By sheek
November 27th 2009 @ 12:18am
Loading ...Related coverage
Can Test cricket be saved?
West Indies captain Chris Gayle has said what many people of his generation and younger are probably thinking – that he won’t lose any sleep if Test cricket ceases to be.
Gayle is the prototype of the modern cricketer – “have bat, or ball, will travel (providing the price is right).” These modern, so called paladins, will ply their trade anywhere, in any abridged form of cricket, providing the lure is sufficient, and usually the lure is beyond sufficient.
You don’t need to play first class cricket anymore in order to make a fortune from the game. Twenty20 cricket has revolutionised the way in which players and their boards can seemingly make money at will.
So I offer the following offerings as suggestions in ways Test cricket may be saved, assuming its not too late. I don’t think any of my suggestions are earth-shattering, as most, if not all, have been mentioned recently at one time or another.
However, I have attempted to bring some practical commonsense to what is a very awkward time. We cannot expect the world to remain as we would want it.
Consequently, we must change the nature of test cricket to suit the times, while hopefully trying to remain most of its traditional fabric. You will note some of the changes are quite dramatic, but I believe it is absolutely necessary to make some far-reaching changes.
1. Day cricket to become day/night cricket. 5 days x 6 hours (total 30 hours) reduced to 3 days x 7 hours 20 minutes (total 22 hours). This represents a net loss of 8 hours.
I would have liked to have four day/night tests, but I think that is lost. It might have been an okay suggestion five years ago, but the world is becoming increasingly dysfunctional!
2. Total overs reduced from max. 450 (five days x 90 overs) to max. 330 overs (three days x 110 overs). Note, in Test cricket each over is calculated at four minutes duration. This represents a net loss of 120 overs, just over a day’s play under the old scale, or exactly four sessions.
Just think of the many former Tests that were decided in those last four sessions! All gone now…..
3. New hours of play run from 1pm to 9pm (eight hours), instead of 11am to 6pm (seven hours). Each session will run for 110 minutes with breaks of 10 minutes (tea), 20 minutes (dinner) and 10 minutes (supper). The four sessions will be known as – afternoon, dusk, evening, night.
If you’re worried about the players being overworked, read on…..
4. Teams now select XIIIs instead of XIIs. Eleven players still bat, and eleven players still take the field. The big change is the introduction of a specialist bowler who doesn’t bat, but only bowls and fields. The batsman he replaces in the fielding team now becomes an interchange/emergency fielder along with the 13th player.
5. The specialist bowler is introduced in order to save spinners. Most test teams carry four bowlers. Now they have five (without compromising their batting), which must always include one recognised spinner, irrespective of the conditions.
6. This now places pressure on curators to produce pitches that will provide a fair contest for all components of the game – team batting first, team batting last, pacemen and spinners.
7. No one team can face more than 110 overs per innings (this represents one third of total available). After 110 overs, an innings is declared compulsory closed by the umpires. How many runs the team scores is up to them.
8. No individual bowler can bowl more than 25 overs. All five frontline bowlers (nominated prior to commencement of play) must bowl a minimum 10 overs (barring injury). Again, this is designed to save the spinners. Extra bowlers can be called upon if needed.
The new ball to still be taken after 80 overs.
9. Fielding restrictions to be introduced as with the shortened form of the game, to ensure no team can be too negative in their approach.
10. Coloured clothing to be introduced, to add colour and give the Test teams a real feel of representing their country.
11. Selection of a coloured ball for use in day/night cricket – white/yellow/orange/pink, etc – all to be tested under various conditions to find which colour is most suitable.
12. Authorities to have flexible ticketing and pricing system, especially to attract families to dusk/evening sessions, and business folk finishing work hours, and kids finishing school for the day.
Well, that’ll do for the moment. It won’t please everyone.
Test cricket simply can’t remain as it is. The trick is to change it for the sake of its survival, while still retaining much of its ethos.
Let the debate begin……….
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...
(99)
Freud of Football said | November 27th 2009 @ 4:16am | Report comment
Sheek, for starters, why complain about what cricketers earn? Only the very cream of the crop get to play at the highest level, and only the very very best play internationally – where the money is. Golf on the other hand, you can be a comparatively rubbish golfer and still make a fortune, you can be ranked down in the 500’s in tennis, one decent, not good but decent tournament and you have had a fine year.
For mine, cricketers are still underpaid, for the amount they play, 10-15*5-day games a year, 20-30*1-dayers and probably bordering 30*T20’s a year and they earn how much? How many are on 1 Million a year?
A squad player in football still earns hundreds of thousands and he might only play 30 games (days) a year and he can be rubbish. An NFL player salary makes a cricketers look like pocket change and look how short their season is.
Cricketers are now expected to play year round, for their 100-120 days of playing per year you must also factor in huge amounts of travel and training, they barely get a break anymore and if you asked me, yes, I’d do it for 1 Million a year, but I’d do it for nothing too. That’s not the point though, you simply can’t state cricketers are overpaid without backing it up.
Regarding the saving of Test match cricket. Point 1 is absurd. days are long enough without extending them and trying to fit it in in 3 days, 8 hours less is not a test match. Points 2 & 3 follow on in the same ilk.
Point 4 & 5 are just versions of substitution, traditionalists love test cricket and that is one step way too far.
Point 6 is correct, curators should be forced to produce fair pitches the world over.
As for the rest of them, well you’re basically encouraging extended one-day cricket far too regulated which is what has been killing ODI’s, you’ve basically gone and tightened Test Cricket’s noose if you were to implement your proposals.
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 5:38am | Report comment
Freud,
Errr….. thanks. I wasn’t aware I was complaining about the amount players earned, merely acknowledging a fact. I don’t begrudge them the money, just pointing out they don’t need test cricket to do so.
Yeah, my suggestions are designed to fit the times. If you have a bad accident, & the doctor says to you, “You will die if I don’t amputate a leg. However, lose a leg, & you can expect to live for quite awhile yet.”
That’s the context in which this article is written – trying to preserve a bad situation in preference to a worse situation. If we do nothing, then test cricket will surely die.
Freud of Football said | November 27th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Sheek, you obviously were complaining about what players earn with the following statements: “providing the lure is sufficient” – indicating that modern cricketers are all bats for hire as well as: “You don’t need to play first class cricket anymore in order to make a fortune from the game.” – which would tell me, you think that even the second grade cricketers can still “make a fortune from the game”.
Test cricket will not “surely die”. Upon what evidence have you based this? Dwindling crowds at Windies and Bangladesh tests? TV-Revenues plummeting at a rate of knots? Sponsorship dollars hard to come by? What trend would illustrate what you are suggesting?
Test cricket is merely no longer the show piece of cricket, that currently belongs to T20’s but just because Gayle made some flippant remarks and Flintoff – a player who is constantly injured and at almost 32, is probably thinking of feeding his family – has retired to play the more lucrative forms of the game doesn’t mean that the entire format is in dire trouble, not today, not tomorrow, not in a decade, not in two.
