Test Championship Postponed (read Scrapped)

[ankitj]

Can't say I am particularly disappointed. Bilateral test series are still frequent and generate a lot of interest.

 

[Top_Cat]

Right up there with the Supertest for relevance.

 

[howardj]

Cricket boards don't exist to make money, but to make the game thrive.

While I appreciate the latter can't happen without the former, it is the latter that must take priority.

That means investing (time, money, resources) in all forms of the game.

T20 has already peaked and is in decline in terms of interest.

 

[Furball]

Cricket boards don't exist to make money, but to make the game thrive.

While I appreciate the latter can't happen without the former, it is the latter that must take priority.

That means investing (time, money, resources) in all forms of the game.

T20 has already peaked and is in decline in terms of interest.

Why does Test cricket need a "championship" which will consist of three games over a two week period?

 

[robelinda]

Wait a minute, the main reason its being scrapped is because Indians don't watch tests, and ESPN only wants to show T20's and ODI's??? Why don't we just change the ICC to 'WORLD INDIA CRICKET BOARD FOR SLOG CRICKET'. Im off to Jupiter, this current planet BLOWS.

 

[howardj]

Why does Test cricket need a "championship" which will consist of three games over a two week period?

Mate, I am no big fan of the Test championship as such. It's very articificial, for mine.

That said, at least it gave Test cricket prominence - it was a sign that the cricket world was investing in, tending to, caring for that form of the game.

For me, the frustrating thing about this decision is the priorities that it reveals.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Whatever the merits of the test championship, the reasons for its "postponement" really do suck arse.

Obviously cricket can't be divorced from financial reality, but one might've hoped some due diligence on the ICC's part would've highlighted the fact that the broadcaster who own all the rights to global tournaments hated the very idea. It would've avoided this embarrassing climb down for one.

A test championship > Champions Trophy tho.

 

[Top_Cat]

Honestly, has any broadcaster ever said they were willing to televise a Test championship? Surely it's never been the case that it would turn a profit.

 

[Furball]

Wait a minute, the main reason its being scrapped is because Indians don't watch tests, and ESPN only wants to show T20's and ODI's??? Why don't we just change the ICC to 'WORLD INDIA CRICKET BOARD FOR SLOG CRICKET'. Im off to Jupiter, this current planet BLOWS.

Depends what ESPN Star thought they were buying when they bought the rights for all ICC events. There's no doubt that a Champions Trophy will be much more lucrative when it comes to advertising revenue than a Test Championship (particularly given that there's no guarantee that India will be involved in the latter event); if the ICC hinted heavily at the rights package being World Cups in both 50 and 20 over forms and a Champions Trophy, then it's pretty stupid for the ICC to be moving the goalposts.

If the possibilty of a Test Championship wasn't on the table when ESPN Star bought the rights, they're entitled to take the huff.

 

[Cruxdude]

Wait a minute, the main reason its being scrapped is because Indians don't watch tests, and ESPN only wants to show T20's and ODI's??? Why don't we just change the ICC to 'WORLD INDIA CRICKET BOARD FOR SLOG CRICKET'. Im off to Jupiter, this current planet BLOWS.

Haha overreaction much? Where did you infer that Indians do not watch tests?

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's robelinda. Why are you surprised?

 

[Woodster]

While it may not have turned over as much profit as the Champions Trophy, it was surely an experiment to raise the profile of Test cricket back to where it should be as the elite form of the game, and try to bring some of the interest and supporters back to the five-day game. It made sense to stage it in England as the crowds are always pretty good, despite the weather issues, but it matters not as it doesn't look like it's happening.

 

[Redbacks]

Haha overreaction much? Where did you infer that Indians do not watch tests?

It's just a fact of life we have to live with. India's economy is booming and this will only shift the financial dominance in cricket further towards that market.

Indians watch test cricket, but there appears to be a greater market for shorter formats. Nobody to blame or need for defense of one's nation, all that this means is that the comercial interests will move towards where the profits are greatest.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's just a fact of life we have to live with. India's economy is booming and this will only shift the financial dominance in cricket further towards that market.

