Future Tour Program

[Flem274*]

The fairest way to go about it would be to force everyone to play say, at least 9 tests and no more than 12 tests per year, and you can't play the same team in the same country again for x amount of time after the previous series.

 

[BC_fan_abored]

The NZ-England series last year and the time before that was a perfect example of how a series should be run. An uneven amount of tests that takes place both home and away, but instead of being two separate series as it was, it should have been one large series. In fact it could be 2 tests in each country given how often draws are played out. I once read a very spirited defense of the 4 test series on this site where it was stated with some persuasive arguments that 4 tests was the ideal amount. This format seems to work well with football(soccer) so I see no reason why it can't work with cricket. If the series is drawn after the two sets of two have been played you can decide the winner on away victories. Or alternatively and a bit out of the box, a timeless test.

 

[Furball]

SL have won tests away in SA and in UAE vs Pak. Would like to see England do that

I've seen England win series in South Africa (unbeaten in 13 years), Australia and India. I'll wager now that I'll never see Sri Lanka do that.

 

[Furball]

Indeed, but the main thing that really riles me up is that last time SL toured it would have been a nil all draw from three if they hadn't ****ed up so bad in the second dig at Cardiff, while on the other hand India lost 4 nil, however in saying that I would back India over SL in English conditions atm

It would have been 3-0 against Sri Lanka if it hadn't rained so ****ing much.

 

[hendrix]

The NZ-England series last year and the time before that was a perfect example of how a series should be run. An uneven amount of tests that takes place both home and away, but instead of being two separate series as it was, it should have been one large series. In fact it could be 2 tests in each country given how often draws are played out. I once read a very spirited defense of the 4 test series on this site where it was stated with some persuasive arguments that 4 tests was the ideal amount. This format seems to work well with football(soccer) so I see no reason why it can't work with cricket. If the series is drawn after the two sets of two have been played you can decide the winner on away victories. Or alternatively and a bit out of the box, a timeless test.

Or just have a draw series...

 

[straw man]

I like four-test series too, especially if you're playing in a country where draws are quite likely due to weather or flat pitches. And particularly if it looks like it should be a close series. Think the last of those NZ played was 1999 in England.

 

[Muloghonto]

Scrap the FTP. Promote BBL/IPL etc. Thats the way forward for cricket.

 

[theegyptian]

Scrap the FTP. Promote BBL/IPL etc. Thats the way forward for cricket.

Unfortunately it is true that T20 superleagues will be the future and whilst for those of us who cherish and have loved test cricket it will be sad, cricket as a game will almost certainly get bigger as a result imo. You'll just have 4 or 5 massive domestic T20 leagues across the world + a couple of international tournaments. It will be extremely marketable and profitable and will do a better job of promoting the game than test cricket ever has. Countries like America with it's big population and growing indian immigrant population and some eastern asian countries will pick up on the excitement and profitability of T20 cricket - and it will gradually become the world game that cricket never really has been.

England, Australia and maybe India will struggle on playing some tests for a time but even they may fail with players sole attention being on T20 and possibly the longer format of 50(or 40 over cricket)

It seems sad for traditionalists but test cricket as a product isn't sustainable. T20 cricket definitely could be. Maybe once cricket has fully globalised, test cricket will have some kind of renaissance but that is a long way in the future.

 

[Muloghonto]

Unfortunately it is true that T20 superleagues will be the future and whilst for those of us who cherish and have loved test cricket it will be sad, cricket as a game will almost certainly get bigger as a result imo. You'll just have 4 or 5 massive domestic T20 leagues across the world + a couple of international tournaments. It will be extremely marketable and profitable and will do a better job of promoting the game than test cricket ever has. Countries like America with it's big population and growing indian immigrant population and some eastern asian countries will pick up on the excitement and profitability of T20 cricket - and it will gradually become the world game that cricket never really has been.

England, Australia and maybe India will struggle on playing some tests for a time but even they may fail with players sole attention being on T20 and possibly the longer format of 50(or 40 over cricket)

It seems sad for traditionalists but test cricket as a product isn't sustainable. T20 cricket definitely could be. Maybe once cricket has fully globalised, test cricket will have some kind of renaissance but that is a long way in the future.

I agree completely. The franchise model will also go beyond national talent pools and give cricket a genuine viability in fringe 'associate' nations. I have considered playing cricket for Canada before. I didn't. Because cricket in Canada does not pay nearly enough- it pays less than being a manager at McDonalds. But if the prime format of cricket was stuff like IPL, i would've been a lot more motivated to try and spend time on cricket and score the million dollar contract. This is no different than the legions of African or South American kids playing soccer with the exclusive goal to play for top franchises in Europe.

Test cricket, like 'international friendlies' in Soccer or 'world championships' in hockey can exist as a sideshow to honor the 'roots of the game' but at the moment, cricket is a stagnant pool of talent and appeal due to the national model of it. And whats the most annoying thing is that 90% of cricket fans are jingoistic idiots- it is understandable because it is always 'india vs Pakistan' or 'england vs australia', not brisbane vs london or Kolkata vs Durban being the primary basis of fandom.
cricketing opinions are so hard to take seriously and i consider them to be the most ******** opinion pool in sports because it gets colored with nationalism so much.

 

[Mike5181]

Scrap the FTP. Promote BBL/IPL etc. Thats the way forward for cricket.

