Taking the pulse: how healthy is international cricket & where are we heading.

[kiwiviktor81]

Given that teams who are objectively less skilled have won test matches before, your point about cricket is also null and void.

Yes, by playing better over the course of the 5 days. You can play better in soccer and be more skilled and still lose. I saw New Zealand hold Italy to a draw in the 2010 World Cup and to say we were 10% as skilled would be a complement to the New Zealand players.

 

[91Jmay]

So you've never seen a team who is less skilled play worse and hold on for a draw in test cricket? I suggest you watch more test cricket.

 

[Boundary]

No it won't. we can have a bet. if there's still test matches in 2040 you have to change your avatar to the BCCI logo

Not LITERALLY die. It might still be played, in fact it probably will. But attendances are as bad as they've ever been. Quality is lower than I can ever remember it. Interest in test cricket is at an all time low. I think we're already seeing the results of that diminishing interest, and test cricket will be virtually dead in 25 years.

And I LOVE test cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

Not LITERALLY die. It might still be played, in fact it probably will. But attendances are as bad as they've ever been. Quality is lower than I can ever remember it. Interest in test cricket is at an all time low. I think we're already seeing the results of that diminishing interest, and test cricket will be virtually dead in 25 years.

And I LOVE test cricket.

this has been said since the invention of the Ashes tbh

test cricket will be fine

 

[vic_orthdox]

Equally when arguments about it complain about a crowd of 55,000 there on the first day of a Test against the West Indies, and then compare to the crowd there two years ago of 90,000 (it was an Ashes Test, Vaughany FFS) then there's a lot of Chicken Little about it.

 

[Groundking]

The problem with Cricket is that there are basically only 2 highly developed countries of any size who play the game (England and Australia), and the only other nation that is a economic plus to the game is India simply because of the fact there are 1.2bn of them and cricket is their no.1 sport. (Yes I know that New Zealand is highly developed, but a sub 5 million population isn't going to help much, when so much can and needs to be done) Then we have either middling income countries such as South Africa (who have suffered grievously thanks to 25 years of the current government there) to low income countries like Bangladesh, West Indies (not a country I know) and Sri Lanka. This is a recipe for disaster, which is why I'm amazed that the ICC have been so so poor in using T20 to expand the game.

What needs to happen is for a real push in both Ireland and Holland in developing cricket there a bit more, and making them test nations, as it wouldn't be like how it is with Bangladesh, as I think they could become a profitable ticket fairly quickly, as I would imagine England would give them a couple of tests every year, and I would like to think that they'd get random one of tests against teams coming over to play England. Ireland in particular would be no worse as a Test team than Bangladesh and West Indies. Then, as the revenue for cricket will have likely have grown, and the domination of the big 3 in terms of revenue reduced T20 needs to be used as a trojan horse to expand cricket into other nations, with USA and Canada being the main focus IMO. I think the Americans could get behind T20 in a big way, it's still a decent length of time for a day out, but not too long, it's fairly fast paced and has the oooh-aaah factor, but has plenty of commercial potential due to the structure of the game (which would make a genuine push in the region easier IMO as I would think it'd be fairly easy to get some decent sized sponsors behind the game). And to do this I'd do what FIFA does by trying to hold the world cup (in our case the T20 one) in nations where it's trying to expand the game once or twice ever 3 world cups, which not only helps with infrastructure, but is also massive publicity for the sport.

Also I could Imagine the Americans getting behind it quite heavily if they ever got a decent team together, as they love watching 'merica' win international stuff, that's why Football always gets big spikes of interest whenever the national team does anything. Cricket won't be healthy again until it starts aggressively expanding, and promoting the game in the non traditional countries.

 

[Redbacks]

Expansion of T20 is probably the best into new markets given it takes a long time to develop as a test nation.

If we had Sa/Aus/Ind/Wi/Pak/Nz/Eng/Sri as competitive away from home then the cycle of tours would be interesting for the fans. Potentially a World B league of 4 day matches for U25's + 3 over age, would be a good way to increase the standard of players stepping up to test level and knowing conditions around the world.