Indians watch test cricket, but there appears to be a greater market for shorter formats. Nobody to blame or need for defense of one's nation, all that this means is that the comercial interests will move towards where the profits are greatest.

It's an overblown theory. India only cares for the shorter formats when they involve India. We don't give two hoots for neutral ODIs, or else the BCCI would have been organising tri-series like it were still the 90s.

 

[Furball]

While it may not have turned over as much profit as the Champions Trophy, it was surely an experiment to raise the profile of Test cricket back to where it should be as the elite form of the game, and try to bring some of the interest and supporters back to the five-day game. It made sense to stage it in England as the crowds are always pretty good, despite the weather issues, but it matters not as it doesn't look like it's happening.

The presence of the World Cup pretty much devalues all other ODI cricket though; Test cricket doesn't need a similar event doing the same.

There's two immediate challenges for Test cricket to overcome for an event like this - the presence of the draw makes Test cricket unsuited to a knockout format, and the fact that Test cricket takes 5 days gives you a scheduling headache. A proper Championship, with the same format as the Champions Trophy (2 groups of 4, everyone plays each other in their group once, semi finals and finals), even allowing for games in the same group to be played simultaneously, would need 45 days set aside for it, and that's without taking into account rest days. There simply isn't the room in the schedule to do that. You'd probably have to play semi finals simultaneously, which isn't ideal from a broacasting perspective, which in turn affects the profitability of the competition. So you end up with the proposed format (4 teams, 2 semi finals and one final) which proposes crowning a team as World Test Champions on the back of two wins (and that's assuming all games have a definitive result) which at a stroke undermines the whole idea of climbing up to the top of the rankings by virtue of winning long series home and away. The Test rankings are still taken seriously; the ODI rankings are a joke if the World Champions can be ranked at number 5 and the rankings fail to differentiate between a tri-series game in Zimbabwe and a World Cup Final.

As for staging it in England? Aside from the major issue of British weather and the presence of the draw in a knockout competition, there's a limit to how much Test cricket can be watched; if the English public's appetite for Test cricket was so great, then Yorkshire CCC wouldn't have lost money by hosting the 2nd Test between Pakistan and Australia last summer. I also think that the Test Championship would struggle to grab the attention of the public in an Ashes summer. Two one-off games or a 5 Test Ashes series which immediately leads into an away Ashes series? I know which one I'd be most interested in watching as a fan.

If the ICC want a Test Championship, then they need to work out these issues and do it properly; the format proposed was a shoddy comprimise and looks like nothing more than a money making event for the ICC. Test Cricket deserves better.

 

[Woodster]

The presence of the World Cup pretty much devalues all other ODI cricket though; Test cricket doesn't need a similar event doing the same.

There's two immediate challenges for Test cricket to overcome for an event like this - the presence of the draw makes Test cricket unsuited to a knockout format, and the fact that Test cricket takes 5 days gives you a scheduling headache. A proper Championship, with the same format as the Champions Trophy (2 groups of 4, everyone plays each other in their group once, semi finals and finals), even allowing for games in the same group to be played simultaneously, would need 45 days set aside for it, and that's without taking into account rest days. There simply isn't the room in the schedule to do that. You'd probably have to play semi finals simultaneously, which isn't ideal from a broacasting perspective, which in turn affects the profitability of the competition. So you end up with the proposed format (4 teams, 2 semi finals and one final) which proposes crowning a team as World Test Champions on the back of two wins (and that's assuming all games have a definitive result) which at a stroke undermines the whole idea of climbing up to the top of the rankings by virtue of winning long series home and away. The Test rankings are still taken seriously; the ODI rankings are a joke if the World Champions can be ranked at number 5 and the rankings fail to differentiate between a tri-series game in Zimbabwe and a World Cup Final.

As for staging it in England? Aside from the major issue of British weather and the presence of the draw in a knockout competition, there's a limit to how much Test cricket can be watched; if the English public's appetite for Test cricket was so great, then Yorkshire CCC wouldn't have lost money by hosting the 2nd Test between Pakistan and Australia last summer. I also think that the Test Championship would struggle to grab the attention of the public in an Ashes summer. Two one-off games or a 5 Test Ashes series which immediately leads into an away Ashes series? I know which one I'd be most interested in watching as a fan.

