Proposals to radically change Test Cricket

[nightprowler10]

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.

Agree with this.

 

[jeevan]

Not that you can legislate this, but flat pitches that dont offer too much hope for bowlers to take wickets are the bane of interesting test cricket. Fix this and you have "fixed" test cricket.

For eg if venue receives a penalty/incentive for a draw/result, is probably a simple thing to try.

 

[Richard]

Nah don't think you should be actively discouraging draws. Ideally, you want a Test that finishes in the final session - though obviously you can't be preparing wickets to that preciseness.

The last thing we want is every game finishing in three-and-a-half days. That'd be almost as bad as the number of absurdly flat wickets of recent times (and even that's been better in the last couple of years than it was 2001/02 to 2005/06).

If you want to do something about draws, I've said it 100 times, "fix" the draw which is drawn unjustly, due to lost play. This, obviously, would not be possible with the current schedule, but as said many times, most people would reduce the current schedule before doing anything about numbers of results.

 

[jeevan]

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 ?

Actually the Eng vs SA test currently under way seems a good example against this rule as well.

Eng batting first are 593/8d from 156 overs
SA make a hash of their first innings 247 all out in 94 overs

So 250 overs have been expended 200 are to come, and SA would've been left with 120 overs under this rule.

Now SA are 242-1 after 96 overs, still 104 behind - but it appears to have been a good display of cricket and a captain's knock from an oft-maligned Graeme Smith. Not really a boring draw and probably better than 342-8 at this point that might have resulted from a rule like this, though the latter would've forced a result (and the rule done its job).

The modified rule twists things in a different & interesting (not!) way. SA will take, at the current pace, 40 more overs to draw level.
So a test match gets converted to something like a 20-20, except SA get 60% of the overs but will have lost 2 or 3 wickets by the time they draw level.

 

[Sanz]

With all due respect to the thread starter, When I clicked this thread I expected something special but Both the suggestions are absolute rubbish.

 

[SJS]

Nah don't think you should be actively discouraging draws. Ideally, you want a Test that finishes in the final session - though obviously you can't be preparing wickets to that preciseness.

The last thing we want is every game finishing in three-and-a-half days. That'd be almost as bad as the number of absurdly flat wickets of recent times (and even that's been better in the last couple of years than it was 2001/02 to 2005/06).

If you want to do something about draws, I've said it 100 times, "fix" the draw which is drawn unjustly, due to lost play. This, obviously, would not be possible with the current schedule, but as said many times, most people would reduce the current schedule before doing anything about numbers of results.

I REPEAT.

This proposal does not by itself 'fix' draws.

It prevents teams from batting the match to a draw in the first innings itself
AND
it deters the team batting third to kill the match beyond a spec of a chance for a result.

You will still get draws but after the fourth innings has been played.

However, there is one possibility that is not so good.

TEAM POSITIVE bats well and scores positively to end up with 650 runs in 160 overs. TEAM NEGATIVE bats poorly and at snail's pace to post 350 in 150 overs.

This leaves just 140 overs in the match with team NEGATIVE following on 300 runs behind. They might decide to bat out the 140 overs and yet not reach 300.

One could commend them for surviving 140 overs or condemn them for killing the match.

Of course, there can be a remedy to this in the law itself. But thats another matter

 

[SJS]

I can see the flak the proposals are drawing. I am not one bit surprised

What I am surprised with is that no one has come and said, we dont want any amendments to the Test match laws, we just want them (Test matches) to be banned !!

As for the current England vs SA Test match. we will talk when this match is over.

By the way, it has been called rubbish and an artificial device besides other things. The first was meant as a complement I assume since the poster involved normally uses much more colourful language when he disagrees with anything which is more often than not.

The second is more serious and needs addressing.

Any intervention in the game brought about through legislation can be termed artificial.

When teams were first 'forced' to enforce the follow on by law, it was artificial in a sense. So was it when it every time the LBW laws were changed. So is it when the boundaries are brought in to ensure more sixes are hit and so forth.

Why, the limited overs game is completely artificial

 

[SJS]

Proposal # 3 : Day Night Test Matches.

Have the Tests spill beyond sunset. Let the light conditions not rob the game of time, Let the office goers be able to watch a large part of the week-days Test cricket.