T20 isn't cricket.

 

[Muloghonto]

T20 isn't cricket.

It is the financial basis of cricket today and a professional sport is always defined by what makes it financially viable. On the basis of that,I'd contend that 20/20 is more cricket than test cricket, even if test cricket requires more variety and finely honed skills.
Human beings give their best professional performance at the most financially lucrative one. That is what 20/20 cricket is.

 

[Flem274*]

What's all this **** about test cricket dying? Lately it's been ridiculously unpredictable since the turn of the decade across all teams, and have you not seen the crowds? Even WI v NZ got crowds at the Basin large for it's size.

 

[Adders]

Unfortunately it is true that T20 superleagues will be the future and whilst for those of us who cherish and have loved test cricket it will be sad, cricket as a game will almost certainly get bigger as a result imo. You'll just have 4 or 5 massive domestic T20 leagues across the world + a couple of international tournaments. It will be extremely marketable and profitable and will do a better job of promoting the game than test cricket ever has. Countries like America with it's big population and growing indian immigrant population and some eastern asian countries will pick up on the excitement and profitability of T20 cricket - and it will gradually become the world game that cricket never really has been.

I hope with every ounce of my being that you and Muloghonto are very wrong.

With the future the two of you are predicting then maybe T20 cricket will become a more global game and will attract new followers..........but they will lose their existing ones for sure. Not sure it is a good business model to discard your existing client base and try and start from scratch.

The other thing is surely the players in great demand for T20 across the globe are only in demand for reputations and success obtained in the longer formats?? I do not believe that T20 cricket can or will survive on it's own, it might be where the Dollars are at this point in time but it is standing on the foundations of Tests and One dayers.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Most casual cricket fans i know prefer test cricket. It's just not reflected in the crowds or ratings, because who the **** can get 3 days of work every time there's a test match.

 

[Muloghonto]

I hope with every ounce of my being that you and Muloghonto are very wrong.

With the future the two of you are predicting then maybe T20 cricket will become a more global game and will attract new followers..........but they will lose their existing ones for sure. Not sure it is a good business model to discard your existing client base and try and start from scratch.

The other thing is surely the players in great demand for T20 across the globe are only in demand for reputations and success obtained in the longer formats?? I do not believe that T20 cricket can or will survive on it's own, it might be where the Dollars are at this point in time but it is standing on the foundations of Tests and One dayers.

They wont be starting from scratch because 90% of the client base of cricket are Indians/subcontinentals and they are pretty open to following 20/20 cricket.
So even with 20/20 being most of the calendar, cricket will keep the majority of their fanbase. They will lose out some of the English/Aussie/Kiwi fanbase but over time, they will recover the fanbase significantly. Not to mention, 20/20 would make it exponentially easier to break into new markets, thus leading to a much better growth potential.

The idea that players in great demand for 20/20 are doing so on the basis of their reputation in the longer format is flawed: Gayle, Dwayne Bravo, Sunil Narine, Glenn Maxwell all command top 20/20 dollars but are mediocre or total busts at test level so far.

And to whatever extent the 20/20 reputation takes test/fc/ODI reputations into consideration is only due to the fact that 20/20 is in its infancy still. A decade from now, 20/20 would not need to care at all about the reputation of a test player- if tests still exist a decade from now that is.

 

[silentstriker]

Most casual cricket fans i know prefer test cricket. It's just not reflected in the crowds or ratings, because who the **** can get 3 days of work every time there's a test match.

Well if there's no crowds or ratings, what's the point? Statsguru?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Well if there's no crowds or ratings, what's the point? Statsguru?

The point is that test cricket is a lot more popular that what you would think based on a look at crowds, at least here in NZ. How much that popularity translates into dollars normally depends on how well the Blackcaps are doing at the time. I would imagine that if we competed against India and start to climb the rankings a bit, then a lot more people would make an effort to get along to games.

 

[silentstriker]

The point is that test cricket is a lot more popular that what you would think based on a look at crowds, at least here in NZ. How much that popularity translates into dollars normally depends on how well the Blackcaps are doing at the time. I would imagine that if we competed against India and start to climb the rankings a bit, then a lot more people would make an effort to get along to games.

Maybe. But the only way to judge popularity of a sport is by crowds and ratings. If people aren't willing to show up or watch, does it deserve to exist and be subsidized by people who are more interested in other formats. Those of us on the forum are in a bubble in some ways, our thoughts and opinions about formats don't really represent most fans.

 

[Spark]

It is the financial basis of cricket today and a professional sport is always defined by what makes it financially viable. On the basis of that,I'd contend that 20/20 is more cricket than test cricket, even if test cricket requires more variety and finely honed skills.
Human beings give their best professional performance at the most financially lucrative one. That is what 20/20 cricket is.

Look if you want to make money then go find a hedge fund manager. Cricket is defined on its own terms, not through making money. 20/20 is important support for Test cricket in terms of finance and attracting young audiences, sure, but Tests are what cricket are.

 

[cricketrulez]

Cricket is defined on its own terms, not through making money.

If so, why is this such a big deal? After all its not like cricket equipment costs a lot of money. Cricket was played in places like india, pak and SL even when infrastructure wasn't that great and those days are fondly remembered. Granted, salaries for players from the smaller boards will be considerably less compared to Ind, Aus and Eng. But as you said cricket is not defined by making money, right?