A rut maybe, dying – no.
tifosi said | November 27th 2009 @ 5:10am | Report comment
How about we make it one innings only?
davido said | November 27th 2009 @ 6:27am | Report comment
Why is day night so important to everyone?
Freud of Football said | November 27th 2009 @ 6:35am | Report comment
crowds for one, they are always bigger on the weekends when people don’t have to work and day/night games allow people to come after work and of course TV, more people watching at night means more money from advertising.
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Sheek, you know I share your sentiments about the eminence of Test Cricket. Having said that,I do not believe it is terminal. I also believe that this debate needs to be “bipartisan” In a way, preserving Test Cricket is not dissimilar to protecting a way of life and fighting for values one holds dear. Mike Atherton recently wrote a very perceptive piece on “What Spirit of Cricket” This has become a preamble to the game. It needs to be the “whole” game. Fairplay,sportsmanship and respect for the opponent and the game at large. A lot of these values are now forced upon cricketers. Did his feet touch the boundary rope?
Was it a fair catch? There is no place for the “unscrupolous” to hide. This is a good thing and in time you will see players disclaiming dubious catches.Conscience can be arbitrary but the camera does not lie.
What is wrong with Test Cricket? Three important things. Context ,Administrators and Pitches.There are many other things like pricing,timing and dictates of Broadcasters and sponsors. But let us concentrate on the 3 I mention.
CONTEXT: For Test Cricket to be relevant it must have a Test Championship. What we have now is a defacto No 1 Ranking.
India Is currently playing Sri Lanka and they both had the chance to claim number 1. England is about to play the no 1 team in South Africa and the interest is high in England and SAF but underwhelming in the rest of the world. Pakistan is playing NZ and though the cricket has been excellent( Bond is back,Vettori is a collossus,and Umar Akmal is the most excitng young batsman in World Cricket) the interest is cursory. And does anyone really care that Australia is playing the West Indies?That is apart from us cricket tragics.And yet the spell Roach bowled to Ponting after lunch was as riveting as that bowled by Sharma at the WACA.The West Indies are not the force they were and this brings me to my next point .
ADMINISTRATORS: Not all Administrators are equal.The ones in India wield extraordinary power. It is power that can harm and at the same time also do good. History will judge.Indian adminstrators seem to be deliberately sabotaging Test Cricket in India. The Eden Gardens has not hosted Australia (either Test or ODI’s) since 2001. The potential 100000 fans at Kolkata have been denied the oppurtunity to see the No 1 Team for 8 years. Instead, Tests have been played at Nagpur(where you had to buy a five day ticket to see one day)and Mohali,where Tendulkar became the highest Test run scorer in front of a handful of schoolchildren. Yet the IPL draws 70000 when Kolkata plays Mumbai.That the Australians are massive drawcards in India is demonstrated by the record crowds and ratings for the recent ODI’s. Indians are discerning and will watch quality cricket..they are not interested in second rate TV shows when there are three new shows a week. The choice for the Indian viewer is beyond the comprehension of people who have not visited India. Cable TV is cheap and the channels are endless. Try 70 channels for the cost of under $20 a month.
The context is especially important in a country of 1.2 billion where the choices are plenty.It is upto administrators to make a Test Championship a reality. Crown the winner every two years and let 1 and 2 play for 10 million Dollars.That will give it context and relevance.I am not one for changing too much. Ian Chappell has mooted three day tests and there is debate about Day/Night Tests…all this becomes irrelevant if the context and administration is right.
PITCHES: The whole world is speeding up and the Pitches are slowing down.Batsmen are forgetting technique and get pinged on the helmet not because the ball is fast but because it is too slow. They are through the shot before the ball collects them. Snow,Holding,Lillee,Roberts and Thommo would have taken up spin bowling if they were playing now. There is no reward for athleticism and running in at pace for 15 kilometers in a twenty over stint. The pitches are like bland steak and spuds. They should have some curry in them.
Sheek,the attendant problems of Broadcasters,Greed and short term expediency will fill a book but these are some points I offer for your debate.
Good Test Cricket is viable. Mediocre Test Cricket is not acceptable. So spake the viewer.
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Vinay,
Obviously you are of the same mind as Freud. I would like to think you are both right, but I’m not so sure. Especially since I question whether a majority of people have the ‘WILL’ to save test cricket. For me, that’s the key.
It’s been in a rut before, but there was always a ‘critical mass’ of test cricket lovers to revive its pre-eminent status. Today, the majority of fans were born & brought up on the shortened forms of the game. Their desire to preserve test cricket is not as instinctively strong as those of an older generation, whose numbers keep dwindling.
While the numbers of ‘instant cricket’ fans continues to grow. The simple maths is disturbing…..
Vinay, while you & I might appeal to the higher values in human nature, most of the people in positions of authority & influence are merely interested in power, status & money. Or is that money, status & power….. ?
As an unknown Greek philosopher once observed, “life is like the theatre, where often the best seats are occupied by the worst people.”
There’s been a great deal of comment recently about the handball in football by Frenchman Thierry Henry. Why is everyone so surprised? He did what another 99% of footballers would have done in the same circumstance. It’s the way it is. And administrators don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect their bottom line.
Back in 1960 cricket was in another rut. But you had wonderful test team captains like Frank Worrell & Richie Benaud, & a dynamic administrator like Don Bradman. These 3 people genuinely loved & were passionate about, cricket.
Freud & yourself are looking for, perhaps hoping for, or expecting, heroes. I’m not sure there are any around in cricket these days. The people like Worrell, Benaud & Bradman simply don’t exist at present.
And that’s a big worry……….
Paulo Roberto Sanchotene said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
I’m not a “cricketeer”, but how about every other year put the eight best test teams to face each other in a world tournament, based on ICC rankings?
One example:
Days 1-5 (Quarters A – #1 v. #8)
Days 6-10 (Quarters B – #4 v. #5)
Days 11-15 (Quarters C – #2 v. #7)
Days 16-20 (Quarters D – #3 v. #6)
Days 21-25 (5th-8th Semis C – L.QA v. L.QB)
Days 26-30 (Semis A – W.QA v. W.QB)
Days 31-35 (5th-8th Semis D – L.QC v. L.QD)
Days 36-40 (Semis B – W.QC v. W.QD)
Days 41-45 (7th-8th Final – L.SC v. L.SD)
Days 46-50 (5th-6th Final – W.SC v. W.SD)
Days 51-55 (3rd-4th Semis B – L.SA v. L.SB)
Days 56-60 (Grand Final – W.SA v. W.SB)
It’s also possible to group them, and make the matches to be played at the same days. Three weeks for Group Stage, one for the semis and another for the finals (35 days total).
Draws or ties, needing a ODI tiebraker. The gaps could be filled with ODI, Twenty20 or maybe other Tests Cricket…
I don’t know. I’m just thinking out loud.
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Sheek, back at the conclusion of the Ashes series, I wrote a similarly titled column, and focussed on three points that urgently need to be addressed in order to “fix” Test Cricket, being over rates, pitches, and umpiring (specifically, forgetting the need for “neutrals” and just use the best, and the DRS).
