By Brett McKay
August 25th 2009 @ 1:59am
What can be done to keep Test cricket alive?
Australia's Simon Kaitch, second from left, hits a ball from England's Graeme Swann during the second day of the first cricket test match between England and Australia in Cardiff, Wales, Thursday, July 9, 2009. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
With The Ashes reaching its unfortunate but typically thrilling crescendo in London in the early hours of Monday, and Sri Lanka’s two Test series with New Zealand due to wrap up by month’s end, Test cricket now takes an extended break until Australia and the West Indies resume hostilities in Brisbane in late November.
So while international cricket moves into various guises of what plenty still refer to as “the pyjama game”, it seems as good a time as any to look at where the traditional form of the game is heading.
And exactly where is Test cricket heading?
Plenty of column space and opinion has been dedicated to this topic in recent months, and depending on where you stand, Test cricket is either very healthy or is in real danger of becoming irrelevant.
Poor attendances in some countries, Pakistan being a no-go zone for some touring teams since the Sri Lankan team was attacked in March, one-sided contests, player contractual and pay disputes, and the ever apparent threat of lucrative Twenty20 competitions are all subjects in need of attention and resolution.
While I will say that everything humanly possible should be done to ensure Test cricket can be played in Pakistan again in the future, and in the shortest possible timeframe, there are three clear and obvious areas that must, in my opinion, be urgently addressed by cricket’s governing bodies and stakeholders to ensure the immediate and long term survival of Test cricket.
These areas are over rates, pitch preparation, and umpiring.
Slow over rates are, in my opinion, the biggest blight on the game of cricket currently, and it is a problem that permeates from the pinnacle of Test cricket right down to the grassroots of grade, league and club cricket.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) announced in late June that from October “it will double the fines for slow over-rates and if the captain is found guilty of three over-rate fines in the same format of the game in a rolling 12-month period, he should be banned automatically for one match.”
Big bloody deal. At the international level fines and suspensions have been an overhanging threat for as long as I can remember, and has done nothing to resolve this issue.
A percentage of a match fee is a small price to pay for being able to dictate terms when a Test series is on the line.
Fans pay good money, sometimes months in advance, to see a day’s Test cricket, but it’s a rarity now for 90 overs to be bowled inside 6 hours. Would footy fans put up with fulltime being called five minutes early?
The only obvious solution I can see is to start issuing run penalties to offending teams. Hit them where it will hurt the most: the scoreboard.
Five or ten runs per over not bowled at the end of the day will bring a hasty end to practices like regular mid-over field placement conferences, particularly in matches delicately poised.
I would predict a rapid improvement in over rates once a team lost a Test match due to run penalties.
Pitch Preparation has become a timely issue again, with suggestions that the pitch for the fifth Ashes Test at The Oval was left deliberately dry. I don’t necessarily know that that’s the case, but I have to admit I don’t mind too much if local curators allow a bit of “local characteristic” into their Test wicket preparation.
Out-and-out pitch doctoring, and local or national boards telling a curator what he “must” prepare is something I’m firmly against, but the various grounds around the world should have some kind of distinguishing feature. They don’t need to be crumbling on the second morning, but they shouldn’t still be pristine on the fifth morning either.
The ICC should be doing everything it can to rid us of this constant preparation of lifeless, placid pitches resembling motorways that ensure high scoring and Tests that go into the fifth day (that said, if any of my local grade administrators are reading, lifeless, placid pitches resembling motorways will be just fine for this coming season, thanks).
Players shouldn’t have to be subjected to underprepared pitches that could be dangerous, and there perhaps should be some kind of safety standard, but if one Test wicket is a raging green-top, and the next a turning dustbowl, well the players should be good enough to handle different conditions.
This is Test cricket after all, and it’s a game of bat and ball, not just bat.
I’d much rather pay to see a result inside four days, than to sit through a five day draw after two uninspiring innings of 5 declared for 700 plus.
