4 Day Tests

[harsh.ag]

That makes them more exciting to watch, no? Something to play for instead of waiting for the inevitable.

Sure, but you also get more draws. If the data they are going to go on is "how many tests already has teams winning in 4 days", they might be surprised to find that number won't hold up post the change.

 

[slippy888]

Kholi said test cricket is the number 1 cricket format, so why you need to change a historic format our fathers made.

 

[slippy888]

I think England are pulling for this they lack the focus to play 5 days tough cricket these days.

 

[honestbharani]

Wow.. this thread has moved..

First of all, I think they are talking about adding 30 mins per day to make it 98 overs. To me they can well make it 100 overs a day coz us cricket fans do like our 100s. I think the biggest drawback is the lack of 5 days of sun beating down on a track making it spinner friendly just on the last day or last couple of sessions alone. Spinners are already taken out of the game a fair bit in ODIs and in T20s the role has constantly evolved anyways, but this might be a killer blow for the art of spin bowling.

Other tha that, I do see some upside to this suggestion. I have long thought they can do sessions like this for d/n tests:

2-4:30 - session 1
4:45 - 6:45 - session 2 (Everyone hates the twilight period)
7:30-10 - session 3

That gives teams about 7 hours to bowl 100 overs a day. Maybe make it 105 so that we continue with the 15 overs an hour calculation. ODIs are supposed to last 7 hours too, so I don't see it as an unreasonable ask of cricketers to play 7 instead of 6 hours in a day. This would gives 400-410 overs of game time and make d/n tests unique.

The other option is to play test cricket in tiers. Top 6 compete for the WTC and play 5 day tests of 3 matches against each other over a 3 year period. Other 6 can arrange series against each other as well as against the top 6 of 4 day tests.

 

[Red]

Newsflash: Bradman was a freak of nature

Newsflash: Warner has a significantly higher SR than the Don did.

 

[Burgey]

How about the team batting first scoring 500 in 4-5 sessions and then the team batting second bats the rest of the test match seeing no hope of a result. 300 is still possible in this case.

That’ll be so good for the game. Not.

Terrible idea, this. less time for pitches to wear, Also takes away an attritional aspect of the game.

Good news is there will be less need for finger spinners at least. So that’s one good thing.

 

[Burgey]

Kholi said test cricket is the number 1 cricket format, so why you need to change a historic format our fathers made.

Oh well, if Virat said it then it must be true.

 

[Burgey]

if anyone comes in here to say "it's a test because it's 5 days!" I will straight up murder you. The use of "test cricket" has literally nothing to do with the days in the test, which has been 3, 4, 5, 6 & timeless through it's history, so try some other stupid point

It’s a test because it’s five days.

Come at me, bro.

 

[mr_mister]

Newsflash: Warner has a significantly higher SR than the Don did.

Breaking Newsflash: Warner's never scored 300 runs in a day

 

[NotMcKenzie]

For anyone citing the former playing of 3 day tests IIRC, I remember 3-day tests being criticised in Wisden in 1926 (vs. Aus) and 1935 (vs. SA) for obvious reasons. In both series, only a single test produced a result: in 1926, it was the final, timeless test; in 1935, the Lord's pitch turned from very early on. Newsreels also carried criticism of the 3-day rule in 1935 as well.

Also, five-day tests being a compromise between timeless and three-day tests is not true. Aus-Eng tests in England were four days in 1930, 34 and 38 (though in the first, the series was decided at final timeless test, 38 was drawn). Other countries got three days. Post-war, 47 vs. S. Africa had 4 days, 48 vs. Aus had 5 days, and 49 against NZ 3 days, with all tests being drawn; a clear pattern of fewer days for weaker teams, and keep in mind over rates were probably much higher at least before WWII. From 1950 onwards, all tests were 5 days long in England. In Aus, tests were timeless before WWII (ignoring pre-WWI), and 6 days straight away after it (though with 5 hour days) until the late 60s (I think). Other places may have varied again, but there was a pattern of the shorter tests being scheduled against NZ weaker sides, and longer ones between sides consider more even.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Kholi said test cricket is the number 1 cricket format, so why you need to change a historic format our fathers made.

My dad called me just before and said it sucks now, that's why.

