days as pitches will then be prepare accordingly.Pressure will come to groundsmen that a test should not end in 4 days as it will lead to loss in revenue of 2 days.
So we will then on some pitches have to watch a batfest of 6 days.

 

[Stu274]

I think this is more an example of how much more impatient people are these days than previously & how Australias recent runs over past years has changed peoples perception of test cricket to some degree. I.e used to be in tests over 3 runs an over was most excellent but people are more used to it happening now.

 

[Craig]

Hahaha no.

If you add up the proposed days of said example, we will almost have enough to have another Test in itbt.

 

[Unattainableguy]

Test matches should actually be reduced to 4 days, and obv you're then gonna have supportive pitches, which is always good for cricket.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I seriously think they should have 6 days of play, i really hate when the game is drawn. Results are always so much more exciting and commercially I think it would be better too for the game.

Actually there are far more dull wins by huge margins these days than there are boring draws. Some of the most exciting games in history have been drawn. You get the occasional game where both teams barely complete an innings but you just have to live with those and an extra day would make it even more tedious.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think this is more an example of how much more impatient people are these days than previously & how Australias recent runs over past years has changed peoples perception of test cricket to some degree. I.e used to be in tests over 3 runs an over was most excellent but people are more used to it happening now.

Scoring rates have increased dramatically since the advent of one-day cricket, but to a certain extent that has been offset by the pedestrian over-rates that seem to be readily accepted nowadays.

 

[pasag]

I'm pretty happy to see what SS suggessted a while back implemented, a sixth day reserved where any of the 450 overs not completed would be made up on that day (within reason) to counter stuff like rain and alot of time missed due to bad light.

 

[Craig]

I'm pretty happy to see what SS suggessted a while back implemented, a sixth day reserved where any of the 450 overs not completed would be made up on that day (within reason) to counter stuff like rain and alot of time missed due to bad light.

Wouldn't that make it a logisitcal nightmare?

 

[pasag]

Wouldn't that make it a logistical nightmare?

Nah, just get rid of Twenty20s and everything else will sort itself out

Seriously though, I don't see why it would be that much of a logistical issue. Might be a bit harder to plan things but I don't think it would be impossible.

 

[steds]

Why don't we just make it an even week? Or maybe go back to playing timeless Tests...

 

[Richard]

I'm pretty happy to see what SS suggessted a while back implemented, a sixth day reserved where any of the 450 overs not completed would be made up on that day (within reason) to counter stuff like rain and alot of time missed due to bad light.

And as I said at the time - I'd prefer it if there was a statutory-minimum 450 overs per Test. That means occasionally you'd need 7 or 8 days - once every 4 or 5 years.

I don't mind drawn games at all, if the overs are got in. I hate games which should have had a result but are stopped from doing by loss of overs.

Obviously, in the current schedule - with rubbish like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Twenty20 involved - it's not possible. But there's much that would benefit from an assuagement of said current schedule.

 

[Jamee999]

Some English games would take about a week to complete!

That'd be especially worrying with back-to-back Tests, it just takes a day washed out, and another day needed for slow over rates, and your match is finishing on Wednesday, with the next one starting on Thursday!

 

[Richard]

Should add in the plethora of back-to-back Tests as another thing that makes it implausible currently.

And I highly doubt more than the odd game every 3 or 4 years would take a week to complete in this country. Look at the number of games which have been significantly interrupted by weather and have still clearly had loads of overs to go to complete a result in recent years. These are the Test draws in England since 1998:
The Oval, India, 2007: 441 overs bowled (just 9 lost), no result forthcoming anyway.
Lord's, India, 2007: just 1 more wicket needed, would have been a handful of overs.
Lord's, WI, 2007: 347 overs bowled (103 lost), would have been another day-and-a-bit and possibly a result forthcoming.
Lord's, Pakistan, 2006: 436 overs bowled (just 14 lost), no result forthcoming anyway.
Lord's, Sri Lanka, 2006: 398 overs bowled (42 lost), would have had a result anyway but for stupid numbers of dropped catches, but would have been a couple of extra sessions and it'd have been one anyway.
The Oval, Australia, 2005: 305 overs bowled (145 lost), would probably have been another day and a bit or so to get a result, but it was a September Test anyway which is something I'd avoid along with back-to-back matches.
Old Trafford, Australia, 2005: just 1 more wicket needed, would have been a handful of overs.
Edgbaston, South Africa, 2003: 328 overs bowled (122 lost), would probably have been less than a day to get a result.
The Oval, India, 2002: 354 overs bowled (96 lost), last day washed-out, no result in the offing anyway, but an extra day could have been played.
Trent Bridge, India, 2002: 361 overs bowled (89 lost), wouldn't have been more than another session and a bit to get a result.
Lord's, Sri Lanka, 2002: no overs lost, legit draw.
Old Trafford, West Indies, 2000: 357 overs bowled (93 lost), another day might possibly have produced a result.
Trent Bridge, Zimbabwe, 2000: 298 overs bowled (152 lost), but a result would probably have taken just another day-and-a-bit (given play was lost on all 5 days and 2 sessions wouldn't have been enough).
Old Trafford, New Zealand, 1999: 337 overs bowled (113 lost), a result would have been unlikely to have taken more than another day.
Old Trafford, South Africa, 1998: 453 overs bowled (more than the stipulated minimum ), legit draw. Though only 1 wicket standing - thrilling game.
Edgbaston, South Africa, 1998: 344 overs bowled (106 lost), last day washed-out, would probably have had a result within a day.