I’ll leave umpiring out of this for now, but my two other points, over rates and pitches, are still going to bring your ideas undone here. The Windies yesterday were 9 overs down by Tea, and at one stage after lunch were crawling along at less than 12 overs per hour. With 110 overs in your day, they’d be on the ground more than 9 hours!!
And placid, lifeless pitches will still produce runfests, no matter what time of day, what colour ball and clothes, how how big the crowd is.
I don’t disagree with your ideas per se, but I think simple fixes can bring big benefits alomst instantly…
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Brett,
I just want people to think about how they might revive test cricket. I’m not suggesting my ideas be set in ‘tableau’.
Yeah, I know over rates need to policed, & I would expect measures be in place to ensure this. Again, it’s a question of the will of administrators to fix the problem. Simply playing an extra half-hour to 45 minutes doesn’t seem to bother the fielding side anymore.
As I mentioned, overs are calculated at 4 minutes each. Therefore, you should be able to bowl 15 overs per hour, more or less. With a balanced side, you might start slowly with the fast men operating, but you can pick up the slack with your medium pacers & spinners.
Further to my understanding, an over is deducted for every two dismissals during the day. The calculation being that it shouldn’t take any longer than two minutes for the outgoing & incoming batsmen to crossover.
For changes of innings, my understanding is that 3 overs are deducted from the day’s total of overs. In other words, if one side loses all 10 wickets & there is a changeover of innings, all before stumps, the minimum number of overs to be bowled for the day is reduced from 90 to 82.
But that doesn’t stop the fielding side from bowling more overs (or more often) if they can do so. Of course, I’m not sure if these calculations are still the norm, but they used to be.
Further to my understanding, an over is deducted for every two dismissals during the day. The calculation being that it shouldn’t take longer than two minutes for a dismissed batsman to be replaced by the incoming batsman.
And yes, I did address the pitches, although how you effectively police this I’m not sure. It occurred to me that good curators who prepared excellent pitches would be in huge demand, & able to command big salaries. While those who didn’t measure up would be consigned to the back blocks.
Whether that would be sufficient incentive I don’t know.
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
And Sheek, they’re all quite valid discussion points too, all worth suitable consideration.
Over rates are a funny beast. Even playing Grade, I’m surprised at how often and how quickly we find ourselves one or two overs down. But there’s no penalty, and so no real incentive to improve. One of the original T20 rules was that if the last over hadn’t started within 80(?) minutes of the first, a six run penalty for every over behind was imposed. Somehow, this rule didn’t make it to the domestic/franchise and T20I formats!! But I still maintain that run penalties will be the quickest and easiest way to solve the problems for all versions of the game. Fines don’t work on well-payed players, but imagine if a tight Test match or series was lost becuase of over rate penalties!?!? The problem would disappear over night…
For pitches, well perhaps there needs to be some kind of ICC control (ha, an oxymoron??) over pitch prep. I’m not sure how you enforce it either, but pitches hae to be more challenging than they are for Tests currently..
davido said | November 29th 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
What do you think of the gabba pitch? I thought it provided just enough for both types of bowlers and the batsmen.
AND DESPITE the slow over rates the match was entertaining. I dont think slow over rates necessarily mean a boring match.
AND as to over rates – the penalties were upped recently.
The captain of the bowling team can now be suspended from playing. There was an article here, but I cant find it, talking about this.
The problem with the harsh penalties for over rates is that it is eliminating fast bowling. We saw at the gabba the ridiculous introduction by the Windies of a spinner in the second session on the first day. I argue, subjectively of course, that fast bowling is much more entertaining than spin bowling.
With the other endless restraints on bowling we are not far from replacing bowlers with bowling machines. We should meet the over rates then!
Freud of Football said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
I think Vinay’s three points hold the key but I think he’ll concede that one of them is irreparable – The Administrators.
Context is certainly a big issue, while I’m not certain that a world test series is the best solution it is certainly better than the current setup, no-one believes that Australia are the 4th best team in the world but currently they are only playing for the number one ranking and The Ashes, nothing else is of significant enough value that it will awaken the masses. If Australia needed to beat the Windies 3-0 to claim the 2008-09 Test World Championships there’d be a lot more interest but then again, I’d still want to keep the traditional series’, excluding them so that the “lesser” series have meaning or including the Ashes as part of it would dim their charm.
Administrators. Sheek got this bit right, “money, status & power”. There are too many corrupt or corruptable people leading the sport, look at the revenues coming in from TV, it’s in the Billions if I’m not mistaken and yet the Windies have to scrap with their board every few years because they’re getting paid peanuts and NZ can’t afford a proper backroom staff.
Where is all that money going? If the BCCI wants to control the game, they’ve got to look out for interests other than their own, they must protect the sport as a whole and not just India as without the Windies, Pakistan, NZ, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh you have 4 nations (ENG, SAF, AUS, IND) who are strong enough to survive.
Pitches. Well I might just get around to writing my thoughts on this one day soon, needless to say this is a big issue. Cricket has become a batters game, bowlers are merely instruments to allow batters to score and while I certainly won’t advocate Vinay’s do-away-with-the-helmet theory, I will say that pitches must have more life for both quicks and spinners over the course of 5 days and further, there must be more stringent minimum requirements for the quality of the pitches (my mind goes back to the ODI in Delhi).
Umpiring is for another day Brett, I think cricket needs to focus on the big issues and while umpiring is important, it’s the technology which is making them look worse. Further, like every aspect of the game, it’s cyclical, there are times where all the umpires are great, there are others when even Taufel gets it wrong. Test cricket can and will survive with poor umpiring (football is thriving on it) but it’s future (we’re talking 30-50 years here) is under threat from the Administrators.
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
quite right Freud, that’s exactly why I left Umpiring alone for today…
When I read “Cricket has become a batters game” above, I smiled becuase as a bat, there is no better feeling than committing to a shot and knowing the ball is about to be dispatched to the boundary without danger of deviation off the pitch. As a cricket lover though, this perception has to change.
A long-term bowler team-mate of mine still says “just take the pads off ‘em…”
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Sheek…I have young kids,22 and 37,and I meet alot of young people in the 16-30 year group with my involvement in the Roseville District Club. These are young men playing at the grass roots. I am encouraged by their sense of values and there is nothing to prove that the generation of the Sixties or Seventies was more caring or inclusive or holding higher ideals. In fact the present generation is less likely to be easily romanced. They can see through the hypocrisy of previous societies where appearances mattered more than ground reality. Where vows were taken solemnly and broken with alacrity and impunity.
I also disagree we do not have heroes in Cricket. The world’s most populous cricket playing country have heroes like Tendulkar,Dravid and Dhoni.
South Africa has Graeme Smith and ABD. New Zealand has Vettori,a Lion among Pussycats,and even England has Pietersen and Flintoff.The West Indies have in Roach tomorrows hero and Barath could be anything. Pakistan has Aamir and Umar Akmal. Both teenagers.So I dont accept that we have no heroes. McGrath Warne and Gilchrist were not so long ago and Ricky Ponting is probably more appreciated overseas than in Australia. Much like Gemaine Greer and Les Murray..no not of SBS fame but Australia’s greatest Poet..and alive.