 

[Spikey]

It’s a test because it’s five days.

Come at me, bro.

gonna come to balmain and kick your arse

 

[Spikey]

Also, five-day tests being a compromise between timeless and three-day tests is not true. Aus-Eng tests in England were four days in 1930, 34 and 38 (though in the first, the series was decided at final timeless test, 38 was drawn). Other countries got three days. Post-war, 47 vs. S. Africa had 4 days, 48 vs. Aus had 5 days, and 49 against NZ 3 days, with all tests being drawn; a clear pattern of fewer days for weaker teams, and keep in mind over rates were probably much higher at least before WWII. From 1950 onwards, all tests were 5 days long in England. In Aus, tests were timeless before WWII (ignoring pre-WWI), and 6 days straight away after it (though with 5 hour days) until the late 60s (I think). Other places may have varied again, but there was a pattern of the shorter tests being scheduled against NZ weaker sides, and longer ones between sides consider more even.

I mean, you had one extreme that was well set in 3 days, and the other extreme that was well set in timeless. over time they met in the middle; as you say, 3 days ashes tests became 4 day ashes, with the last test timeless if the series wasn't decided, but other tests in England remained 3 days. clearly that's compromise between the two boards. the 46-47 ashes in australia became 6 days after timeless got binned. clearly that's compromise, staying on Australia's side of the stance rather than England's. then the 48 Ashes in England met in the middle at 5 days. it's clear what the pattern is. there just doesn't seem to be any real reason why we have 5 days, it's just what we ended up on as we sought to to balance competitive issues as well as logistical issues. it's not some sacred thing.

 

[Spikey]

That’ll be so good for the game. Not.

Terrible idea, this. less time for pitches to wear, Also takes away an attritional aspect of the game.

Good news is there will be less need for finger spinners at least. So that’s one good thing.

finger spinners would probably be used more to get through overs imo.

is pitch deterioration really much of a thing nowadays anyway. obviously the mcg and Lord's typically barely deteriorate

 

[Red]

Breaking Newsflash: Warner's never scored 300 runs in a day

You argued that 4 day tests might mean the end of 300+ scores. It was pointed out to you that it's been done before in 4 day games. Warner has a higher career SR than Bradman.

Warner scored his 335 at a SR of 80. Which is a higher SR than either of Bradman's 300+ scores, and all bar one of his 200+ scores.

Someone (like Warner) opening the batting on day 1, facing half the balls, scoring at a SR of 80, would score their 300 in approx 375 balls (62 overs). Which means they'd bring up their 300 somewhere around 120 overs. That's in the first half of the second day of cricket.

So Warner having or not having scored 300 runs in a day has nothing to do with whether or not we'll see 300+ scores again and I am confused as to why you'd even argue that. Surely in a 4 day test the team batting first would bat at least a day and a half, if not two days, scoring 500-600 and leaving all the pressure on the team batting second?

 

[mr_mister]

Firstly Warner doesn't bat like that anymore. Secondly those historical 300s in 4 day tests won't happen again because teams would rather lose than draw now because of #intent

A Bradman 334 style knock withstanding, I can't see it being done again

 

[Red]

Firstly Warner doesn't bat like that anymore. Secondly those historical 300s in 4 day tests won't happen again because teams would rather lose than draw now because of #intent

A Bradman 334 style knock withstanding, I can't see it being done again

What do you mean "Warner doesn't bat like that anymore"?

His 335 at a SR of 80 was a month ago....

 

[mr_mister]

Against kids

In the past few seasons he's batted far more traditionally then his early days

 

[Red]

Against kids

In the past few seasons he's batted far more traditionally then his early days

Sorry, I'm really confused. Are you saying the Pakistan team were kids and therefore Warner's score doesn't count? What point are you making?

Regardless of whether they're kids or whether he's batted "more traditionally" in the past few seasons, a month ago he scored a test 300 at a SR of 80.

 

[mr_mister]

Sorry, I'm really confused. Are you saying the Pakistan team were kids and therefore Warner's score doesn't count? What point are you making?

Regardless of whether they're kids or whether he's batted "more traditionally" in the past few seasons, a month ago he scored a test 300 at a SR of 80.

I can't be bothered.