How to make Test cricket more interesting?

[Indipper]

People were trying to jazz up chess and boy did that work out well.

 

[archie mac]

Test cricket leave it alone

If the first two days are the most boring why do they attract the biggest crowds?

 

[Goughy]

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.

I agree with this. My major issue with ODI cricket is that rules, format, fields etc change all the time. Its like a sick old man looking for the right medicine.

Im sure there are little tweaks that could be made to Test cricket that may improve it, but all changes carry risks of having unforseen effects and actually make things worse. I dont think there is any need to tinker with anything apart from maybe technology and Im not 100% sold on what that involvment should be.

Things like sporting pitches etc are preferable but I dont believe in legislating for such things.

 

[Smudge]

Get rid of boxes.

No padding.

Use the rule we had one New Years holiday - if you get hit on a part of the body (such as the lower leg, the arm), you weren't allowed to use it anymore. For example, if you did get hit on the lower leg, you have to hop on the other leg.

Obviously, if you get hit on the head, you have to turn your head away from the bowler, and swing wildly.

 

[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.

To develop my point further, If the likes of the the ICC's HPP countries were simply given permission to host and play in officially sanctioned 5 day matches, (Test matches) even if they would might be able to organise more lucrative tours against relatively higher profile opponents like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and it would give these full members vital practice when they cannot get a hold of the big boys like India or Australia.

Consider Ireland's recent tour of Bangladesh. If the 3 match ODI series had been followed up with a 3 match test series, there would have been a stronger case to broadcast the series on a mainstream Sports channel, which would have made the Irish cricket team's presence in the more real, hence they would become a better draw from corporate sponsors who would be more likely to have there brands displayed on the kits of an Irish team that is more visible thanks to their bigger presence on mainstream sports networks. Which would give Cricket Ireland more revenue to professionalize the game in Ireland, hence better cricketers and better cricket all around.

Basically the simple act of saying to and additional 5 or six teams 'though may play test cricket' even without all the other priviledges and perks that come with it would do the game in these countries a world of good and would be a breath of fresh air in that format of the game.

 

[Goughy]

Consider Ireland's recent tour of Bangladesh.

Quoted from larger post above

If you consider that tour then its a prime example of why the smaller nations shouldnt play Test cricket. Ireland had a few injuries and didnt have the depth to put out a reasonable side. Test cricket should be better than good club cricket and that Ireland side for the ODIs wasnt above that.

Test cricket isnt given, its earned. Ireland may one day be worthy of Test status but not at the moment. There just isnt the depth in talent and the top players are hardly anything special.

 

[andruid]

Quoted from larger post above

If you consider that tour then its a prime example of why the smaller nations shouldnt play Test cricket. Ireland had a few injuries and didnt have the depth to put out a reasonable side. Test cricket should be better than good club cricket and that Ireland side for the ODIs wasnt above that.

Test cricket isnt given, its earned. Ireland may one day be worthy of Test status but not at the moment. There just isnt the depth in talent and the top players are hardly anything special.

Earned how? Is there an exam that England, Australia, NZ, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,Pakistan, WI, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe passed that no one else did to earn test status?

Basically the crux of my argument is that under the current system it is not reasonable to expect that the current financial resources Non-test cricket that teams like Ireland can ever develop the kind of player base necessary to grow as a test nation unless they are given the necessary kick-start. As things stand now the gap in the 'financial value' of a series with Test matches compared to one without is such that it makes it very difficult for those without the luxury of being able to organise matches of that level to even hope to compete with test nations for a big enough share of the revenue available to move beyond the amateur status they have. if for example there was even a lower tier Test status fuelled by the money of a rampaging army of Bangladesh fans following the exploits of their team as they did battle with Kenya, Scotland, Zimbabwe, Namibia as well as other test nations, the way the Barmy army creates such a demand for England's test match exploits all over the world then these associates could massively benefit from the extra leg up financially.

 

[Goughy]

Test cricket isnt about bad cricket. Its about the opposite.