Get more recently retired cricketers like Kumble and Gilchrist in positions of Administrative power.
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Vinay,
We’re not entirely at cross-purposes. Some things do get lost in translation when not talking face to face.
I guess I was wondering how many of these wonderful current day cricketers are willing to involve themselves outside the immediate practice of playing the game? Yes, they are heroes as players, but how many are willing to be heroes of preserving test cricket?
Just on Ricky Ponting, he is obviously a great batsman, great fielder, great son of Australian sport, a very good if not great captain. But he is yet to elevate himself above the business of playing cricket, & take a hands-on approach to preserving test cricket.
i guess it’s this distinction I was attempting to make. It may still happen, but the question begs…..
What is the incentive to save test cricket when there is so much money to be made from the multitude of mostly meaningless shortened forms of the game???
Brian said | November 27th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Firtly there will always be test cricket. So many love the game in England and Australia that the Ashes will never die for the same reason most tghings happen – money.
As many have said test cricket has no context. Even though world rankings have been introduced they still have no context whilst series are decided haphazardly by boards. Tennis has a rankings system but the calender is set which gives the rankings context. Cricket must be the only sport in the world that does not think it needs an international calender. If FIFA can get Ronaldo to the World Cup & FIBA Kobe Bryant to the Olympics (both playing for relative peanuts compared to their club contracts) than surely the ICC can organise a calender to keep test cricket.
Regarding over rates and umpiring I think whilst they’re annoying they are not new problems and I don’t think ther are in themselves hurting the game anywhere near as much as the lack of context. However on pitches I agree, again this comes back to the ICC and money. Curators should be paid and be supervised by the ICC not the home board. Again this also comes back to context, a Test championships which awards attacking teams (e.g. Like the shield or 3 pts for a win like football) would lead to spicier pitches.
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Brian,
If they could have talked, the Dodos might have said, “there will always be Dodos.”
Test cricket will only survive if enough people choose to preserve it, but not because of some divine right.
In any case, I hope you’re right!
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
All good points,Brian and I am glad that Sheek has written this today and further pleased that Brett and Freud have entered this debate. This is not about scoring points or advancing superority of ideas. I would gladly be proved “wrong” if it helps in the enhancement of this game we call our own.
Brett’s immediacy approach of pitches and umpiring is sound and can have instant effects. And Sheek has espoused the “will” factor. There is too much politics in Cricket and it is not surprising that 19 of the 27 state associations in India are run by Politicians or their appointed ones. Political will has no time for moral will. It is about Power and Money..and as Botham rightly pointed out Greed.The concept of Gecko Greed is well and alive.
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
don’t forget over rates Vinay!! Simple – run penalties!!
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Of course,Brett,How could I ? In any event you wouldn’t let me!
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
We don’t agree often Vinay, I’m just keeping the times we do agree fresh in your mind!!
AndyRoo said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
What about making the result of some of the lesser test match ups more meaningful (anything involving NZ when they are not playing Australia for egample).
It wouldn’t be a pure contest because of the lack of preparation time (trying to fit two tests in different countries within a fortnight) but I am pretty sure that a cup style test competition would be quite interesting.
8 test nations (cull to fit) go into the pot (no seeding) and are drawn against their first round opponent. They then play each other one test at home and one test away, if a clear result isn’t forthcoming some sort of tie breaker like away goals is used…perhaps runs scored. Winner progresses loser is gone.
You make room for 3 fortnightly periods in the yearly calander where no other international cricket is played.
Now to figure out how to play cricket in Winter…. Australia has Darwin but what about England? Dubai perhaps?
Rickety Knees said | November 27th 2009 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Sheek – my tuppence worth – the test ranking system that doesn’t mean anything to anybody is the problem. I believe that we have to bring back some spice into Test Cricket and introduce a World Champion Test Cricket Trophy – The Bradman. Initially this trophy would be held by Australia and other nations would challenge for it. This would be played over a 5 test match series. The challenging team would have to defeat Australia in Australia to win it. The Bradman is only contested for in a home series not when that nation is touring. Just imagine if India won The Bradman and the reception back in India. And just imagine the crowds when The Bradman is defended.
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Rickety,
Yes, you’re backing up comments from Vinay & Freud. We DO need some kind of world championship. For practical reasons it might have to be a challenge system as you suggest.
The problem is balancing that with the regular & traditional rotation of test series.
Rickety Knees said | November 27th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Thanks Sheek – mate I reckon if we go for the challenge cup – everything else will work itself out. The holder of The Bradman would defend it (probably against bidders) and the other games would occur similarilty as present.
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
I do like this idea of The Bradman, Rickety. Cricket of course has a long tradition – especially country cricket – of challenge formats, and obviously our Kiwi cousins will recognise this format as that of the famous Ranfurly Shield played for between the provincial rugby unions.
Giving everyone fair opportunity to challenge within a 2-3 year window might be a challenge within itself, but I like the idea in general…
Rickety Knees said | November 27th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
The Ranfurly Shield is where I got the idea from. Being in the Red Zone – why don’t you post an article about this? I reckon that this would really spark up Test Cricket which I love – don’t care that much about the rest.
Brett McKay said | November 27th 2009 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Writing about slow over rates and dead pitches is much easier Rickety(!!), that’s why I’ve deliberately (and often) said scheduling is another debate for another day
I won’t decline your challenge outright, but I’m not sure I could do it justice this weekend (I’m playing cricket myself tomorrow), but I have noted this down, it deserves discussion as you rightly suggest…
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
RK/Brett,
I think I scared the living daylights out of Freud initially with my article, which was partly my intent – not Freud personally, but complacent test cricket lovers everywhere. Test cricket won’t survive simply because we wish it to do so. We have to be proactive in ensuring its survival.
Vinay believes test cricket will survive because of the ultimate good in people. But the point I was making here is that the current generation, who may have a strong sense of right & wrong, nevertheless have their own values system.
People born in the 70s, & especially since the 80s have grown up with one day cricket as part of their lives. The one day WC has been with us since 1975. The 3 team one day international domestic comp in Australia since 1979. The 90s has seen an explosion of meaningless, money-grabbing one day comps around the world. Now we have T20.
Future generations simply won’t be as emotionally & passionately bound to test cricket like those born before the 80s, & especially before the 70s. Unless of course we can show them it’s still the best form of cricket there is.
In any case, test cricket has to undergo changes to survive,whether we want it (those changes) or not.
Rickety Knees said | November 27th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Sheek – good point. My first test was Aus v South Africa Jan 1964 (I was 12) and had the most wonderful day. I was mesmerised and went onto to play cricket at the SCG representing Australian Services against NSW – a very special moment. One day or T20 does not do it for me. I agree that Tests need to change and it has to be made for those nations that have empty stadiums when Tests are played. This is why I believe The Bradman would make the difference. I guess that I would prefer to try The Bradman before we start tinkering with the game.