The subject of umpiring almost needs its own column, and is something that I could really get on a soapbox about. So I’ll keep this to two main points.
Surely the days of two neutral umpires can be brought to an end. Surely the need to have the best umpires is greater than the need to have neutral umpires? Why shouldn’t local umpires be allowed to umpire at “home” if they’re regarded as the best going around? If an Englishmen and an Australian are ranked 1 and 2, why can’t they do an Ashes Test?
And this introduction of the Umpires Decision Review System (UDRS – truly, they’ve given it a name and an acronym) really worries me. Specifically, the full use of Hawkeye worries me.
Michael Holding made some interesting observations during the fifth Ashes Test, about the use of the Hawkeye projection and prediction technology, when he noted that with the prediction component also being introduced, LBW referrals where Hawkeye shows a poofteenth of the ball hitting the outside of leg stump will now have to be given out.
This is madness.
The “human element” of these decisions will be removed, and replaced by a system based around theoretical projections and prediction.
I can live with the projection of stumps behind the freeze-frame impact of ball hitting pad, to help determine if the ball hit in line with the stumps, but if the predicted path of the ball beyond this impact is not 100% accurate, then how can it be any better than an umpire’s personal view and adjudication?
As if players openly and now legally questioning an umpire’s decision isn’t bad enough, I fear that this not-quite-childproof technology will lead to a spate of LBW referrals and decisions that would never ever have been given out by an umpire on the field. And that doesn’t sound like an umpiring improvement to me.
So why was this component of the UDRS allowed? If it’s not exact, then don’t introduce it.
To me, these three main points are the prime candidates for immediate resolution, which with some quick and smart implementation, would bring massive improvement to the spectacle of Test cricket without making sweeping change to the fundamentals of the game.
I haven’t even touched on some of the more radical suggestions that abound from time to time, such as day-night Tests.
While I’m not really a fan of this particular suggestion in any case – how would a steady period of conservative Test cricket be any more exciting under lights? – I think there are areas much more pressing and obvious which once changed can have a bigger impact on the game anyway.
Test cricket doesn’t necessarily need drastic change, it just needs some astute thinking to make the brave adjustments that are obviously needed.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(30)
The Binocular said | August 25th 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment
Several issues with your article:
1) Your comment “If an Englishmen and an Australian are ranked 1 and 2, why can’t they do an Ashes Test? ” is idealistic to to the point of naive. Umpires need to divorce themselves from the emotion and sentiment associated with a Test Match. How is this possible if the umpires are highly likely to support one team. Even if they appear impartial, it would not prove that they actually are.
2) Michael Holdings point was widely taken out of context. The referral system imposes rules on the amount of referrals each team can make. So his comment about two day test matches was stupid.
Come read The Binocular if you want real insight.
Greg Russell said | August 25th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Binocular – I looked at your website. I like that you write in the first person plural, e.g. “We discuss it here in some depth.” This is the way the Queen speaks. Should I look to both of you for the same level of insight?
Dave said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
You need to have neutral umpiring.
If you can’t find two good umpires who aren’t Australian or English in the whole world you have bigger problems than not having neutral umpires.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Binocular, thanks for the offer for ‘real insight’ – clearly I’m wasting my time formulating my own opinion. To address your points:
1. The very best umpires in the cricket world have got to where they are by doing exactly what you suggest, “divorce themselves from the emotion and sentiment associated with a Test Match”. They are fully professional, and paid well to do one thing: adjudicate on the circumstances in front of them. Host country or even home support does not and can not enter the equation for these guys. In questioning “How is this possible if the umpires are highly likely to support one team[?]“, it would seem you’ve joined me in the naivety stakes..