 

[Chrish]

The problem with Cricket is that there are basically only 2 highly developed countries of any size who play the game (England and Australia), and the only other nation that is a economic plus to the game is India simply because of the fact there are 1.2bn of them and cricket is their no.1 sport. (Yes I know that New Zealand is highly developed, but a sub 5 million population isn't going to help much, when so much can and needs to be done) Then we have either middling income countries such as South Africa (who have suffered grievously thanks to 25 years of the current government there) to low income countries like Bangladesh, West Indies (not a country I know) and Sri Lanka. This is a recipe for disaster, which is why I'm amazed that the ICC have been so so poor in using T20 to expand the game.

What needs to happen is for a real push in both Ireland and Holland in developing cricket there a bit more, and making them test nations, as it wouldn't be like how it is with Bangladesh, as I think they could become a profitable ticket fairly quickly, as I would imagine England would give them a couple of tests every year, and I would like to think that they'd get random one of tests against teams coming over to play England. Ireland in particular would be no worse as a Test team than Bangladesh and West Indies. Then, as the revenue for cricket will have likely have grown, and the domination of the big 3 in terms of revenue reduced T20 needs to be used as a trojan horse to expand cricket into other nations, with USA and Canada being the main focus IMO. I think the Americans could get behind T20 in a big way, it's still a decent length of time for a day out, but not too long, it's fairly fast paced and has the oooh-aaah factor, but has plenty of commercial potential due to the structure of the game (which would make a genuine push in the region easier IMO as I would think it'd be fairly easy to get some decent sized sponsors behind the game). And to do this I'd do what FIFA does by trying to hold the world cup (in our case the T20 one) in nations where it's trying to expand the game once or twice ever 3 world cups, which not only helps with infrastructure, but is also massive publicity for the sport.

Also I could Imagine the Americans getting behind it quite heavily if they ever got a decent team together, as they love watching 'merica' win international stuff, that's why Football always gets big spikes of interest whenever the national team does anything. Cricket won't be healthy again until it starts aggressively expanding, and promoting the game in the non traditional countries.

Americans have football, basketball, baseball on top of golf, ice hockey, tennis and nascar to keep themselves occupied..

Cricket has 0% chance of succeeding here.. NONE!

D/N cricket is the future and only realistic way of survival for test cricket

 

[longranger]

I think the doom and gloom for the future of Test cricket has been going on for a while and will probably continue to do so. I don't see the game dieing down in the medium term (never say never, especially for the long term) as most cricketers continue to regard Test cricket as the pinnacle of the sport. Test matches continue to be what fans remember from a tour, with even 5 match ODI / T20I series results often forgotten. There needs to be greater commercialization of Test matches, and I think this is where sponsors are missing a trick. I'm curious to know how much Investec had to pay for sponsoring the Ashes.

Similarly, a lot of other major Test series (Border-Gavaskar, Freedom Trophy, Pataudi / de Mello Trophy) can benefit from getting iconic sponsors who drum up the series more and know how to market it well. And I'd also think that a World Test Championship could be something exciting and could be held every 2 years before / after an ODI World Cup to ensure it fits within the schedule. The logistics of this are not easy and I have no idea as to what schedule / match-up would work out to the best.

W.r.t Test tiers, I'm not sure that would serve much purpose as a team that is relegated down to Tier II would definitely suffer in the near term and could be a potential death-knell, especially if it happens to a team like the West Indies. And I'm not sure how you can constitutionally ensure that India is 'un-relegatable' because lets be honest, India can never get relegated. Hell, the country is going to get richer and more powerful every year and the bullying will probably reach epic proportions.

I'm interested to know which team is actually looking likely to gain Test status in the future, and when would that be. While Ireland has been doing well for the last few years, I think Afghanistan has had a meteoric rise and could actually pip Ireland to that spot.

 

[Bahnz]

One thing I'd like to know, can any one point me to any reports showing declining television viewership for tests (and correspondingly declining tv revenues). People have been telling me for years that test cricket is dying, but as of yet I've seen zero hard evidence to back this up.

 

[Skyliner]

One thing I'd like to know, can any one point me to any reports showing declining television viewership for tests (and correspondingly declining tv revenues). People have been telling me for years that test cricket is dying, but as of yet I've seen zero hard evidence to back this up.

It's all based - the constant commentary that test cricket is dying - on crowd numbers at grounds, which must be truly insignificant compared to the vast numbers of people watching on TV. I also think the health of test cricket should be based on TV viewership rather than how many people are at any given match. It is often not practical for people to be at the ground for 6 hours+ per day, but it does not mean they are not following the game from the comfort of their own home, and paying for the privilege.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Success of cricket should be measured by number of posts in tour threads on CW imo