Does anyone get the awful feeling cricket is a dying sport?

[Pratters]

there is 0 evidence of this with the possible exception of WI

A lot of the talent would try to play cricket differently now at lower levels. So test cricket automatically becomes weaker because of this. One can counter argue that more talent would be drawn to the game as T20 makes it a lucrative prospect.

We had a case of the game actually becoming better with the ODI cricket boom in the 90s as it stopped the stagnation and draws. T20 brings so much money now which brings in so much disparity with the longest format, I worry for the health of test cricket right now. For me, the health of the game is directly related with the health of the first class structure. Here again, T20 is making the game at large more sustainable as money comes in. A bit like box office films sustaining the finances of art house films at times. However, I do not see the will of the authorities to channel this too much towards the good of first class cricket or test cricket at large.

 

[Spark]

<words>

so... do you actually have any evidence of any of this?

 

[sledger]

so... do you actually have any evidence of any of this?

If I were a betting man, I'd put the majority of my money on "probably not", and the remainder of it on "no".

 

[Bahnz]

It is. Test cricket in particular. Except India, England and Australia, the talent stock becomes weak in other countries as players are sucked into T20. Maybe not SA. I wish we get day night test cricket soon. The balance between the two versions is just too skewed.

Um yeah, nah:

Australia - very strong test team
South Africa - arguably have their strongest ever team
India - improving on tour and very strong at home
NZ - arguably have their strongest ever team
WI - just showed their competitiveness even while missing players to the IPL
Pakistan - always producing fantastically talented cricketers
Bangladesh - increasingly able to hold their own on home soil
England - providing exceptional comic relief

I reckon test cricket is better and more competitive than it has been in decades. Though that may just be me enjoying the fact that NZ aren't completely **** for a change.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Um yeah, nah:

Australia - very strong test team
South Africa - arguably have their strongest ever team
India - improving on tour and very strong at home
NZ - arguably have their strongest ever team
WI - just showed their competitiveness even while missing players to the IPL
Pakistan - always producing fantastically talented cricketers
Bangladesh - increasingly able to hold their own on home soil
England - providing exceptional comic relief

I reckon test cricket is better and more competitive than it has been in decades. Though that may just be me enjoying the fact that NZ aren't completely **** for a change.

The little Sri Lankans aren't that bad either!

 

[Howe_zat]

Test cricket is dead. It died in the 20s and 30s when timeless tests on hard Australian pitches were making the game slow and everyone stopped watching, it died in the 1960s when one-day cricket killed it off completely. It died again in the 1970s when WSC made it obsolete. It died again when the fixing scandal broke in the 1990s, and when T20 came along twelve ****ing years ago it quite definitively killed Test cricket for good.

Obviously the organisers didn't get the memo as they continue to schedule these 'cricket' matches, whatever they are, because I've obviously never ****ing seen one because test cricket is so ****ing dead

 

[NasserFan207]

I think cricket's popularity is about where I'd expect it to be at (outside of the subcontinent, where it has no competition). Its an often slow paced sport which requires heavy investment to get into. I feel like its popularity lowered as other sports took center stage and now its where it should be in that scale.

Cricket will never die, test matches might.

 

[Bahnz]

You go back and look at footage of test matches in England and Australia in the 80's and 90's, and besides the big series (the Ashes, WI tours, etc), there's ****ing nobody there. I really don't think attendances at test cricket have changed much at all in the last 30 years. Different story for ODI's, but that's primarily due to T20's cannibalising the casual audience.

 

[Antihippy]

Like Refused, it is never truly ****ing dead.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You go back and look at footage of test matches in England and Australia in the 80's and 90's, and besides the big series (the Ashes, WI tours, etc), there's ****ing nobody there. I really don't think attendances at test cricket have changed much at all in the last 30 years. Different story for ODI's, but that's primarily due to T20's cannibalising the casual audience.

India definitely had bigger crowds... can't speak for the others.

 

[NasserFan207]

You go back and look at footage of test matches in England and Australia in the 80's and 90's, and besides the big series (the Ashes, WI tours, etc), there's ****ing nobody there. I really don't think attendances at test cricket have changed much at all in the last 30 years. Different story for ODI's, but that's primarily due to T20's cannibalising the casual audience.

Agree to an extent. Only real difference is WI, used to have massive crowds over there. Also subcontinent only cares about limited overs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Agree to an extent. Only real difference is WI, used to have massive crowds over there. Also subcontinent only cares about limited overs.

India's crowds for tests in the 90s were most definitely far bigger.

 

[Bahnz]

Agree to an extent. Only real difference is WI, used to have massive crowds over there. Also subcontinent only cares about limited overs.

Yeah, WI has definitely seen a massive decline in attendances - though that's obviously due to the decline in fortunes of WI cricket rather than a more general malaise in the sport. If Wi could start winning test matches more often than once every 2 or 3 years, then I reckon people would start coming back.

There probably has been a decline in attendances at tests in India - though crowds are still generally pretty good there (at least on the basis of what I've seen on NZ's recent tours there). As for Pakistan and Sri Lanka - nobody ever turned up to tests there anyway - it was always about ODI's, and now as you say it's all about T20.

 

[Bahnz]

India's crowds for tests in the 90s were most definitely far bigger.

The situation is probably exacerbated by the fact that the one test series that would definitely sell-out (India v Pakistan) can't happen at the moment.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The situation is probably exacerbated by the fact that the one test series that would definitely sell-out (India v Pakistan) can't happen at the moment.

We didn't have a single India vs Pak series for more than a decade (ie) between 1987 and 1999. Yet, IIRC attendances were still better than they are now.

 

[Dan]

Yeah but you had Tendulkar ffs.

 

[CricAddict]

If I think that Cricket Inc is a company with 3 subdivisions Tests, ODI and T20, I would like to believe that the company is not dying but is stagnating with no major growth apart from existing regions. The new division T20 has added more revenue from existing regions and has garnered a niche segment as well but outside of it, there has been less to zilch investment to expand the company to other regions.

The sports market is mature and highly competitive. If other sports make inroads into existing regions of the company, like it has happened in West Indies, the company's growth is a serious concern. The mature divisions Tests and ODIs need to look at creating more differentiators to expand more, in existing as well as new regions.

 

[Antihippy]

We sold out the entire MCG during one day of the ashes.

Not dead in australia at least. But I actually do think cricket australia is being really smart about investing in growing cricket at the grassroots.

 

[Hooksey]

Obviously the continuing challenge those running cricket face is to keep coming up with game formats the current generation are willing to pay to witness.

20/20 gave cricket a shot in the arm when it badly needed one, but to my way of thinking isn't the ideal long term solution for the shortest form of the game.

Have always thought the best short form duration was somewhere less than 50 overs (and of course we already have that in place), but more than 20 overs. I think a 30 overs per side concept would work well and probably offer the public and television more than either of the existing formats currently offer them.

 

[Furball]

Um yeah, nah:

Australia - very strong test team
South Africa - arguably have their strongest ever team
India - improving on tour and very strong at home
NZ - arguably have their strongest ever team
WI - just showed their competitiveness even while missing players to the IPL
Pakistan - always producing fantastically talented cricketers
Bangladesh - increasingly able to hold their own on home soil
England - providing exceptional comic relief

I reckon test cricket is better and more competitive than it has been in decades. Though that may just be me enjoying the fact that NZ aren't completely **** for a change.

South Africa's team is definitely weaker now than it was 2-3 years ago.