2. I deliberately ignored Holding’s comment about two day tests becuase he was being a little dramatic, but his central point about Hawkeye use in LBW referrals still stands in it’s original context. If Hawkeye shows any fraction of the ball hitting the very outside edge of off or leg stump, it will have to be given out if referred. It doesn’t matter if this happens on the first or second referral, it will still have to be given out. Further, once all referrals are used up, you can be assured that there will be LBW appeals which get turned down onfield, but which Hawkeye will show to be hitting a fraction of the outside of off or leg stump. So even with the referral systm, the inconsistency is going to remain.
The Binocular said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
‘The very best umpires in the cricket world have got to where they are by doing exactly what you suggest’
My argument is about value add. The risk you are suggesting to take on by using English and Australian umpires is large relative to the difference in umpiring quality between the number 1 umpire and say the number 5 umpire.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Be that as it may Binocs, the whole idea behind neutral umpires wasn’t so much about being impartial, but about being SEEN to be being impartial.
Umpires’ very purpose is to be impartial. My point is that at the top levels of the game, this impartiality is so ingrained by experience and professionalism that their country of origin shouldn’t even be considered when the appointments are drawn up.
What we’ll end up with is top quality umpires not wanting to progress to Test level, becuase they’ll never be able to umpire at home. Simon Taufel himself has often stated that he gives the travel component of his job massive consideration before deciding to continue each year. He’s also said that he’d have no hesitation in standing down from the Elite Panel if the travel becomes too much for him and his young family, instead happily remaining at home umpiring First Class cricket.
Dave said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
I’ve said this before, pay umpires form every country the same amount in English pounds and you will have enough Bangladeshis’, Zimbabweans and Pakistanis umpires to last forever.
reds fan said | August 25th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
On the title “What can be done to keep Test cricket alive?”…. I can recall a time when I could stroll down to the Gabba any day of a test match without fear of facing a “sold out” sign hanging from the box office. Once inside I could get a seat with loads of room around me, and then I could settle in for a lovely quiet day with a few beers and some test cricket.
After having to put up with the behaviour of those attending the Gabba during the last Ashes tour (both Australian and English), I remarked that I wish Test cricket would once again become less “cool”. I love the generally slow pace of test cricket, with its sudden bursts of fury, and the quiet knowledgable crowd.
What I think your headline really says is”How do we ensure we keep filling stadiums with people who find Test cricket ‘accessible’ enough, so that we generate enough advertising revenue and ticket receipts, so that players are paid well enough that they don’t run off to a year long IPL?”
The fact that Test cricket has survived for centuries and has changed and developed with each new era of players without too much tinkering is a testament to game as a “form”. I think pitch preparation is the greatest threat to that “form” and its balance between bat and ball. It must be a contest that looks likely to have a winner. I remember as youngster in the 70’s and 80’s feeling like an outcome in a Test was a rarity. We dont want to get back to that again.
I’m not adverse to technology, however the predictive powers of Hawkeye are suspect. I’m happy to use it to show what “has” happened, but not for what “might” have happened.
And playing under lights is such a stupid notion. It isn’t lights that got people into one-day cricket or now into 20/20. It is the easily digested format that has a definite result and doesn’t require too much time to be invested. It’s the “simple” form of cricket. And that is great as it serves a purpose. However we shouldn’t be fooled into believing that its the lights that bring the crowds.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Reds, it’s a nice problem to have, constantly selling out days of a Test match!! Funnily enough, in the last week, I’ve secured my seats for my annual migration to the SCG – it seems weird buying cricket tickets a month before footy finals..
And not that I’m using this as an excuse, but my original heading didn’t actually imply Test cricket was dying. Either way the need to make improvements is still inportant, several of you in comments referred to comps such as the IPL, as I did. Something I didn’t mention but easily could have, was the need for a stand-alone window for the IPL. Remove the need for players to choose between low-paying national side and rediculously-high-paying manufactured Indian franchise, and that problem goes away…
reds fan said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Yeah I agree that the IPL needs to be given a window. It would be a good opportunity re-visit the home and away four year cycle as well. I’m a big supporter of scrapping one-day games… I think 20/20 is the natural progression for the short version. This will help to sustain the long version by having clearly differentiated products. 2020 lacks so many of things Test cricket has, and vice versa. I reckon after watching a 7 game series of 20/20 you’d by dying to watch something with a more lasting contest.
