I am also sick of hearing how Indians are mad about cricket. Why do they not go to Tests if ity is such a religion?

Tend to agree that shortening from 5 to 4 days is not the way to go. The game would essentially be the same but with one less day. I dont think it is a last day problem.

Day/Night is an option as most ODIs are played like that and it can bring in the after work crowds.

I think much of the problems stem from the pitches. The best tests are on seaming, swinging decks where its a real contest and the great batsmen can stand up. Look at the Ashes at the moment, featherbed pitches. I dont want to see any side make 6-650 dec. its boring and puts people off.

I do not believe in playing LESS tests. For starters, sin;t the problem that we play too much of the other meaningless shorter stuff?

Secondly, does everyone who is old enough recall in the mid 70′s at what point Australia handed over the title of best team in the world to the West Indies? It was during WSC but in the preceding 1.5 years Australia played so few tests that it was like they lost their mantle simply through omission!!!

However, developing night cricket is an obvous thing to investigate. But shortening games to 4 days is silly. Destroys the essence fo the game.

I liked the way it was in the 70s – one home series of 5 tests, or two home series each of 3 tests. On away series of 5 tests, or perhaps two away series each of 3 tests. Either way, 11 tests per annum max. Not the current 14 or 15 per year.

Those 3-4 fewer tests per year might not sound like much change, but it can be significant.

For test cricket to survive, it needs to adapt. This might mean considering things that were once off-limits. Like day/night tests, orange balls, coloured clothing. Tests could feature longer days (& evenings) but be a day less overall, 4 instead of 5.

Cricket as a whole has to realise it needs to protect all facets of the playing game, & I’m thinking spin bowling. In the 80s, the Windies might have ruled the world with 6 specialist batsmen, a keeper-batsman & 4 fast bowlers, but cricket needs its variety to survive. And to entertain.

The Bradman Cup is initially to given to Australia which has to defend the cup against other nations visiting Australia for a minimum of a 3 test series. If Australia is defeated in a home test series, the winning nation then has to defend the cup each year over a minimum of 3 tests – in its country. To avoid a winner not playing against the stronger nations, it must defend the Cup against the loser within 24 months.

The holder of the Bradman Cup is the World Champion.

That is because the introduction of One Day and now 20/20 cricket has allowed the powers that be to leave the tradition al sport relatively untouched.

What a unique situation we have where all the main protagonists (Players, staff, media, admin., etc) prefer the longer version yet the supporters appear to be plonking for the shorter versions.

It has taken me many years to finley fall in love with Test cricket. I always felt it was too slow compared to other great sports, but as I grew older and matured, I discovered the joys of the longer version.

But that is also because I became more conservative and I have let this sport seep into me. Is that what is the problem? Everyone is in a rush looking for the quick fix? No time to let our environment shape us? Trying to shape the environment we live in?

I think at worse, Test cricket will live on and be subsidised by the shorter versions. The World body might have to invest in some governemtn style intervention with the likes of the West Indies, etc to ensure that they focus more in the longer game (financial incentives, etc.)