Proposals to radically change Test Cricket

[SJS]

I certainly don't mind all draws but the kind of draws where both teams score 600 in their first innings are a huge bore. If such games were common I would consider bringing in over limitations but they are pretty rare these days. Ultimately I think there are better ways to reduce draws than limiting the number of overs.

Thats the point. What do you do where a team bats for three days and scores 700 runs. taking the better part of three days doing that, then the other goes ahead and bats another two days to score 600 runs. We are left with a pointless session and a half and after a bit of a knock in the middle, everyone goes home.

As for problems with draws, first of all, I have none but I can read the writing on the wall. test cricket is in more serious trouble than we are willing to admit.

I have said before these are radical proposals, not necessarily the ones that need be adopted. The idea is to discuss what can be done. Even way out proposals, even in their negativity, draw out issues and if we want to say that there are absolutely no issues with Test Cricket for the public in general, we are worse than the proverbial ostriches.

I am going to propose even more outlandish stuff. Again the idea is to bring out whats wrong with the game. I can understand someone saying this is not a great idea but I cant understand people saying there is nothing wrong with the game.

If majority of the people who watch the game had my views on cricket, no changes would be required. This statement alone should say where I stand. Unfortunately, I realise what a hopeless miniority I and my ilk are in.

The few of us on the CW who think alike do not ring in the cash registers which are what is going to determine the future of the game. I would rather have some changes, howsoever painful, in the longer version of the game and retain the skills required to play top class bowling, with no field restrictions, large enough boundaries, sporting wickets etc than stick to the old formulae and see the game drive all but the three ponder club wielders to despair.

 

[SJS]

I dont think there is anything wrong with Test cricket and it doesnt need any radical changes.

However, I think the point of this thread is as a thought exercise to kep our opinions open and honest rather than wanting any changes made.


Regarding the proposal.

A hate artificial laws that cut at the purity of the sport and are just mechanisms by administrators to fulful their aims.

The key to Test cricket is that (usually) you need to be able to take 20 wickets to win. If you cant do that then you dont win. If neither side can do that then neither side deserves to win and a draw is declared.

The proposal cuts at the core of Test cricket.

I did not propose that their will be no draws. Read again.

The proposal is to ensure that teams dont just go on batting with no consideration for results.

There will be draws in this case also.

 

[SJS]

I'd rather bring back timeless tests than bring the slightest vestige of limited overs cricket into the ultimate version of the game

I don't believe anyone who enjoys Tests has a problem with draws - if they do they should b***** off and stick to 20/20

et tu Freddie

I have nothing against draws.

The proposal, or what I can see everyone is reacting to, is to make the team batting third, try and win the game if possible. It can still result in a draw but the team batting fourth will get to bat some time.

 

[Goughy]

I did not propose that their will be no draws. Read again.

The proposal is to ensure that teams dont just go on batting with no consideration for results.

There will be draws in this case also.

I suggest you read mine again. My issue wasnt concerning draws but that teams could win without having to take 20 wickets. Being able to bowl a team out twice in order to win a Test is one of he basic core foundations of Test cricket.

If you are not capable of bowling them out then tough. Nothing should be gifted in Test cricket.

 

[Dissector]

As I said I don't think the super-boring draws are too much of a problem these days though they certainly were back in the 1980's. Rain and bad light are much bigger issues and that is where I would like to see changes made.

As for the health of test cricket I don't think there is any problem at all in England and Australia. In India too test crowds are reasonably healthy though I wonder about the long-run future. In countries like South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan test cricket is indeed in woeful shape though I seriously wonder whether any rule changes will make a difference.

 

[SJS]

Lets take a live example.

India vs SAfrica MAC Stadium March 2008

SAfrica : 1st innings 540 all out (153 overs)

India : 1st Innings 627 all out (155 overs)​

So far so good. By the way, as can be seen, the 180 overs limit proposed is not small. These sides would have scored nearly a hundred runs each more had they played that many.

Now. What happened.

South Africa : 2nd innings331 for 5 (109 overs)​

and then the match was called off.

Lets assume that there were 120 overs left at the time South Africa went into bat with a first innings deficit of 87 runs. They are allowed to play 72 of these 120 overs to leave India with about 45 overs (after changeover) in which to chase a target. Instead of plodding to 331 for 5 in 109 overs, they have to try to score 270 runs in 72 overs (at about 3.75 each) and then let India try to chase 190 in 45 overs.


Its match on.

South Africa can score faster, if conditions permit and declare earlier if possible but the idea is for captains to make the kind of declarations some captains did make in the past. The match may still end up in a draw with India shutting down shop if they lose quick wickets but it would be alive till then and maybe beyond if India lose a few more wickets.

This is not as artficial as it sounds.

It just makes sure a batting side does not just bat on and on for so long as to completely foreclose the possibility of a result.

They still get to bat more overs if they can - the side batting first in each sets of innings that is and it is NOT reduced to a limited overs run chase as some seem to understand it.