I think the ranking systm needs to somehow be used to plan the calendar… teams of similar ranking get to play each other more often, until you either move up or down the rankings. It’s hard to do, because the 4 year cycle is about revenue. Countries want the top sides visiting to help pull the crowds and advertisers.
sheek said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Brett,
Leave the prickly replies to me, thank you very much! I’ll bang both of Binocular’s bi-focals against each other for you!!
I’m one of those suggesting test cricket is in danger of dying primarily for two reasons – 1) Over-exposure & 2) changing societal habits.
There is far too much test cricket being played & frankly, most of it is rubbish. Consequently, the average sports fan doesn’t appreciate or value all the test cricket shoved in front of his nose. Ditto that most tests with most sports.
The idea that ALL test nations must play each other at home & away over a 4 year cycle might be well-meant, but it’s largely impractical. And if the only reason/principle reason is to service the rankings system, then that’s doubly stupid.
Society is changing. Our attention span is much shorter these days, & there’s so much more to distract us, in both sport & life. Add to this the fact that young players can earn ridiculous money playing T20 without ever playing first-class cricket, so why would these young guys bother developing the skills for the longer game?
Cricket is lucky perhaps it has other forms of cricket that can make money, which in turn may see test cricket consigned to history (an unintentional consequence).
As an aside, with all the arguments raging about what type of rugby union we want to watch, & R7s about to get the green light for the Olympics, might also R7s &/or R10s eventually replace the 15 man game?
But back to the cricket, I abhor the technology, which somehow still gets it wrong, simply because human input is still required somewhere in the process.
However, since all sports are now shown on TV, & the media is naturally keen to use the latest technology to enhance its broadcast, it is unfair to have umpire’s/referee’s decisions, torn apart by modern technology, if they themselves don’t have access to it.
With umpires, I thought the one home/one neutral umpire system was quite effective. Umpires still like to adjudicate in their home country, & their local knowledge would be of assistance to the neutral umpire. Merely having one neutral umpire gives the impression of impartiality.
There needs to be less test cricket (the De Beers diamond artificial scarcity principle) but it also needs to be more lifestyle friendly. This means replacing 5 x 6 hour days (30 hours) with 4 x 7 hour day-nights (28 hours). There is a net loss of only 2 hours cricket, but a saving of a whole day.
The attraction for both families & day workers, is that they can take in part of a day’s viewing at the ground, instead of a whole day. Ticketing can be made flexible to reflect this. National coloured clothing would add to the appeal, while finding an appropriate coloured ball would also be required.
But at the end of the day, I do fear for the future of test cricket, simply because it’s too easy to make money now from T20 especially.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Sheek, I dedicate said prickly response to you sir. It was your experience and ruthlessness in such circumstances that gave me the motivation and confidence to reply as I did.
Your point about too much Test cricket is an interesting one – in my research for this column, in discovering that there won’t be any Test cricket for the best part of three months now while we go into Champions Trophy ODIs and CLT20 modes, I also discovered that India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and Bangladesh actually don’t play Test cricket again before next February at the earliest. So there’s a perception that there’s too much Test cricket, but the reality of it is that it would seem to come in bursts. The next Ashes series is 15 months away (Nov 2010)!!
And I’m sure the four year home-and-away scheduling is ONLY to do with calculating rankings, but to be honest, there’s also a traditional element of “that’s how it’s always been” about Test schedules. Ashes Tours have been every four years for all of my lifetime, and I’d guess a fair chunk of yours too (I won’t be so rude to put a percentage on that!). It’s been roughly the same for the Windies, South Africa since their reinstatement, New Zealand, and even Pakistan. For some reason Tests against India didn’t seem to as regular, but that’s certainly changed in the last 10 years or so.
