ICC could use 'timeless' Test for World Championship final

[Bun]

draw is a result which is part and parcel of the format that is cricket. some of the best matchea i've seen have ended in draws. that said, I wouldn.t mind an additional day.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yawn.

 

[GotSpin]

IMO if the test match exceeds 5 days the groundsman should just dig a small hole on a good length. Easy solution

 

[Athlai]

Haha wouldn't be surprised if the timeless Test was wrapped in 4 days. Would be pretty gun if that happened.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha yes, all the batsmen will be like I'll grind forever but it ends on the third afternoon cause there's something in it for the bowlers. Cue the massive tears though, and a crapload of blame to the curator if that happens.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Haha wouldn't be surprised if the timeless Test was wrapped in 4 days. Would be pretty gun if that happened.

Haha, yeah, my money is on this.

Can't see the reason for the hating on the timeless aspect. I'd love to see a Test where time isn't a factor. Atleast we know it won't be called off on account of the steamboat leaving

 

[GIMH]

Would a 'Timeless' test encourage overtly defensive batting and limit risk-taking, and thus expressive shot selection, as the knowledge that grinding out a large score isn't going to hinder the chances of a win.

Likewise deciding a game on 1st innings would encourage the same.


Going to be interesting how they solve that one without compromising the spectacle

What the **** are you doing in cricket chat?

 

[Anku31]

Timeless test is a good way to produce a winner in such an important & exciting match but it would lead to defensive play by the teams.I would rather go for a 6-day test.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm not even altogether sure about a "test championship" based on three one-off tests but a timeless test does seem a recipe for nap time. Without limited overs fielding restrictions or wides it doesn't take a genius to see what's going to happen once a team gets behind the eight-ball. I'd be quite comfortable with the team that "finished" higher in the rankings advancing in the case of a draw.

A possible compromise would be having a set number of overs to be bowled (450 should be plenty) and carrying on into a 6th or even 7th day until they are if the weather intervenes.

 

[benchmark00]

Michael Beer would really come into his own on a day 15 dustbowl.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Just play five days and if it is a draw bring back the bowl-off.

 

[benchmark00]

Swimsuit contest imo.

 

[weldone]

Haha love it! What's old is new again.

TV people will go mad but I think it's a good idea. I doubt it'll last more than six days as most as marcuss says - and having a clear winner at the end is a worthwhile pursuit for a Test championship. Having it determined by things like a first innings score is a ridiculous rule.

awta

If people ask me one thing about cricket that I didn't see in my life but will be very eager to experience as a spectator, it would be a timeless test match.

 

[Uppercut]

Just make the test 450 overs long and play for however long it takes to get through them.

Replay if it's a draw. Another test can never be a bad thing.

 

[benchmark00]

Just make the test 450 overs long and play for however long it takes to get through them.

Replay if it's a draw. Another test can never be a bad thing.

No ****...

A possible compromise would be having a set number of overs to be bowled (450 should be plenty) and carrying on into a 6th or even 7th day until they are if the weather intervenes.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not even altogether sure about a "test championship" based on three one-off tests but a timeless test does seem a recipe for nap time. Without limited overs fielding restrictions or wides it doesn't take a genius to see what's going to happen once a team gets behind the eight-ball. I'd be quite comfortable with the team that "finished" higher in the rankings advancing in the case of a draw.

The problem with that is that there'll always be one team that'll take a draw, and that doesn't generally make for the best cricket. Not sure how you'd get round it though, unless you could just have a replay.

 

[Howe_zat]

Thought about this and I don't think it's a good idea. Not because I think it would be boring - I think most batsmen would just score at a rate they're comfortable with and we might see more aggression from the fielding side anyway.

I agree with Burgey on this though. Why have a championship to decide which side is the best in the five-day game, then have a final in a different format? Some logic lacking there.

Secondly, a draw is just a feature of Test cricket. The time limit can keep things interesting right up to the end, when a timeless Test is much more likely to just have one side get ahead and then we're all just waiting for an inevitable win.

Plus, I love the "last stand" part of cricket where one team's batting to save a draw. There's something gladiatorial about it. Imagine how good a finish we'd have if the team needing to draw to win the championship were desperately clinging on like that?

And how good is it to have "all three results still possible" going into the final hours?

It's easy to say which side wins if it's a draw anyway. Use the rankings, use the last result, most wins in the championship, whatever. This is also done all the time, it's only like being one match up in a series.

One thing I have argued in the past is for an extra day to be organised if we lose too much time to the elements. I'm still in favour of that.

 

[Daemon]

Play 3 tests, one home, one away and the last one neutral. In the event of a draw use the rankings. Never gonna happen but would be the best thing ever and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a month's worth of IPL.

Cap of 450 overs no matter what sounds alright but may cause captains to get through overs slowly so that they can use an older wicket to their advantage.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would a 'Timeless' test encourage overtly defensive batting and limit risk-taking, and thus expressive shot selection, as the knowledge that grinding out a large score isn't going to hinder the chances of a win.

I honestly don't really think it would, because a lot of players, especially in today's game, would score a lot more runs overall playing their natural games and taking calculated risks. When people think of a timeless Test they think of a dead wicket and part-time off spinners, but it doesn't really have to be that way - it'll be 1 v 2 which means there will be at least one world class bowler on each side; it's not going to be easy to bat forever.

I think the much bigger risk would be of a team gaining a basically impossible lead and not declaring (what's the point?), creating an entirely pointless and boring period of play. I don't necessarily think it'd be a batfest or promote defensive batting, but one team could well dominate the early proceedings and then bat on well past the realistic need to.

I'd just make it a six day game, personally, and if it actually was a draw after that I'd just call it a draw and try to arrange and re-match.

 

[Athlai]

We can't allow this for happen, Cook and Trott racking up 900 against India after Zaheer injures himself in the lead up to the match would no doubt drive thousands to suicide, ending Test cricket for all.