 

[Dissector]

What if the side batting third is 180 runs behind and there are only 100 overs left in the game. If I understand your proposal, they would have only 60 overs to bat virtually guaranteeing that they will lose.

 

[Athlai]

What if the side batting third is 180 runs behind and there are only 100 overs left in the game. If I understand your proposal, they would have only 60 overs to bat virtually guaranteeing that they will lose.

Then perhaps they should have batted better in the first innings, though this scenario is unlikely due to the 180 over limit mark. Meaning that for 100 overs to be remaining 350 need to have been played. 180 by team B and 170 by team A, if your that far behind then you've got yourself into quite a ruckus already.

Though this situation could be resolved by the mandatory declaration in the third innings having a certain minimum run limit first 200 would be a good number IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

It would kill a few matches too, though. I'm not 100% sure i'm understanding the proposals correctly, but if we take the match currently taking place, would the suggestion mean that starting last night, South Africa would only be allowed to bat for two thirds of the overs available? If that were the case, the match would be already over and England would have it all but wrapped up. As it is, South Africa are still in with a chance of salvaging a draw.

Let me know if i've misunderstood something.

 

[Dissector]

Then perhaps they should have batted better in the first innings, though this scenario is unlikely due to the 180 over limit mark. Meaning that for 100 overs to be remaining 350 need to have been played. 180 by team B and 170 by team A, if your that far behind then you've got yourself into quite a ruckus already.

Though this situation could be resolved by the mandatory declaration in the third innings having a certain minimum run limit first 200 would be a good number IMO.

If you add in the possibility of rain it's not that hard to imagine a situation where the team batting second leads by 180 after 350 overs.

Even without rain you could probably construct a scenario which would be nearly impossible for the team batting third.
Say team A bats for 150 overs and scores 450. Then team B bats for 180 overs and scores 600. There are 120 overs left so team A would only have 72 overs to bat. Even if they score 300, Team B would just need 150 in 48 overs; a fairly straightforward win.

You could add in some kind of limit before the forced declaration but that would give Team A the incentive to bat so slowly that they never reach the 200 lead.

More broadly the problem with over limits is that they reduce the importance of attacking bowling which takes 20 wickets. With the forced declaration the team batting second could easily win just by scoring quickly and bowling defensively.

 

[fredfertang]

et tu Freddie

Perhaps there was a hint of the hysterical kneejerk reaction to my earlier post but I have had my medication and my afternoon nap so can think a little more clearly

TBH I would have settled for a boring 650-8 dec over 8 sessions in the Oval Test of 2005 to take the defeat out of the question

I suppose what you need to try and avoid is games like the 4th test of the '64 Ashes series but I simply dont think the game is played like that anymore

On reflection I should have said, in measured tones "I dont think there is anything wrong with Test cricket and it doesnt need any radical changes."

Goughy is my heart speaking

 

[SJS]

What if the side batting third is 180 runs behind and there are only 100 overs left in the game. If I understand your proposal, they would have only 60 overs to bat virtually guaranteeing that they will lose.

That is just the kind of question I was wanting someone to ask....

Then perhaps they should have batted better in the first innings, though this scenario is unlikely due to the 180 over limit mark. Meaning that for 100 overs to be remaining 350 need to have been played. 180 by team B and 170 by team A, if your that far behind then you've got yourself into quite a ruckus already.

Though this situation could be resolved by the mandatory declaration in the third innings having a certain minimum run limit first 200 would be a good number IMO.

.. and that is just the kind of reply someone has to give.

Let me find a real life situation that closely matches what is being said before i enumerate

 

[unccricket]

The proposal to limit the amount of time a team batting 3rd would have likely killed the India vs Australia match in 2001, widely remembered for India following on and winning on the back of Laxman's 281 and Harbhajan's last day heroics.

Australia first innings: 445 in 131.5 overs
India first innings: 171 in 58.1 overs
India second innings (following on): 657/7 in 178 overs
Australia (target= 384) : 212 all out in 68.3 overs

When India came back to bat following on, there would have been about 250 overs left in the match, meaning they would only be allowed to bat out about 150 overs. India's 550 was up at 154.5 overs, so using that number, Australia's target would have been 276. While its a challenging total in a final innings chase, it would have been gettable with about 100 overs to play by the very good Australian Side (remember this was Steve Waugh's invincibles).

With the a limit to the 3rd innings, India likely would not have been able to pull of such a great and important victory.

 

[SJS]

Cant find one to replicate but the question is valid.

Australia bat first and score 750 runs in 180 overs.
Bangladesh bat second and score 500 runs in 170 overs.
So they are 250 runs behind and will follow on so how can they just surrender their innings when they may still be behind.

The proposal needs to be modified.

One possibility is that, If the team batting third is behind on the first innings, they should bat on till they draw level with the first innings score. After that, if overs are still left, they can play a maximum of 60% of those overs.

Of course, Sri Lanka may play too slow on purpose and the match may end in a draw anyway.

