Yeah if you schedule reserve days for rain etc then you might as well just schedule the fifth day properly. I don't see any scheduling advantages if you're going to schedule a reserve day anyway.
---
More generally:
I remember when "optional" four day Tests were approved, and I mentioned that I was fine with top teams deciding to play four-day Tests against Ireland, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and even in some cases Bangladesh/SL/WI at home where the result of a five day game seemed fairly obvious as it'd allow them to get more Tests in, but that I was deeply concerned about the slippery slope to four day Tests between (for example) New Zealand and Pakistan. And here we are.
As someone who watches a lot of domestic cricket where red/pink ball cricket is only four days long, the gap between how much I like it vs one day domestic cricket is significantly smaller than the gap between how much I like Tests v ODIs. In a world of four day Tests (other than in likely mismatches, which I support it for), the following is true:
- Over rates actually kind of matter, and aren't just the lame bugbear of cricket's worst commentators
- Declaration cricket (ie. the worst type of cricket) is a staple of most games
- Contrived agreed targets (ie. so bad I don't even consider them cricket) become a thing
- Declaring and then losing is absolutely a thing, the worst type of cricket result
- Attacking batting is more valuable, but not quite by as much as people might initially think, making people like Warne even more insufferable
It pretty much exemplifies all the things I don't like about Test cricket. I like four day cricket more than 50 over cricket but the margin is only significant for me if it's played on more sporting pitches, and I don't really see that happening with four day Tests.
I actually don't care at all if there will be more draws. More draws instead of games that were largely decided by tea on Day 3 might be a good thing. I really just oppose what will happen to try and make sure there
aren't more draws.