Inevitably, discussion about scheduling moves on to the required scheduling of what most will agree to be one-sided contests. As I said in various posts on this subject last week, I can’t see how we can have 9, 10 or X number of Test playing countries WITHOUT all countries playing each other. Bangladesh have as much right as a Test Nation to play Australia or India as any other Test nation does. Some ideas of multi-tiers and promotion/relegation have more merit than others, but this also diminishes the status of nations granted Test status. You’d hate to miss out on an Ashes series because England and Australia were suddenly in different divisions, and likewise for a rivalry like India and Pakistan.
I deliberately left scheduling alone, ‘cos there’s no obvious answers on that for now..
sheek said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Brett – I’m chuffed!
davido said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Interesting point about India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and Bangladesh not plaing a Test again before next February.
I just saw H Singh on the telly this morning complaining that India wasnt playing enough tests.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
Davido, I couldn’t believe it myself. If I’ve selected criteria correctly, the following link should outline all Tests between now and January 18 next year (apologies if it doesn’t):
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/current/match/fixtures/index.html?days=365
Nick said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
These points are all well and good, and I’m not saying I disagree. But really the problem with test cricket is more than this. The problem is that for four months over the impending summer I will watch Australia dismantle a pathetic West Indies and destroy a Pakistan team that is no longer a strength in world Cricket. To what point? It won’t improve our ‘ranking’, they are both ranked below us and these series are at home. And then what do I get to look forward to the summer after that? Us thrashing the poms at home again… I hope not.
This series was exciting because it is the English and they stepped up to the plate. The South Africa and India series were also exciting as they were teams of an appropriate strength.
You’re right night cricket solves nothing, but what really needs to be on the agenda is a system that removes one sided games from test cricket and makes every series as relevant as the next. I shoudn’t have to wait several years for the next important series of Test Cricket…
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Nick, I couldn’t agree more, there’s much more to resolve than what I’ve touched on here – including scheduling – but as I said above, to me, these were the obvious areas that can addressed almost immediately, and still have a fairly major impact.
As I’ve indicated to Sheek, scheduling is always going to be a tricky one.
I see Gideon Haigh has had a crack at this in The Australian today, and while he raises some very valid points on why these problems persist, even he has trouble outlining how to addresst the problems.
(Haigh article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25975428-16957,00.html)
sheek said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Brett,
At the risk of being politically incorrect (as usually is the case), most Aussie cricket fans couldn’t give a toss about playing Bangladesh!
If we only played them in one series every 10 years, we would be happy with that. The problem with cricket is that there are only 10 test cricket playing nations anyway, & Zimbabwe’s a basket case, much is the pity.
I still don’t believe Bangladesh are ready for test status, but anyway, that’s just my view.
At least in rugby, you can have a top tier 10, secondary tier 10, & so on. But try that in cricket, & you would invite an unholy war!
Let’s look at it. If you divided the 10 cricket nations into two divisions, it would be thus:
1st division: Australia, England, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka.
2nd division: West Indies, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.
Guess the problem? As if West Indies, New Zealand & Pakistan would accept being in a 2nd division!
I think the 4 year cycles is too tight in any case, & should be relaxed to 5 or 6 year cycles. But hey, the world revolves on the twin monsters of politics & money.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Sheek, you’ve highlighted the exact problem with going to a “divisonal” type Test set-up. Pakistan, the Windies, and NZ would absolutely blow up about it, and quite rightly so. NZ cricketers quite happily admit that they love nothing more than playing (and quite often legitmately challenging) Australia.
You do have a point on the home and away cycles being relaxed somewhat, and I think that may well have to be the case.
On Bangladesh, I take a slightly different tact. I don’t have too much problem with them being a Test Nation, but in the same period that Bangladesh have been a Test Nation, Sri Lanka had won a World Cup, and were consistently pushing higher-ranked nations in Tests.