If the ICC want a Test Championship, then they need to work out these issues and do it properly; the format proposed was a shoddy comprimise and looks like nothing more than a money making event for the ICC. Test Cricket deserves better.

Yes I agree with a number of the points you made there, I never said this was a foolproof way of ensuring Test cricket becomes the prime number one format for people to watch, or will it give it us a defining Test Champion, as you say those rankings are done over a period of time and two wins for a nation should give them right to be called Test champions.

What I am in favour of is trying something to bring Test cricket back into focus. Crowds are falling away and we have to be proactive about getting it back on track. From a financial perspective I think we're all aware it is not a great option, as we've already stated the Champions Trophy will bring in a great deal more profit.

You're right that the British public can have too much Test cricket to watch, but that all depends on how it's priced. If we want crowds back into the grounds, and for neutral matches aswell, then the ticket cost would have to come down. Ideally this is about re-invigorating Test cricket not making a ruck of money, again I say ideally. I don't think this was necessarily an ICC money-making project if indeed they were prepared to scrap the Champions Trophy, which is exactly that.

In terms of the draw being a problem, I'm not sure it would be, as there should be benefits in finishing higher up the ICC rankings, therefore similar to how it's done in the Aussie Sheffield Shield final, the team that finishes higher only needs a draw. We've seen dull cricket as a result of this ruling, with the higher team batting for days which would not have people flocking back to watch Test cricket, but on certain pitches over here you hope that balance between bat and ball could be achieved.

It does need more thought, maybe the year of an Ashes series is not an ideal time to hold it in England, but I still think something along these lines could raise interest in Test cricket, and therefore be a good thing for the game.

 

[Hurricane]

The presence of the World Cup pretty much devalues all other ODI cricket though; Test cricket doesn't need a similar event doing the same.

There's two immediate challenges for Test cricket to overcome for an event like this - the presence of the draw makes Test cricket unsuited to a knockout format, and the fact that Test cricket takes 5 days gives you a scheduling headache. A proper Championship, with the same format as the Champions Trophy (2 groups of 4, everyone plays each other in their group once, semi finals and finals), even allowing for games in the same group to be played simultaneously, would need 45 days set aside for it, and that's without taking into account rest days. There simply isn't the room in the schedule to do that. You'd probably have to play semi finals simultaneously, which isn't ideal from a broacasting perspective, which in turn affects the profitability of the competition. So you end up with the proposed format (4 teams, 2 semi finals and one final) which proposes crowning a team as World Test Champions on the back of two wins (and that's assuming all games have a definitive result) which at a stroke undermines the whole idea of climbing up to the top of the rankings by virtue of winning long series home and away. The Test rankings are still taken seriously; the ODI rankings are a joke if the World Champions can be ranked at number 5 and the rankings fail to differentiate between a tri-series game in Zimbabwe and a World Cup Final.

As for staging it in England? Aside from the major issue of British weather and the presence of the draw in a knockout competition, there's a limit to how much Test cricket can be watched; if the English public's appetite for Test cricket was so great, then Yorkshire CCC wouldn't have lost money by hosting the 2nd Test between Pakistan and Australia last summer. I also think that the Test Championship would struggle to grab the attention of the public in an Ashes summer. Two one-off games or a 5 Test Ashes series which immediately leads into an away Ashes series? I know which one I'd be most interested in watching as a fan.

If the ICC want a Test Championship, then they need to work out these issues and do it properly; the format proposed was a shoddy comprimise and looks like nothing more than a money making event for the ICC. Test Cricket deserves better.

Make a proposal for how a championship could be run...other than the status quo.

 

[Spark]

I don't see anything wrong with the "status quo" model plus longer tours (namely a shift to the 4-5 test tour again) with greater weight given to big-ticket tours, tbh.

 

[Hurricane]

Nothing wrong with it - but to quote another poster from two years ago
A test championship would be gun

Just need the right format

 

[Furball]

Nothing wrong with it - but to quote another poster from two years ago
A test championship would be gun

Just need the right format

Test cricket doesn't suit a knockout format.