Look back further and the story is much the same. Only 2 or 3 times per decade would games go on for an eternity. And I think this'd be worth it - as the above shows, it'd result in the draw becoming a rare thing.

 

[Swervy]

Should add in the plethora of back-to-back Tests as another thing that makes it implausible currently.

And I highly doubt more than the odd game every 3 or 4 years would take a week to complete in this country. Look at the number of games which have been significantly interrupted by weather and have still clearly had loads of overs to go to complete a result in recent years. These are the Test draws in England since 1998:
The Oval, India, 2007: 441 overs bowled (just 9 lost), no result forthcoming anyway.
Lord's, India, 2007: just 1 more wicket needed, would have been a handful of overs.
Lord's, WI, 2007: 347 overs bowled (103 lost), would have been another day-and-a-bit and possibly a result forthcoming.
Lord's, Pakistan, 2006: 436 overs bowled (just 14 lost), no result forthcoming anyway.
Lord's, Sri Lanka, 2006: 398 overs bowled (42 lost), would have had a result anyway but for stupid numbers of dropped catches, but would have been a couple of extra sessions and it'd have been one anyway.
The Oval, Australia, 2005: 305 overs bowled (145 lost), would probably have been another day and a bit or so to get a result, but it was a September Test anyway which is something I'd avoid along with back-to-back matches.
Old Trafford, Australia, 2005: just 1 more wicket needed, would have been a handful of overs.
Edgbaston, South Africa, 2003: 328 overs bowled (122 lost), would probably have been less than a day to get a result.
The Oval, India, 2002: 354 overs bowled (96 lost), last day washed-out, no result in the offing anyway, but an extra day could have been played.
Trent Bridge, India, 2002: 361 overs bowled (89 lost), wouldn't have been more than another session and a bit to get a result.
Lord's, Sri Lanka, 2002: no overs lost, legit draw.
Old Trafford, West Indies, 2000: 357 overs bowled (93 lost), another day might possibly have produced a result.
Trent Bridge, Zimbabwe, 2000: 298 overs bowled (152 lost), but a result would probably have taken just another day-and-a-bit (given play was lost on all 5 days and 2 sessions wouldn't have been enough).
Old Trafford, New Zealand, 1999: 337 overs bowled (113 lost), a result would have been unlikely to have taken more than another day.
Old Trafford, South Africa, 1998: 453 overs bowled (more than the stipulated minimum ), legit draw. Though only 1 wicket standing - thrilling game.
Edgbaston, South Africa, 1998: 344 overs bowled (106 lost), last day washed-out, would probably have had a result within a day.

Look back further and the story is much the same. Only 2 or 3 times per decade would games go on for an eternity. And I think this'd be worth it - as the above shows, it'd result in the draw becoming a rare thing.

Does this not just make test cricket an extended limited overs game?
Why is the draw such a bad thing anyway? Is that not just one of the beauties of test match cricket, that a team who is under the cosh can still have something to play for, that in itself adds further drama to the game.

 

[Richard]

Does this not just make test cricket an extended limited overs game?

Nope. There's no limit on overs, no maximum - just a minimum. It actually makes it the polar-opposite of the limited-overs game.

Why is the draw such a bad thing anyway? Is that not just one of the beauties of test match cricket, that a team who is under the cosh can still have something to play for, that in itself adds further drama to the game.

The draw itself is not a bad thing, it is indeed one of the beauties of Tests - but the draw caused by lost overs is not, it's one of the nasty things about the game, like bad Umpiring decsions. I'd be very confident that if we got rid of it, we'd certainly not miss it and in fact would very soon think "how on Earth did we go so long with that silliness?"