Bangladesh have only just won their first Test series away from home, and that was against a West Indies team decimated by yet another contractual dispute with the WICB. Their best performance to date in ODIs is the Super 8s stage of the last World Cup.
How is it that little or no improvement has been gained in that time??
BigAl said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
One of the best things (but not a complete solution) has just been done – Australia losing the Ashes !
davido said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Excellent article.
I do however disagree with your points about over rates. They ignore the very big role batsmen can play in altering the run rate. Look at the last day of the first Ashes test. Look at Tendulkar in India – in one single over in the first test at Bangalore he walked down the pitch or away from the crease some 5 times!
The advantage of Hawkeye/Technology is not that it is right but rather that, right or wrong, it is consistent.
The disadvantage of Hawkeye is that the stumps are now ‘wider’ as noted by yourself and Michael Holding.
How much of the ball has to touch the stump to consider that it would impart enough force to dislodge the bails? 5 mm, 20 mm? And will the speed of the ball be taken into consideration? Has anyone actually measured the force required by a ball to dislodge a set of bails? Taking it to another level, does hawkeye calibrate on the actual stumps in the ground or on a set of theoretical stumps?
It seems to me that the principle of ‘benefit of doubt’ has been or will be wiped out. Look at M Clarke’s dismissal in the 2nd innings of the last test. On my 50 inch HD 600hz widescreen i could not tell FOR SURE if he was out. Yet he was given out.
The game, like technology itself, has a margin of error.
As to neutral umpires, I am way for them! Back in the old days it was IMPOSSIBLE to win in some countries.
Warney says the umpiring is the worst it has been in 20 years. He could be right but it could just be that technology is revealing that umpires have never been getting it right.
Brett McKay said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Fair point about batsmen Davido, and a large number of boundaries obviously affects over rate too. And yeah, there was a fair bit of “gardening” going on in Australia’s second innings on Sunday night too.
To answer all your Hawkeye questions, I’d suggest “no”. To any of them? You’re just reinforcing my concerns of its inclusion in the referral system…
ohtani's jacket said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
I only have a slight interest in cricket these days, but it seems like there’s been more results in the past few seasons than there were in the early to mid part of this decade. Perhaps the pitches are improving?
One thing that’s keeping Test cricket low-key is that there just doesn’t seem to be the same number of stars that there were in past decades. Perhaps that’s a sign that I’m getting older or perhaps it has something to do with how mass media and society have affected sport, because the same is true for just about every other sport I follow. The only sportsmen who stand out these days are those who achieve a high level of excellence. There’s not a lot of characters floating around. I almost feel as though there’s too much analysis, too much planning and too much thought given to tactics. Everyone’s playing to a predetermined plan and you don’t see a true Test of character.
Brian said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
A lot of cricket’s problems (scheduling, umpiring etc) come from the ego-centric attitudes of the major countries respective boards and supporters. Obviously not all can be tainted with the same brush but the BCCI, ACB, ECB etc have all spent the last 20 years looking after themselves without much consideration of the greater good. As an example I remember 10 years ago whilst Australia was beating the WIndies 5-0 how the ACB announced further funding for the cricket academy yet no mention of keeping the WI competetive. All the board do is maximise their own revenues, It isa inevitable that those without money (WI, NZ, Pak, Zim) have struggled. It is no coincidentnce that the test rankings now closely reflect the revenues generated be each board
World Ranking. 1. India 2. England 3. Australia 4. South Africa
I know SL are still doing well but Sangakarra & Murali are probably freakish once in a SL generation players
davido said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Brian I have no doubt that CA has been happy to milk the cricket cash cow for many years. Are they investing money in the future? Who knows.
