***Official*** Stanford Super Series

[Uppercut]

How much is that per Test then?

For a year of Tests you get, say, 120,000? That's an average of probably about 1,000 per Test.

Compared to 40 overs where you net £500,000.

Buttt I'd rather play in the Ashes for 120k a year than play for Allen Stanford's personal amusement for 500k. I think pretty much everyone in the England team would tbh, although i think you disagree on that.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

How much is that per Test then?
For a year of Tests you get, say, 120,000? That's an average of probably about 1,000 per Test.

That makes it sound like they're playing 120 Test Matches in a year.

 

[Richard]

A missing 0 changes figures dramatically, if in the right (or wrong) place.

 

[Richard]

Buttt I'd rather play in the Ashes for 120k a year than play for Allen Stanford's personal amusement for 500k. I think pretty much everyone in the England team would tbh, although i think you disagree on that.

I honestly don't know. I certainly think there's a decent possibility of it (ie, that The Ashes for a decent sum > Stanford's personal amusement for a crazily large sum) at the moment, though I'm far from fully confident. As I say, you'd not be human if the thought didn't even cross your mind.

30 years down the line, though, we simply don't have a clue. We cannot hope to.

 

[Uppercut]

I honestly don't know. I certainly think there's a decent possibility of it (ie, that The Ashes for a decent sum > Stanford's personal amusement for a crazily large sum) at the moment, though I'm far from fully confident. As I say, you'd not be human if the thought didn't even cross your mind.

30 years down the line, though, we simply don't have a clue. We cannot hope to.

Yeah was going to post something to the effect of that too.

 

[GIMH]

How much is that per Test then?

For a year of Tests you get, say, 120,000? That's an average of probably about 10,000 per Test.

Compared to 40 overs where you net £500,000.

That's not really the point though. This money is only available for a one-off match. Agree, though, that in the long-term, it could well change things.

Anyhow, came in the thread to say that all decisions can be deferred to 3rd ump in this series, itstl

 

[Uppercut]

Pietersen's been offered an IPL deal, so much for the "stanford will ease their discomfort at not being allowed in the IPL",

 

[Richard]

Pietersen was always going to be offered it, just a question of whether he'd accept.

Personally I don't see any way that it can be justified for England players to not be available for the IPL, it just doesn't seem fair on anyone. A window needs to be carved for the IPL ASAP. If that means Test cricket doesn't start in England until early-June, good - most people who didn't start watching Test cricket in 2000 or after regard May Tests as silly anyway.

 

[GIMH]

Less than 7 Tests not enough for mine, start in June and you'll never fit them in with all the LOI cricket

 

[Richard]

We got by with 6 for 50-odd years, including all the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

7 Tests is only a recent fad and many criticised it as being overkill when it was first instituted.

 

[GIMH]

Would we even fit 6 in, though, if we started in late June, and also, not a fan of one 3-Test series, never mind two, and when the Aussies and Saffies are here it would mean playing a one-off Test against another side.

As well as being in violation of the contract with Sky.

BTW, the SL series has been postponed, not seen this anywhere on CC?

 

[Richard]

Would we even fit 6 in, though, if we started in late June, and also, not a fan of one 3-Test series, never mind two, and when the Aussies and Saffies are here it would mean playing a one-off Test against another side.

Aus and SA should never tour the same season. As I've said before, I don't mind a three-Test series against anyone other than those two - could just play six-Testers against each (I've long been in favour of this with Aus anyway) and split three-threes with all other teams. EG:
2013: Australia (six)
2014: South Africa (six)
2015: New Zealand and India (three each)
2016: Sri Lanka and Pakistan (three each)
2017: West Indies (six)
Maybe alternate the third six-er as applicable - play it against whoever most deserved at the time, or bung a couple against Bangladesh in if someone insisted.

Play something like (would obviously be altered to fit Thursdays):
June 6th-10th
June 20th-24th
July 7th-11th
5 or 6 ODIs (depending on how many teams involved - could go 3 and 3 if 2 teams touring and 5 if 1 was) between, say, July 16th and 30th.
August 4th-8th
August 18th-22nd
August 25th-29th

Absolutely ideal. Just about enough ODIs (3 per summer wasn't enough) and no overkill on Tests. Plus ideal sharing out between teams.

As well as being in violation of the contract with Sky.

Oh yeah, of course - the broadcasting contract would have to be altered if the reduction were to happen. It would be a 2013-at-earliest job.

BTW, the SL series has been postponed, not seen this anywhere on CC?

Eh? Though it was just likely that IPL players aren't going to be involved. As I've said before, can't blame them in the slightest when SLC would be unlikely to pay them for it.

 

[GIMH]

Aus and SA should never tour the same season. As I've said before, I don't mind a three-Test series against anyone other than those two - could just play six-Testers against each (I've long been in favour of this with Aus anyway) and split three-threes with all other teams. EG:

Eh? Though it was just likely that IPL players aren't going to be involved. As I've said before, can't blame them in the slightest when SLC would be unlikely to pay them for it.

Think this has been discussed elsewhere by now

 

[GIMH]

Aus and SA should never tour the same season. As I've said before, I don't mind a three-Test series against anyone other than those two - could just play six-Testers against each (I've long been in favour of this with Aus anyway) and split three-threes with all other teams. EG:

Wasn't talking about them both touring in the same summer. Was referring to the fact that they are both a 5-Test series, and as such in summers where they toured there would only be one Test spare. Would be fine with a 6-Test Ashes, mind you

Eh? Though it was just likely that IPL players aren't going to be involved. As I've said before, can't blame them in the slightest when SLC would be unlikely to pay them for it.

Think this has been discussed elsewhere by now

 

[Richard]

Wasn't talking about them both touring in the same summer. Was referring to the fact that they are both a 5-Test series, and as such in summers where they toured there would only be one Test spare. Would be fine with a 6-Test Ashes, mind you

I'd be fine with a six-Test D'Oliveira Trophy series too TBH, and, if and when West Indies return to power, a six-Test Wisden Trophy as well.

 

[GIMH]

Well as I have said before, I actually think that all series should be of equal length

 

[Richard]

Australia, SA and WI (when strong) deserve and can make use of a six-Test series (against England) IMO.

India, Pakistan, NZ and SL never have had any need for such things and have seldom played them, lately in India's case and at all in the others'. The only six\five-Test series' I'd have not involving Australia, SA and WI is India-Pakistan. And as I say, currently WI are so weak having a five\six-Test-er against them would be counterproductive for all involved.

History and tradition of Test series length is completely different for certain countries.

 

[GIMH]

All series should be 4 matches long, IMO, said so here

 

[Richard]

Meh. I think there's room for maneouvre - five (or six) in some cases, three in others. No less than three, ever. Unless you insist Bangladesh have to play, of course.

 

[GIMH]

Well, basically, I think that if people want Test Cricket to be preserved then something that can help it is if there is a more structure championship. To have this you need some form of equality in the series length. Team X playing shorter series than Team Y doesn't work.