Safeguarding Test Cricket's Future

[cnerd123]

Yea if we do a Tier system I'd like to see new nations brought it. Preferably those with some sort of domestic structure in place, like Ireland and Afghanistan.

However, before we even get to that, we have bigger issues to address. The BCCI's massive influence on how cricket is run is not a good thing. Zimbabwe's administrators have destroyed the sport in their country and have leeched money off the ICC in the process. The Chucking laws and testing methodology is still not 100% sound. The WICB is in a shambles. The fixing and corruption issues with the IPL need to be sorted out (not a direct influence on Test cricket, but still something we should address ASAP). And we still need to figure out how to make Day/Night tests work.

 

[Boundary]

Yes, I think cricket's administrations leave a lot to be desired. The BCCI have huge influence, and as long as that remains the case I think it will be very difficult to push the revival of test cricket higher up the agenda. I personally think a tiered system would be the best way forward, with a top tier of 8 teams. In order to identify with more people, test cricket needs to have a meaningful competition. I don't think most of the series do that. The Ashes do, India-Pakistan does, how many more do outside of the hardcore?

 

[swede]

Dont agree With shortening the length of test matches. Dont see any reason for it, and besides, teams are scoring faster than ever now.

England can keep day test matches but i really think day night matches are the way of the future. Isnt the whole point to make the sport as accesible as possible to everyone? Not sure if 11am on a tuesday morning really covers that.

scoring rates by themselves dont tell the Whole story. The problem is that batsmen control the game too much. They can crawl for a long time on all those flat pitches and then accelerate wildly when it suits them. It may add up to a good rate on average but its not great cricket in my opinion.

To me it seems so obvious. Make the pitches bowler-friendly and the crowds will come back. The obvious example is the 2005 ashes. two fantastic attacks made it such a great series and the level of interest in England. is hard to believe today. A lot of the statistics from the series was similar to pre-ww1 cricket when crowds were great.

-it was essentially old style 3-day cricket. No match lasted more than some 360 overs. meaning 4 days play in modern times, 3 days historically
- it was almost certainly the shortes 5-test series ever ( in overs) and possibly also the best. a coincidence?
- batsmen were never safe, Thus couldnt just block all day long because sooner or later they would be out, leading to a natural high scoring rate.
- barely any centuries in an entire 5-match series.

but I doubt it will happen again. For whatever reason the powers that be just dont want this. Crowds have declined considerably in England and its hardly surprising. The kind of cricket being played is not going to appeal to many people. The ususal nonsens excuses of people not having the time or patience etc will of course be repeated but the truth is that its the conditions that are killing the game. Trent bridge was an absolute farce last year but other dust bowls were only slightly better. Most test days were played in half empty grounds. In 2005 there were police warnings on the radio for ticketless fans to stay away from the grounds.
.

 

[fredfertang]

The ECB can be prats, no doubt about that, but the suggestion they wouldn't want to replicate 2005 is simply ridiculous

 

[swede]

I agree very much with Gotspin- as a starting point, day-night Tests commencing on Thursdays and Fridays is a no-brainer

AFL and NRL and other major sports don't play their marque events weekdays in daylight

I doubt it. Even if it works it will hardly be more than a marginal change. On thursdays and fridays you would get 4 hours play after work in stead of 2 and by sunday evening many matches would be either finished or effectively finished. its Little more than 10 percent extra play outside normal working hours. For night tests to work I think the days have to be shorter including getting rid of lunch.

two sessions of 40 overs only with a tea break for an 80-over day would allow perhaps a 5 pm start. 400 overs is enough for good cricket.

 

[swede]

The ECB can be prats, no doubt about that, but the suggestion they wouldn't want to replicate 2005 is simply ridiculous

then why do they prepare ever more dust bowls?

 

[marc71178]

two sessions of 40 overs only with a tea break for an 80-over day would allow perhaps a 5 pm start. 400 overs is enough for good cricket.

Ignoring the practicalities like not all counties being suited to cricket at night and there not being a ball good enough to be used for FC cricket at night, reducing the overs people pay for would not bring the punters back and 80 overs starting at 5 would finish sometime after 11 so you rule out a lot of people from attending.

 

[Jono]

Two-tiered system is insane due to the instability in the rankings. India were thrashed 8-0 not too long ago and then thrashed Australia 4-0 at home and will now be thrashed away again after the drubbin in England while Australia were given one of the most comprehensive whitewashes of all-time in UAE while being close to the top. It'll be **** if a 'top' tier team can't compete with a lower tier team away let alone beat them and that is even without considering results like SL's win in England and NZ's draw in UAE.

There's just far too much randomness in cricket right now to justify a tier system.

Indeed. I don't know why it keeps getting mentioned. It makes little sense financially and in terms of equity too.

 

[Jono]

I doubt it. Even if it works it will hardly be more than a marginal change. On thursdays and fridays you would get 4 hours play after work in stead of 2 and by sunday evening many matches would be either finished or effectively finished. its Little more than 10 percent extra play outside normal working hours. For night tests to work I think the days have to be shorter including getting rid of lunch.

two sessions of 40 overs only with a tea break for an 80-over day would allow perhaps a 5 pm start. 400 overs is enough for good cricket.

What? We do not get 2 hours of play in after work right now, even if you somehow made it to the ground 10 mins after leaving work at 5pm, which many people do not do in any case.

 

[Prince EWS]

Two-tiered system is insane due to the instability in the rankings. India were thrashed 8-0 not too long ago and then thrashed Australia 4-0 at home and will now be thrashed away again after the drubbin in England while Australia were given one of the most comprehensive whitewashes of all-time in UAE while being close to the top. It'll be **** if a 'top' tier team can't compete with a lower tier team away let alone beat them and that is even without considering results like SL's win in England and NZ's draw in UAE.

There's just far too much randomness in cricket right now to justify a tier system.

That's assuming a two tier system would be split somewhere in the middle of the top eight though. What if there were nine teams in the top tier?

 

[Jono]

Yeah but the general "revolutionary" tier suggestions involve the major 8 being separated. I don't think Teja has any issue with a second tier of Bang/Zim and good associates existing. Isn't a financial problem either.

 

[Niall]

Two tier cricket is silliness. Why on earth would the West Indies and the lesser lights bother if they could not play the big sides and make moolah?

 

[fredfertang]

I presume that it is for financial reasons that countries Afghanistan, Ireland and the Netherlands don't play series of matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In my opinion they should be encouraged to do so, and that need not involve stripping Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of their status - they can stay exactly as they are, and I'm sure the big three can spare a few shekels to make it happen