Brian said | November 27th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
I only started following cricket in the early 90’s but I love test cricket. I also like T20 and its actually the ODI with their World Cups and VB series that I would be happiest to get rid of. T20 replaces ODI it does not replace Tests. Its only the on-going fractionalsim and self-interest of the ICC members that can threaten Tests not T20
Tock said | November 27th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Over rates and slow captains are fundamental to the issue. It was 1987 if memory serves me correctly and I attended the Sydney test against WI. I watched the Windies dawdle through 70 overs in the day and Aust score 200. It took close to ten years to get me back to the Sydney Tests which I hadn’t missed until last year. It was a combination of slow overs a dead pitch and appalling treatment of paying customers that made me have a dummy spit and vow never to return to Sydney. I love cricket (still play with local pub team at age of fifty) and more so test cricket. The thought of it succumbing to the incompetence of its administration is distressing to say the least.
If coloured clothing and night games were to save it fine by me, but I doubt that they will. Captains have to be forced to get at least 100 overs in a days play which is not hard.
Incompetent captains such as ponting who don’t know how or when to attack need some tuition.
Test cricket will survive if vibrant attacking cricket is played between teams of relatively equal ability evidenced by the crowds in Australia for tests with SA India and England. The rub is that that the teams like Pakistan WI have fallen away for host of reasons and Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have not come on as hoped causing lopsided contests. The signs are though that the WI are starting to come back and Pakistan will recover if stability returns to their country.
The reason that 20/20 is successful for now is that evens up the teams and allows mediocrity to flourish but mediocrity is not a formulae that will survive, time will eat away at it and if to many eggs are put in that basket it could be catastrophic for cricket in the future.
Vinay your point about the wickets is so true, Australia only has one descent track left and that is the Gabba the others are a joke and the Wacca has been that disappointing the last couple of years Dennis Lillee must near cry when he thinks of what used to be. All around the world wickets that had their own distinct character and flavour have been turned to blaumonge.
The Umpires are the least of the problem, in fact they amaze me the number of times they get it right, it seems the whole world cant accept a decision against them.
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Sheek,I am not so naive as to think Test Cricket will survive in its present form simply because of the inherent goodness in humanity.
I fully agree we have to be proactive and you will be aware of my almost strident heckling of self serving administrators in my various articles and posts. I would like to draw your attenyion to “Total Control” ,an article I wrote for Inside Sport in their November Issue. This details much of what is wrong with Cricket and some of its administraors.
The World Championship of cricket was derailed because of the issue of sharing a pooled TV revenue as against a bilateral sharing. This is greed and nothing else. Over and above the best interests of cricket.
I am uneasy about the current bloc of the BCCI,SAF/CA. These are the principal shareholders of the Champions League.I am quite deliberate in my use of the word “shareholders”
There is an insiduous power bloc forming which can be just as damaging as the Eng/Aust/SAF conglomerate of the old Imperial Cricket Council. Power must not be concentrated in the hands of the Wealthy alone. If cricket is to survive it has to be inclusive of all participants. It cannot be a Security Council of just the powerful.
All the ideas above including Day/Night,Bradman Trophy,over rates pitches and spectator comfort have to be considered.
Keep it going ,good people,your voice is heard in the strangest places.
sheek said | November 27th 2009 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
Good heavens Vinay,
I was never suggesting you to be naive in any fashion. You are in fact one very wise owl – you try to see the good in people, which is a very noble characteristic, but you’re not blind either.
However, I’m just a hard-bitten cynic who also tries to see the good in people, but only to a more limited extent!
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
Sheek,not for one moment did I think you suggested I was naive. I was commenting more on the fact that I do at times take off my rosetinted glasses and look at the game through a monstrous telescope.
And I dont think you are as hardbitten and cynical as you make out to be. Let yourself go and show us your feminine side.
sheek said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Vinay,
According to one rascally workmate, I already show my feminine side by following both cricket & rugby union!!!
Dave1 said | November 27th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
2000 more than last year turned up for the first day. Its better than most crowds have ever been in Brisbane. If test cricket is dying, it has been dying for 132 years.
Test cricket fans are the most negative fans of any sport.
Yes we need to encourage it but………………. in a no whining way.
Its always “test cricket is in crisis”
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Dave1,I would put it that Test Cricket Fans care deeply about their sport and are fiercely protective about its traditions and culture.What may appear “whining” to you is passionate to the cricket lover. And this is not an elitist comment. Some people care and are prepared to be derided for this passion.
Dave1 said | November 27th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
I care like you………… but the negativity can you get you down.
Why do we hear “test cricket in crisis” all the time?
the biggest crowds of all time for the west Indies in Brisbane were in 2000/2001 not 60/61 not 75/75 not 84/85.
None of this is based on facts.
in 200/01 were people going………….. how good is test cricket or were they rolling out the normal “test cricket is in crisis”?
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Dave1..I am not so concerned about Australia and England..these two will survive into the forseeable future..the figure that is concerning is that only 7% in India care about watching Test Cricket. Indians love their Cricket and love the nuances of the game. But the scheduling of Cricket and the amenities for the spectators are insulting. The BCCI has belatedly started upgrading Stadia but this is more in response to the Twenty20 than an abiding love for Test Cricket. There is a healthy TV audience as it is more comfortable watching in the comfort of your own house. Maybe that is the way in India unless the facilities are world class at the grounds. The only reason that Test matches are played at Nagpur is that the boss of the BCCI Manohar comes from there. If there was a Test Match at Eden Gardens or MUmbai and Chennai featuring Australia and India it would be packed. I come from Kolkata and there is no more passionate Cricket lover than a Bengali and dare i say no one more Knowledgeable about the game. The people in Chennai are also very knowledgeable and are one of the most impartial crowds. They will clap good cricket from the opposition. Even when Pakistan plays India.
Crowds all over the world are more demanding and expect cricket to be entertaining. The players also have a responsibility and this is where Captains have to be proactive.
Dave1 said | November 27th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Is that 7% of all cricket lovers……… or is that 7% of people?
vinay verma said | November 27th 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Dave1,this was a survey conducted by the MCC and presented to the ICC in Dubai this month. Apparently the survey covered 500 fans each from India,South Africa and New Zealand. Of the 500 in India only 7% favoured Test Cricket. Now this survey could be misleading. It is not clear which segment they surveyed.
The point I am making though is that if the Cricket is entertaining and the facilities good then people will watch. The trend though in India is definitely for the shorter forms. It needs a massive new product launch to revive Test Cricket in india.Good pitches and attacking cricket.Tendulkar can help in changing perceptions. But he is handicapped by a Board that will see India play just 4 Test in a 12 month period.
sheek said | November 28th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Dave1,
Excuse me if I’m reading you wrong here, but not everyone shares our love for test cricket. Not everyone was brought up on test cricket, & wants to continue watching test cricket for the remainder of their days.
I realised the importance of generational differences when WSC hit the ground back in 1977. Older generation cricket fans of my father’s generation loathed the idea that cricketers would be paid to play. As far as they were concerned cricket should be played for love only.
