How to make Test cricket more interesting?

[deira]

dont get me wrong i like watching test cricket, especially when the match is between arch rivals like India and Pakistan or Australia and England, however i do feel some times it can be boring as hell especially the first 2 days of play. is there a way to make the game more interesting in the first 2 days of play?

 

[Leslie1]

Promote rules or tweak them so there is no negativity in bowling, batting and fielding placements.

Also have rules that state the minimum amount of pitch conditions to qualify for a match that will assist the batsmen as much as it does for bowlers.

Flat decks with no help for the bowlers are just nonsense. What's more it inflates the batting records when the bowling is non-existent.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Equip umpires with lethal hunting rifles, and allow them to take pot-shots at any fielder outside the circle.

 

[deeps]

fix the bloody pitches

 

[silentstriker]

I think Test cricket is extremely exciting. The number of draws is severely down (even not involving Australia), and you can go into a match knowing there will be a result. There are some crap pitches, but generally the style of play, plus the pitches prepared are good enough to get a result.

To make it more exciting and fun for people to watch, I would implement the following ideas:

• Make a mandatory 3 Test minimum series
• Make mandatory two tour FC games of four days each, and one of three days before the first Test
• Introduce a limited appeals system to cricket.
• If a venue has more than 50% draws in its last ten matches (not affected by weather), it gets put on probation for Test status.

Regarding the second item, I find that unless you are Australia, you are often undercooked going into a new country. You need time to get used to the pitches, the different balls used, the conditions, etc. This is not an excuse, but India were very undercooked in the first Test match. India are obviously not as good (neither is anyone else) as Australia, and if we want to ensure the best, most competitive matches (which anyone in their right mind would want to do), we need to make sure we give sides enough time to get oriented to a new country. Will it happen? Not a chance. The calender is too packed, and you can't do it. But that would be my hope.

 

[Burgey]

I like your 4th point best of all. Good one I think. Going on probation allows factors such as weather to be taken into account, not just a blanket ban on a ground because of draws.

 

[pasag]

Good points SS, but the last 10 matches would be like 9-10 years for most grounds. You'd need something that can come into effect quicker than that.

 

[Indipper]

Bring back timeless Tests.

 

[Craig]

Bring back timeless Tests.

Uncovered wickets.

 

[pasag]

Get rid of boxes.

 

[Richard]

I think Test cricket is extremely exciting. The number of draws is severely down (even not involving Australia), and you can go into a match knowing there will be a result. There are some crap pitches, but generally the style of play, plus the pitches prepared are good enough to get a result.

To make it more exciting and fun for people to watch, I would implement the following ideas:

• Make a mandatory 3 Test minimum series
• Make mandatory two tour FC games of four days each, and one of three days before the first Test
• Introduce a limited appeals system to cricket.
• If a venue has more than 50% draws in its last ten matches (not affected by weather), it gets put on probation for Test status.

Regarding the second item, I find that unless you are Australia, you are often undercooked going into a new country. You need time to get used to the pitches, the different balls used, the conditions, etc. This is not an excuse, but India were very undercooked in the first Test match. India are obviously not as good (neither is anyone else) as Australia, and if we want to ensure the best, most competitive matches (which anyone in their right mind would want to do), we need to make sure we give sides enough time to get oriented to a new country. Will it happen? Not a chance. The calender is too packed, and you can't do it. But that would be my hope.

• Introduce auxillary days which a Test can flow over to if overs are lost due to poor over-rates \ rain \ bad light
• DO SOMETHING about bad light - most annoying thing

To assuage the calender would be essential to many of the things that would help to make Test cricket better. There is no game that could never be improved.

But bringing in artificial thingies like "no negative play" (what is "negative play" anyway?) - worst idea IMO. The ability to switch between "negative" and "positive" is essential to Test cricket and always has been and always should be.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

• Introduce auxillary days which a Test can flow over to if overs are lost due to poor over-rates \ rain \ bad light

Would have to introduce stricter and harsher penalties on poor over rates then. Otherwise teams would have little incentive to get them up to standard.

• DO SOMETHING about bad light - most annoying thing

Except that floodlights would imbalance the game too much, IMO. The transition period between natural and artificial light may seem a small thing, but if it catches a team at the wrong time, it can have severe implications on the match result. Why bring in another variable?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Would have to introduce stricter and harsher penalties on poor over rates then. Otherwise teams would have little incentive to get them up to standard.

Except that floodlights would imbalance the game too much, IMO. The transition period between natural and artificial light may seem a small thing, but if it catches a team at the wrong time, it can have severe implications on the match result. Why bring in another variable?

You do realise who you're talking to don't you?

 

[gettingbetter]

Many of the latter points would require great scheduling, so I guess some of the changes that would make Test cricket more interesting - which I don't think you need to do TBH would be have less ODIs and possibly less Test matches in general. For something such as having extra days, teams would probably have to do one or two less tours a year (this is in conjunction with the point about warm up games which a good point).

 

[Craig]

Get rid of boxes.

No padding.

 

[andruid]

Give more teams test status so they get to play against each other and engage more fans from more diverse parts of the world.

 

[Richard]

Would have to introduce stricter and harsher penalties on poor over rates then. Otherwise teams would have little incentive to get them up to standard.

Oh, absolutely, I've long been in favour of this. Over-rates have been abysmal for years, though they do seem to get worse still every year.

Except that floodlights would imbalance the game too much, IMO. The transition period between natural and artificial light may seem a small thing, but if it catches a team at the wrong time, it can have severe implications on the match result. Why bring in another variable?

It's not ideal, but for my money it's better than bad light stopping play. Hate it, really hate it with a passion.

Also, if you use a ball that creates better visibility that could alleviate the problem.

 

[Richard]

Many of the latter points would require great scheduling, so I guess some of the changes that would make Test cricket more interesting - which I don't think you need to do TBH would be have less ODIs and possibly less Test matches in general. For something such as having extra days, teams would probably have to do one or two less tours a year (this is in conjunction with the point about warm up games which a good point).

Yep, I don't think you'd get too many on this forum - or around the cricket World in general outside the cricket-board boardrooms - who'd say there isn't too much cricket, both Test and ODI, at the current time.

What I'm hoping is that this IPL lark will do away with the need for Twenty20 Internationals. Because it's basically an improved version of them. And if it was all placed in a strict window, that'd make international-players-involved Twenty20 less likely to impede on Tests and ODIs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's nothing wrong with Test Cricket and certainly doesn't require artificially jazzing up. Some people enjoy chess as a spectator sport and wouldn't appreciate it if the participants were forced to wear false beards or got an electric shock every time they ended up in check.

 

[Richard]

There's a difference between looking to artificially jazz-up and recognising that the occasion when there is no potential for improvement is rare.