No doubt that Test status will improve nations, but they need to be in a good place to start with, otherwise its a pointless exercise that will have many more failures than successes. There needs to be people playing the game, success on the field and a good administration and infrastructure. Test cricket takes cricket to the next level and it isnt there to be abused as an entry level top International cricket.

What you are asking already exists with the InterContinental Cup. Changing its name to Test cricket wouldnt do anything but devalue Tests cricket. Im a big advocate of Associate cricket, Im just a bigger supporter of it being done with foundations and rationally.

As for earning it, Ive a simple rule of thumb. If think I can get a group of friends together and give a nation a good game then they dont deserve much recognition at the top level. Also, there has to be depth. If a nation is carried by a couple of good players and the 2nd XI is terrible then they cant manage with any injuries. An ok side becomes really bad and makes a mockery of the sport as they cant compete. Introducing countries to the top level when they are far weaker than FC teams in most other Test nations makes no sense. Its about competition, not making people feel good about themselves.

 

[Chubb]

Test cricket is not boring. I don't think it ever is. What I do think, though, is that too much test cricket is being played at the moment- I like tests to feel like something special, which I'm not really sure it is anymore, at least if you are not at the ground. Because too much cricket is being played, spectatators, even mad-keen fans like me, get fatigued with it. I've never had Sky sports before I moved student digs this year and I thought it would be fantastic to have cricket on TV every day, but I have found over time that it just gets too much- the games feel meaningless. I want the feeling of anticipation to return to test cricket- the knowledge that you won't get another crack at the opposition for another four years or so. It makes it all so much more significant- and that's the only problem with test cricket at the moment- too much of it feels insignificant.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Get rid of boxes.

Get rid of helmets and the limits on bouncers. I also like the uncovered wickets idea.

 

[Nutter]

Any delivery that hits the pad is automatically LBW.
One hand one bounce.
Six and out.

 

[andruid]

What you are asking already exists with the InterContinental Cup. Changing its name to Test cricket wouldnt do anything but devalue Tests cricket. Im a big advocate of Associate cricket, Im just a bigger supporter of it being done with foundations and rationally.

I am actually aware of the Intercontinental Cup and it is doing a fairly good job of separating the Men from the boys, cricket wise, I highly disagree that expanding the tournament into a fully fledged Test competition would 'devalue test cricket.' In fact I would go as far as to argue that the distance between Intercontinental cup cricket and Test cricket is because the Intercontinental cup is so unmarketable in its current state, that it fails to draw the necessary investment to raise its participating member's cricket to 'Test' level. Some kind of nominal test status I argue would give the competition more leverage and bring in more invetment and participation and therefore while the first year or two might not exactly replicate the Ashes it would certanly lead to better cricket in the long term for more nations and that would help prevent test cricket from fading into oblivion.

 

[andruid]

Test cricket is not boring. I don't think it ever is. What I do think, though, is that too much test cricket is being played at the moment- I like tests to feel like something special, which I'm not really sure it is anymore, at least if you are not at the ground. Because too much cricket is being played, spectatators, even mad-keen fans like me, get fatigued with it.

I would think with more teams playing Test cricket there would be less chance of the same opponents running into each other over and over again, and this would make their encounters more special.

I've never had Sky sports before I moved student digs this year and I thought it would be fantastic to have cricket on TV every day, but I have found over time that it just gets too much- the games feel meaningless. I want the feeling of anticipation to return to test cricket- the knowledge that you won't get another crack at the opposition for another four years or so. It makes it all so much more significant- and that's the only problem with test cricket at the moment- too much of it feels insignificant.

I agree, with only 10 teams playing legit test cricket and only 8 playing on a regular basis there is a serious shortage of variety. If there were loads of other decent teams to play against then it would be almost ceratain that one may not meet the same team fortwo or three years and the meetings woul become more special.