My generation loved WSC, we loved the colour, the one day cricket, especially then fact the players were now being paid what they were worth, & not being lost to the game.
Today’s generation have grown up on different things. This is the digital age for example. I would have loved to acces a computer back in the 70s, & hopped on the net to follow my favourite cricketers & rugby players. Information is both plentiful & instantaneous.
With sport, today’s generation have been brought up on one day cricket & now Twenty20. They don’t view test cricket the same way we do. We still believe test cricket is the best form, & indeed, so do many of today’s youngsters. But certainly this love of test cricket is not across the board.
One thing that should concern you is that today’s players don’t need to have a first-class career in order to make a decent living from the game. If this is so, why would they be interested in preserving test cricket when there’s a killing to be made from one day cricket & especially T20?
Nothing has a right to exist in perpetuity. In order to survive you have to be willing to continue to adapt & change. The pressures facing test cricket are far greater today than at any time in the past. The potential danger for its demise, is real…..
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
When we were growing up (wsc and after) one day cricket was king. PBL marketing told the ABC test cricket would soon die and won day cricket would take over.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1998/981123/cricket3.html
“…….In 1982 marketer Lynton Taylor, among others, suggested that one-day matches would eventually erase Test cricket. Taylor’s grim forecast was based on extensive PBL research, which showed that younger fans overwhelmingly preferred their cricket in the abbreviated format. Says Taylor now: “Maybe we were a little exuberant in our opinions……….”
Since 92/93 test crowds have gone up……..one day crowds are down in places like Melbourne.
As I said before was test cricket in crisis back in 60/61, 75/75 and 84/85 when the crowd in Brisbane was lower than the crowd in 2000/01
Was 2000/01 the peak when the West Indies were on their way to losing 5-0.
Also you have to remember that test cricket in now a lot more exciting than it used to be.
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/433868.html
“The decade of entertainment
There’s been plenty to moan about in the 2000s, but the cricket itself has been mostly exciting, less draw-prone, and more unpredictable…….”
Tifosi said | November 27th 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Can test cricket be saved?
It seems players these days have little patience to play the longer form of the game. Fans arent much better.
Its a symptom of society i believe. Today it seems that people want everything fast and straight away. No patience to wait anymore.
Greg Chappell was right. Only 4 nations will play Test cricket in the future. Then eventually it will only be the Ashes. Pity.
Dave1 said | November 27th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Only 4 team played in the past
Its a symptom of society ?……..Why are English test crowds now huge compared to the 60’s 70’s and 80’s
Why do Americans like slow long games with lots of stats………..what are you basing your opinions on?
Timmuh said | November 28th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Would the proposals in this article save Test cricket or replace it?
“1. Day cricket to become day/night cricket. 5 days x 6 hours (total 30 hours) reduced to 3 days x 7 hours 20 minutes (total 22 hours). This represents a net loss of 8 hours.”
Would reducing the time lead to more attacking cricket, or simply more draws? How would players react to the longer days, given that the current six hour day is often closer to seven hours anyway thanks to appalling over rates. I can understand the concept of trying to condense the game, in some cases the fifth day is rarely played, at other times it has little value because a result will not be forthcoming thanks to either weak bowling or, increasingly, pitches which offer the bowlers nothing.
“2. Total overs reduced from max. 450 (five days x 90 overs) to max. 330 overs (three days x 110 overs). ”
I know its hard to believe at times, but 90 overs a day is the current minimum; not the maximum.
“3. New hours of play run from 1pm to 9pm (eight hours), instead of 11am to 6pm (seven hours). Each session will run for 110 minutes with breaks of 10 minutes (tea), 20 minutes (dinner) and 10 minutes (supper). The four sessions will be known as – afternoon, dusk, evening, night.”
Not yet. Day/night Test cricket needs significant testing at first class level first. The potential for drastically altering the balance of play is huge. In limited overs cricket its not so important, as limited overs cricket is meaningless anyway; and the ball almost works. Some grounds will never be suitable for day/night Tests due to local conditions (dew at Port Elizabeth being a prime example).
“4. Teams now select XIIIs instead of XIIs. Eleven players still bat, and eleven players still take the field. The big change is the introduction of a specialist bowler who doesn’t bat, but only bowls and fields. The batsman he replaces in the fielding team now becomes an interchange/emergency fielder along with the 13th player.”
No. Even when trialled domestically at limited overs level, substitutes proved to be a farce. Eleven vs eleven is how all serious cricket should always be played. I don’t understand how anyone can claim to want to save the traditional form of the game by changing the very nature of cricket itself. Covers point 5 as well.
“6. This now places pressure on curators to produce pitches that will provide a fair contest for all components of the game – team batting first, team batting last, pacemen and spinners.”
The biggest problem is the trend to overly batting friendly pitches. That will be a problem regardless, changing the game won’t alter the pressure on the groundsmen. Boards seem to have it their minds that people want to see big scores, rather than an attacking battle between bat and ball. A hangover from being focussed on producing limited overs pitches perhaps.
“7. No one team can face more than 110 overs per innings (this represents one third of total available). After 110 overs, an innings is declared compulsory closed by the umpires. How many runs the team scores is up to them.”
The big concern I have here is that it can reward a great batting team whoi simply does not have the ability to take 20 wickets. One of the things that sets Test cricket apart from other forms of the game is that you need to take wickets; not just score runs rapidly. It might produce more results on flat pitches, but does it assist in saving Test cricket, or replace it?
Points 8 and 9 have the same issue; they seem to be more about changing Test cricket’s fundamentals than saving the game.
“10. Coloured clothing to be introduced, to add colour and give the Test teams a real feel of representing their country.”
If players need a coloured uniform to get that feeling, then the battle is already lost and players need serious therapy. It may open up more options regarding finding a suitable ball for day/night Test matches. Its no a football code, spectators can tell who is on which team rather simply, if they aren’t holding a bat they are on the fielding team. Cooured clothing may or may not add to the spectacle. Being a traditionalist I’m against it on first glance, but if that’s a price that needs to be paid, so be it. I do support numbers on players’ backs, so that spectators can more readily pick out fieldsmen.
“11. Selection of a coloured ball for use in day/night cricket – white/yellow/orange/pink, etc – all to be tested under various conditions to find which colour is most suitable.”
Not going to happen any time soon, its been looked at for over 20 years without anything coming close to suitable. Even once believed to be found it needs a few years of trial at first class level on each venue that might be suited to day/night Tests to make sure the ball and venue don’t alter things too drastically.
“12. Authorities to have flexible ticketing and pricing system, especially to attract families to dusk/evening sessions, and business folk finishing work hours, and kids finishing school for the day.”
For day/night Tests this could work. A slightly discounted “two session” ticket or something similar enabling entry after the first session (assuming three sessions here).
sheek said | November 28th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Timmuh,
1. The change is lifestyle. It’s not desirable, but designed to better fit people’s lives. It’s reduced, but still provides a longer form of cricket. This is the unfortunate reality.