GaryGnu said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Brett,
You are dead right that neutral umpires adress the PERCEPTION of impatiality not the reality. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Imagine if it was Simon Taufel that made the same mistake as Bucknor on the Symonds caught behind decision in the first inning in Sydney in 2008. The Indians’ OTT reaction would have been magnified 10 times. This is in no way condoning the behaviour of the BCCI but neutral umpires is really a small price to pay to avoid/lessening potential flare ups like that.
Night Test cricket is relevant to this discussion to the extent that it can increase the TV rights fees host boards can charge thus making them more financially resistant to the charms of 20/20.
The future tours program decided in May 2006 is done on a six yearly basis now, previously it was five. The exception to this is the “iconic” fixtures such as Aus V Eng and Ind V Pak that are scheduled on a four year sycle. That boards such as BCCI and CA now schedule fixtures between their teams more often and outside of the FTP says more about their financial priorities than anything else. If Australia became consistently uncompetitive in Test cricket I have no doubt BCCI would cancel the extra series as they wouldn’t generate the cash required.
Brett McKay said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Gary, I saw you comment a little earlier, and have been trying to think of an Indian umpire that I could also insert into your Bucknor/Symonds scenario, as another measure of response. Sadly, I don’t think there are currently any Indian umpires on the Elite panel??
Your point about Taufel in that scenario is well made, but let me ask this. Why do we concede that this scenario would have been heavily magnified if it was an Australian umpire in the Bucknor/Symonds scenario, but it was widely accepted up until the inception of neutral umpires that tours to India would have to deal with “local” umpiring, and indeed, that was one of the main reason why neutral umpires and the Elite panel were introduced?? Anyway, I do concede that the perception of neutrality lessens the issue in the most part, but I still maintain that the Elite umpires are highly trained, fully professional, and as such impartial by default.
Just on your night Tests point, again you’ve hit it on the head by mentioning TV rights, but then the longeivity of prime time Test Cricket will come down to TV ratings, and doesn’t actually address any of the so-called problems with Test cricket. Can you imagine Ch9 allowing primetime Tests to continue if it’s being out-rated by The Biggest Loser or City Homicide?
Perhaps what we’ll end up with is D/N Tests in countries where it will rate well, with the status quo remaining where the ratings fail? And again, that hardly addresses any issues anyway…
Beardan said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Australia and west indies ‘resume hostilities’. You are joking right? West Indies will be using a BB gun.
Also talking about slow over rates is almost as boring as watching slow over rates.
Brett McKay said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Ha, Beardan if it makes sense, I sort of was joking and sort of wasn’t. What I actually meant was that Test cricket resumes hostilites after a three months break, more than Australia and the Windies as such. Call it a weird kind of irony…
And yeah, over rates isn’t the best dinner party conversation piece in the world, but if we don’t do something about them, we’ll suddenly be lucky to get 80 overs a day, and then 75, and then….
It’s just got to be fixed…
mediawatch said | January 16th 2010 @ 11:56pm | Report comment
Brett, a suggestion I made some years ago (in writing to the Aus Cricket Board) for enhancing the Test Match experience was to restructure playing times so that instead of 3×2hr sessions per day (=15 sessions over 5 days), you played 4x 2hr sessions (=16 sessions over 4 days (with 16th session reserved for lost time)).
The idea was that the public got an extra session for their daily ticket, and the match would be completed in 4 days. The flip side was that play would commence at 9:00am (still finish at 6pm), the 1 hour lost for Lunch & Tea would be replaced by 2×15 minute and 1x 30 minute breaks at the 3 session intervals.
This certainly solved the problem of tests running into the 5th day seldom attracting crowds, and the extra cost of hiring grounds and staffing on the final day. Channel9 would also get a day back.
An issue would be that players would need to be ready for action by 9am and be able to handle 4x sessions in a day…but they’re professionals hey. And we’d finally get rid of that infuriating 11:00am start time (when 1/3rd of the day is over).
Wins all round but needless to say I got a polite ‘not interested’ letter from Graeme Halbish.