I realise that this involves changes regarding the ball for example. Maybe a pink ball will do

Flak is welcome but other than the sentimental stuff from traditionalists like yours truly, can we have some different form of criticism

Yes yes we dont want Test cricket to change but here I am in the garb of a much reviled species remember - the REFORMIST - ever a bosom pal of the traditionalists

 

[Goughy]

I cant see, off the top of my head, why Test cricket cant be played underlights in coloured clothing with a bright ball.

Id be happy to listen to objections but they would need to be better than "this is how it has always been done" as the benefits (more accessable, more marketable etc) are fairly considerable.

 

[jeevan]

I cant see, off the top of my head, why Test cricket cant be played underlights in coloured clothing with a bright ball.

Id be happy to listen to objections but they would need to be better than "this is how it has always been done" as the benefits (more accessable, more marketable etc) are fairly considerable.

"Dew factor" in some venues at some times of the year makes the ball difficult to grip and hence spin especially - in the second innings of D/N ODIs. One problem with boring tests is the difficulty of getting batsmen out on flat wickets - this makes it worse.

 

[Dissector]

I wouldn't support full-fledged day-night cricket with coloured clothes partly because of the dew factor but also partly because of tradition. It would completely ruin the look and feel of test cricket. Tradition is important even in the most hard-headed analysis because tradition is precisely one of the selling points of test cricket. In addition to the dew factor, day-night cricket would remove yet another weapon from the bowler's arsenal: the use of morning conditions.

However I do support using lights to extend play in marginal light conditions during the day. For example like in the third test between India and Pakistan recently. I think this alone could save hours of play during some test matches allowing enough time for a result.

 

[SJS]

Proposal Number 4 : Fix 85 meters as the minimum boundary (in all directions) for all Test centres

 

[fredfertang]

That may have merit - would it rule out any current venues?

 

[SJS]

That may have merit - would it rule out any current venues?

It may rule out some of the smaller new venues that we in India keep introducing every now and then. But all major venues are okay and the others need minor expenditure to comply. But this is important for many reasons not least for the poor spinners.

 

[SJS]

Proposal # 5 : Play an extra hour and cut out a day of test cricket.

With an eight ball over if we could squeeze in another hour's play, we could actually go to four days and still have at least as much cricket as we are getting from five days with 90 6 ball overs.

With the problems of scheduling being what they are, and the playewrs being away from families for long periods, cutting down 20 percent by way of days in Test cricket is a big thing,. It is doable given the will.

 

[Goughy]

It may rule out some of the smaller new venues that we in India keep introducing every now and then. But all major venues are okay and the others need minor expenditure to comply. But this is important for many reasons not least for the poor spinners.

I think it would rule a lot more than that out.

It would mean a min. approx length of a cricket field to be 190m (210 yards) long. There are not many in the world that length.

 

[Dissector]

The idea of four-day tests is quite interesting and it could work especially with the use of lights to extend play by an hour or so. One of the big advantages is that you could fit test-matches more closely around the weekend. Every test could start on Thursday and end on Sunday nearly guaranteeing a weekend finish.

Four day tests would also allow the use of the fifth day as a reserve in case of serious rain interference.

 

[Athlai]

Thats probably my least favorite suggestion thus far SJS. I think scheduling in itself would find its own way to be exactly as poor with four day cricket as it is with five, if there is more time to spare it will be filled in with something else. Also this gives more time for rain to wash away a match completely as a whole day being rained out isn't out of the question, which if it happened in this context would almost certainly mean a match wouldn't get a result.

As for having an extra day in case of rain? They could do this with five day cricket but it is a television production problem more than a cricketing one. TV companies can't afford buy a spot that they might not use, its a massive waste of money whenever it doesn't rain.

 

[Dissector]

I am sure the money men could find some kind of formula that would keep everyone happy, with advertisers having to pay only there is actual play on the reserve day.

 

[Athlai]

Broadcasters don't revolve around cricket, and the way a show is broadcast is done in a very specific manner. Its feasible that they could dedicate that extra day to cricket regardless with replays etc. being played if the games over (such as in matches finishing in 3 days now) but its still paying for a service your not likely to receive. Why buy an extra day of cricket if your only going to use once every 15 times, when you could put something that will actually earn you money in that spot. Its a big gamble which is something that you have to feel broadcasting won't be keen on.

I'd love if the game was bigger than the money but thats not how the media works.