2. Typo! Yes, today teams can bowl more than 90 overs in a day if they choose.
3. What testing? WSC supertests were day/night matches. That was 1978/79 – 31 summers ago! It’s been proven.
4. Maybe, but we need to get with the times. I have no doubt this can work. Merely requires a more flexible mindset. I am totally comfortable with the idea.
6. This will test the will of administrators, won’t it….. ?
7. Agreed this part needs working on. Having reduced the overall number of over available, I also believe it necessary to place a cap on how many overs a team can face per innings. Not ideal, but open to suggestions…..
10. Don’t get too literal. Coloured clothing in test cricket simply brings it into line with with all other sports. I like it!
11. I don’t recall too much problems with the balls used way back in 1978/79, although I can’t remember if they stuck with the red balls back then. In any case, I’m bemused how the colour can affect the ball, since the ball is made from the same materials & specifications as any other cricket ball.
vinay verma said | November 28th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Sheek on the use of coloured balls a solution exists that is so simple it escapes the marketing whiz kids.
Say we play a Day/Night Test. Cap tthe Innings for each team at 120 overs. From 2-6PM use the Red ball and then from 6.30 to 10.30PM use the white ball. If the innings goes to the next day use the first Old red ball.A minimum 100 overs in a Day.
We can fiddle with all this.It comes back to your statement of “will”. Do the administrators have the will. In the WSC days they used the white ball,I think all the time..stand to be corrected.
Some traditionalists will be horrified but then I think in the greater interest we will have to ignore them. After all anything we do is ultimately for the next generation.
Brian said | November 28th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
I think once you cap the innings this is no longer test cricket. Changes like 3 days, capping innings or changing the number of players are too fundamental. For me that would be the death of test cricket. Even if tests were 3 days, played at night, runs were plentiful and close finishes abundant, aren’t you just slowly re-creating ODI. These ODI are already meaningless because they have no context. I think the comments on greed and not sharing TV rights money are spot on.
vinay verma said | November 28th 2009 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Brian,I would dearly love to see Test Cricket survive the way it is. I have mentioned in a post that we should try everything but not change the way it is played. Spectator comfort and convenience is a big consideration. For too long the spectator has been a prop and ignored. Five day Tests at night.coloured clothing but everything else the same. I dont know,Brian but central to my concern is that I dont want the game to become a freak show where people ogle two headed monsters.
I have enough memories of the great traditions of Test Cricket to last me into my dotage. I would like to see this passed on to the next generation but like life you cannot force anything on people. They have got to want it. You and I can only try to show the young people that tradition is worth bottling. Conversely we have to listen to the young minds and see what they want the game to be. I would rather have a game with some semblance of tradition than no game at all.
I dont have all the answers but dialogue is better than apathy.
sheek said | November 28th 2009 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
Brian,
Imagine if a doctor told you that you had cancer. Do nothing and you will die. But with radical treatment you might live. Not certain you will live, but possible.
So, what will YOU do……………….. ?
It’s the same with test cricket. Do nothing, and the game will die. Make some remedial changes, and you might just save test cricket!
So, what would YOU do………………… ?
Timmuh said | November 29th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Re: the 13 instead of 12 and substitutions. What does it add? Precisely nothing that I can see, while destroying the very essence of the game.
Such drastic changes would not be saving Test cricket, but replacing it with a brand new form of the game. It might be still be labelled a Test match, but it would not be Test cricket. The same goes for limiting innings by overs; that’s just creating a more drawn out version of limited overs cricket. Why bother? It wouldn’t have the instant gratification of the existing limited overs forms, or the balance of test cricket as we have known it.
The Supertests in WSC were played under lights, but the simple fact is that the white ball does not last the distance (it rarely lasts 50 overs, which is why there have been various rules to swap the ball around that have been used) and the red is hopeless under lights. No suitable ball has been found and a few decades of trials and tests hasn’t changed that. Once one is found that does the job, and has been tested at first class level, then Tests under lights would be a great move at most venues (some are unsuitable for climatic or other reasons).
The white ball is more of a surface lacquer, the colour doesn’t sink into the ball the way the red does and hence is worn away much quicker. The internals and leather are the same, its the “coating” that is different.
On point six, the will of the administrators to fix pitches is required, and failing, regardless of whether any changes to test cricket occur or not. Moving the game closer to a limited overs version, which many of your suggestions do, would conceivably be more likely to lead to even more limited overs type pitches.
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Timmuh,the ideal is not to change the fabric of Test Cricket. And todays’ news that laboratory trials are encouraging for a white ball could be the answer. Agreed that the surface lacquer is short term and hence the need to persevere with the trials. You are also right that capping overs and the like render it a longer version of the 50 over game.
But there is consensus on the need for more sporting pitches and making it more friendly for time poor spectators.Like with batting and bowling and life it is about balance and find the optimum. Take your eye of the ball and it could be fatal.
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
i don’t think its a lifestyle thing. Cities only have one test a year. its only 5 days and two of them are on the weekend. People seen to be able to make time for 4 day golf tournaments and two week tennis tournaments in other countries. Juge amounts of English people seemto be able to fly around the world to watch test cricket.
England rarely plays any test not in fornt of packed crowds. English test crowds were not like that in the 60.s, 70’s and 80’s
Midfielder said | November 28th 2009 @ 6:59pm | Report comment
• If I may be so bold as to put myself up as an example… Some years back I could tell you anything about our test cricket team… somewhere near to when Mark Taylor retired to now my interest in test cricket continuous slow fall.
So I ask myself what would get me back to the fan I was 15 years ago… TBH I am not sure further if you asked me to put my finger on it I could not… but I list of thoughts for consideration.
They may not all be right but it is how I feel.
* Lost of some great test cricket callers especially on radio .. they brought a sense of history I miss.
* The way players behave on the field has changed.
* Steve Waugh turning sledging into a winning tatic.
* West Indies becoming a shadow of their former self.
* Realising cricket in England was about number 7 in their sports.
* Realising only Australia seemed to place great pride in test cricket … India was more or seemed to me to be more into ODI.
* That the Poms are just hopeless.
So there you have some of my feelings, still don’t know how to fix but at least it is something to work on…
bever fever said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
You forgot to mention its not a global sport, therefore you must have zero interest.
Midfielder said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
You mix up your meds or something gone wrong today .. ! ! ! ? ? ?
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 2:11pm | Report comment
Players are better behaved than they were 15 years ago.
England were hopeless 15 years ago. they have just now won the ashes.
Australia is ranked 4th in test cricketers so there are a least three other countries higher than them who take it seriously.
Australia is number one in one dayers
.
vinay verma said | November 28th 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
Sure,Midfielder you are not being bold and we cannot afford to lose your support. There is a change in many of the Test Cricketers now. Young guys like Smith,Sangakara and Ponting,not to mention Dhoni and Vettori do not use sledging as a weapon. They still chirp but I think they have learnt there are limits.