But then it give Australia the chance to get them out in a 100 full overs and if they cant do that, well done Bangladesh.

How's that ?

 

[SJS]

The proposal to limit the amount of time a team batting 3rd would have likely killed the India vs Australia match in 2001, widely remembered for India following on and winning on the back of Laxman's 281 and Harbhajan's last day heroics.

Australia first innings: 445 in 131.5 overs
India first innings: 171 in 58.1 overs
India second innings (following on): 657/7 in 178 overs
Australia (target= 384) : 212 all out in 68.3 overs

When India came back to bat following on, there would have been about 250 overs left in the match, meaning they would only be allowed to bat out about 150 overs. India's 550 was up at 154.5 overs, so using that number, Australia's target would have been 276. While its a challenging total in a final innings chase, it would have been gettable with about 100 overs to play by the very good Australian Side (remember this was Steve Waugh's invincibles).

With the a limit to the 3rd innings, India likely would not have been able to pull of such a great and important victory.

Read in conjunction with modification proposed below.

Cant find one to replicate but the question is valid.

Australia bat first and score 750 runs in 180 overs.
Bangladesh bat second and score 500 runs in 170 overs.
So they are 250 runs behind and will follow on so how can they just surrender their innings when they may still be behind.

The proposal needs to be modified.

One possibility is that, If the team batting third is behind on the first innings, they should bat on till they draw level with the first innings score. After that, if overs are still left, they can play a maximum of 60% of those overs.

Of course, Sri Lanka may play too slow on purpose and the match may end in a draw anyway.

But then it give Australia the chance to get them out in a 100 full overs and if they cant do that, well done Bangladesh.

How's that ?

In that case, with a first innings deficit of 274, they leveled at around the 76th over (they were 232 for 4 in the 65th).

India played another 100 overs after that and Australia played 68.3 in their second knock.

It should be fair to say that at least 180 overs were left in the match when India drew level. That would allow them to play another 108 overs maximum.

They actually played 102.

So thats okay I suppose.

 

[SJS]

Please understand the spirit of this proposal.

1. The teams batting first in a tall scoring first innings, should not take up so much of the time as to make a result an impossibility

2. The team batting third,( either in the lead or, if in deficit, after drawing level) should bat in a spirit to score runs and, if need be, to declare to try and get a result. To play one and a half times the overs the team batting last will, after being level or even ahead before that count down started, is good enough advantage for the team batting third.​

There was a time when some captains would go with this spirit, now many wont. Hence the proposal.

Plus it brings a freshness to the game which many may find appealing

 

[unccricket]

yeah, i guess it works then! the important thing is to allow room for these sort of miracle, come-from-behind victories to occur. In a match over 5 days, the best team is naturally the most likely to win, so i think you can't stack the deck that much more against the other team, since they are already at the time disadvantage. The beautiful thing about sport is anything can happen and the best team doesn't always win (nor should they). All that matters is that the better team on that day (or over 5 days) win, regardless of differences in class/skill between the teams!

 

[Prince EWS]

8 ball overs certainly speed the game up as there is less in between overs turn arounds.

Ive bowled them in the past but I wouldnt fancy doing it again

TBH, it maybe one of the rules that 10 years own the line vryone wonders what all the fuss was about. There isnt anything special abot the number 6.

Though taking the argument to its logical conclusion. Why not 10 ball overs? Would speed the game up even more (ie less changes), encourage teams to use spinnes as 10 ball overs are hard work for the seamers and give a format where partial overs fit nicely into the decimal system and make our lives using excel easier.

I don't mind the idea of ten. As you said it fits in perfectly with the decimal system and it'd certainly give spinners a more important role to play post-covered-pitches.

My only qualm is that I'd be very hesitant to implement any change at this time which would help the batsmen in any way. The game is already too weighted towards them AFAIC, so unless we can get some more life into world pitches, improve the quality of cricket balls or something of that ilk, I'd leave it at six. Fast bowlers would quite obviously get tired and bowl poor balls at the back end of overs, although I suppose you could argue it gives you more time as a bowler to build pressure.

 

[Prince EWS]

I dont think there is anything wrong with Test cricket and it doesnt need any radical changes.

However, I think the point of this thread is as a thought exercise to kep our opinions open and honest rather than wanting any changes made.


Regarding the proposal.

A hate artificial laws that cut at the purity of the sport and are just mechanisms by administrators to fulful their aims.

The key to Test cricket is that (usually) you need to be able to take 20 wickets to win. If you cant do that then you dont win. If neither side can do that then neither side deserves to win and a draw is declared.

The proposal cuts at the core of Test cricket.

Completely AWTA.

 

[unccricket]

in the short run, I think fast bowlers will get tired faster when bowling 8 or 10 ball overs. But, I think it is because bowlers are used to 6 ball overs and train accordingly. I don't know how higher class bowlers practice (ie. number of balls they bowl before a rest), but if you say practice with 8-10 ball overs, performance drops won't drop too much, I think.