 

[Goughy]

I am actually aware of the Intercontinental Cup and it is doing a fairly good job of separating the Men from the boys, cricket wise, I highly disagree that expanding the tournament into a fully fledged Test competition would 'devalue test cricket.' In fact I would go as far as to argue that the distance between Intercontinental cup cricket and Test cricket is because the Intercontinental cup is so unmarketable in its current state, that it fails to draw the necessary investment to raise its participating member's cricket to 'Test' level. Some kind of nominal test status I argue would give the competition more leverage and bring in more invetment and participation and therefore while the first year or two might not exactly replicate the Ashes it would certanly lead to better cricket in the long term for more nations and that would help prevent test cricket from fading into oblivion.

IMO, thats not the case. The difference is that Test nations have a lot of people that play the game, and a lot of interest. With a good infrstructure, this produces good cricketers.

Associate members (and those that play in Intercontinental Cup) do not produce quality players in any numbers. This is because few people play it and they are minority sports. You cant wish people to be good. There has to be good interest levels and participation at all levels for a steady stream of talent to emerge. Associate members can never compete in the short-mid term future as the interest levels are not there and the Associates are usually nations of small populations.

To ask for Test cricket to increase interest levels is a bad idea as a) it could very well only generate limited interest and not have the desired effect. Even some of the current Terst nations only get limited interest in Test cricket. b) If it did work, it would take a generation to have an effect and would mean at least 10 years of terrible cricket.

Associate members are Associate members because they are not very good. Its as simple as that. Giving them Test status isnt going to change anything or make them competetive with England, India or South Africa.

 

[FBU]

1. Bowlers (not their boards) get to chose the make of balls they want to use. For instance you could have England playing in Australia using the Dukes and Australia using the Kookaburra.
2. Double run outs in the same over.
3. Leg byes to be charged to the bowler and not extras
4. Free hit for no balls

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

3. Leg byes to be charged to the bowler and not extras

Definitely not. As if the game isn't weighted enough against the bowlers.

 

[Athlai]

Recall Bond and other decent ICL players. Extend tours yet lessen amount per year. Penalize poor over rates.

Don't let Australia play.

Whoever wins the final session wins the game. (Last goal wins style)

Oh, and dancers. Attractive ones.

 

[Nate]

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

 

[andruid]

No. The difference is that Test nations have a lot of people that play the game, and a lot of interest. With a good infrstructure, this produces good cricketers.

But good Infrastructure does not grow on trees you know. It requires money, Investment and support which are alot easier to get a hold of with Test status than without.

Associate members (and those that play in Intercontinental Cup) do not produce quality players in any numbers. This is because few people play it and they are minority sports. You cant wish people to be good. There has to be good interest levels and participation at all levels for a steady stream of talent to emerge. Associate members can never compete in the short-mid term future as the interest levels are not there and the Associates are usually nations of small populations.

Firstly cricket is a minority sport everywhere except in the Subcontinent, but there are six other teams producing world class cricketers without it having to be the most popular sport in the country. If these Associates can get enough financing to operate schools cricket competitions, and a national level two tier domestic club cricket competition, then they will be able to take full advantage of the latent talent that is present in them and it would certainly be possible with the additional funding that would come with a more popularly watched competition than the Intercontinental Cup.

To ask for Test cricket to increase interest levels is a bad idea as a) it could very well only generate limited interest and not have the desired effect. Even some of the current Terst nations only get limited interest in Test cricket. b) If it did work, it would take a generation to have an effect and would mean at least 10 years of terrible cricket.

Associate members are Associate members because they are not very good. Its as simple as that. Giving them Test status isnt going to change anything or make them competetive with England, India or South Africa.

That explanation hardly hold water when you look at Bangladesh today, Sri Lanka in the 80's, and New Zealand in the 40-50s. They had test status and relative to the other established teams were Sh**** when they started out but continual access to the best of the ICC's riches meant that New Zealand, and Sri Lanka have been able to build functional domestic systems that produce Test calibre teams. It is not like teams like Kenya and Afghanistan once had Test status and were deemed unworthy.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Another thing that some might find controversial: legalise "ball tampering". Batsmen are allowed to have 200-pound bats with rockets installed, while the poor bowler can't even touch the seam without being compared unfavourably to a serial-killer.