Tendulkar rues the fact that India does not play enough Tests. I dont think the Poms are hopeless. In fact Anderson,Broad,Pietersen and Strauss are fine cricketers. Irrespective of their background they are playing for England. We must remember we had Kepler Wessels play for us.
So stick with it Midfielder and Test Cricket may not be as terminal as we all think. Though,heaven nows,it needs smelling salts.
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
India were meant to play at least 9 test this calendar year but the Pakistan test were cancelled because on non cricketing reasons. I think India play more test then they used to say in 1990’s
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/6.html?class=1;template=results;type=team;view=results
Midfielder said | November 28th 2009 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
Vinay
I have never left I still watch but nowhere near as much and it means less to me now… I don’t know if I am describing it well but once a time over summer we talked about cricket and I would loose sleep over some things…
Vinay a tho just occured to me, so I will ask I think a difficult question …. has the standard of test playing nations fallen over all … or was there a goldern period between 75 – 95 ? … Prehaps I am missing the great fast bowling sides or what I am not sure … but is cricket today played at a lower standard than say 1985..
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Midfielder..Not a difficult question for me. The best cricket I have seen was from 1971 through to around 2004. This to me was the Golden Age. The time before 1971 saw many Great Cricketers but seldom Great Cricket. Prior to the Tied Test cricket was generally moribund. This had a lot to do with Captains scared of losing. India and Pakistan played endless drawn series. Sri Lanka was not yet a Test Playing Nation. The technique though of players like Harvey,O’neill,Hutton,May,Kanhai,Sobers et al was better. They had the unlimited bouncers and wickets were not as flat. Batsman could play of the front and back foot and did not continually lunge forward. Benaud and Worrell gave Test Cricket the kiss of life and this continued with Ian Chappell and Clive Lloyd. The quality of the Super Tests in the Packer era was some of the best cricket I have ever seen. Lillee to Richards and Greenidge. Imran Khan and Procter to Chappells,Walters and Redpath. Holding Roberts and Garner to the best batsmen.
Prior to this the World X! in 1971 where Sobers played probably the best innings of the Modern era in Melbourne. A young Gavaskar straight driving a rampaging Lillee. Graeme Pollock clubbing the monstous cover drives and Colin Bland showing us why he is arguably the greatest outfielder in the history of the game. Yes we had great fast bowlers and great batsman.
The 1980’s and 1990’s gave us 4 of the greatest allrounders to have played the game. IMRAN KHAN,DEV,BOTHAM AND HADLEE.Then we had the Borders,Waughs,McGrath,Warne,Tendulkar,Wasim Akram Dravid,Ponting,Murali ,Ambrose,Walsh.
But since 1996 and the advent of huge TV revenue the pitches have got flatter and since 2005 it has become a predictable game. You tend to ignore technique when the bowling is predictable and you are wearing medieval armour. Sporting pitches will revive technique and make cricket a more interesting game. The great batsmen of the 21 st Century like Tendulkar,Dravid,Ponting,Kallis,Laxman,Jayawardene would have prospered in any era. Just like Bradman,Hutton,Hobbs,Gavaskar would have prospered in the modern era. It is not only class that is permanent but sound technique. A good technique will enable you to play all three forms. A so so technique leaves you good for only the slap dash.
The general standard has fallen but this is because of the nature of the Twenty20.If you saw any of the NZ-Pak Test the last four days you will see that Umar Akmal,a nineteen year old,has as good a technique as the old masters. However the Paki openers bought up on a diet of Twenty20 failed miserably. Ditto Gayle but Barath showed the benefit of a good technique. Yes the standard has slipped but the talent is still there. I am still excited at the prospect of watching a Duminy,a Akmal,Sehwag,Ponting and Dilshan. Lots of good cricketers out there. They need the right pitches and cricket can prosper.
Sorry,I have been long winded but I wanted to share with you my optimism for this great game.
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Vinay,
it is often said a light’s brightest filament is immediately before being extinguished. Let’s hope your test cricket’s golden age (1971-2005) isn’t the bright filament prior to extinguishment!
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Also, you have to remember that from 1971 to about 92/93 test cricket had some of the lowest crowds that it had ever had. Therefore, the paying punter didn’t think they were living in a golden age.
ohtani's jacket said | November 29th 2009 @ 1:26am | Report comment
I agree that the summer of cricket ain’t what it used to be, but the NZ/Pakistan Test sounded like it had a bit of something for everyone. There needs to be something in the pitches for the bowlers as well as the batsmen and more quality bowling on top of that. Hopefully, the Test returns of Sreesanth and Bond this week will go some way to addressing the imbalance between bat and ball. The Windies are a mickey mouse outfit and I can’t see the Australian series being entertaining unless you like watching the Aussies smash sides.
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Sheek,Ohtani and Midfielder…We’ve gone from the dullness pre Tied Test to the 4plus runs an over of the mid nineties culminating in generally attacking cricket only to be faced now with dead pitches. We’ve gone from the telegram to the telex and now the email. The Age of ignorance went to the Age of Knowledge but we seemed to have skipped the Age of Enlightenment. We seem to have an Age of Entitlement without the concomitant responsibility and accountability.
But it is heartening to note that the two issues dominating the converstion are Climate Change and Terrorism. We obviously want a better world and are struggling to define this.
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Test cricket didn’t suddenly bloom after the 60/61 series. There was plenty of boring cricket in the 1960’s.
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Dave!,
Where do you get your crowd figures?
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
Mainly from cricinfo and CricketArchive http://www.cricketarchive.com/. Or just general articles
like this one saying that last years boxing day test had the highest third-day attendance for a Boxing Day Test match at the MCG that did not involve England.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/thirdday-crowd-gets-test-attendance-back-on-track/2008/12/28/1230399046692.html
Attendance figures for cricket could be a lot more comprehensive on the net though.
It would help because basing analysis just on peoples memories is not that reliable.
Dave1 said | December 12th 2009 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
Sheek
found some more from 2007
http://www.sportstats.com.au/blognov06tomar07.html
“….Comparing totals over four-year Ashes cycles, the last four years has been the best-attended in Australian cricket history, with 2.33 million coming to the Tests, surpassing the 2.21 million from 1973/74 to 1976/77, although the daily averages over the four years were higher in the 1970s….
…….Longer-term trends are very much in Tests favour. Total ODI crowds were more than 50% higher than Tests for much of the 1980s. Tests made a gradual comeback in the 1990s, catching up by the turn of the century, and now the positions are reversed, with Tests soaring more than 50% above ODI crowds in the last five years…….
……..The underlying trend for Tests has been relentlessly upward since 1990, while ODIs have been falling since 1999……………”
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
This summers aren’t what it used to be compared to when we were playing south Africa’s for the no. 1 ranking last season.
If your going to reappraise test cricket every week your going to do your head in, its 132 years old.
Look at the last ten years
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/433868.html
“The decade of entertainment
There’s been plenty to moan about in the 2000s, but the cricket itself has been mostly exciting, less draw-prone, and more unpredictable…………”
Midfielder said | November 29th 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Vinay
Thanks for your answer and I think you maybe close to the mark when you said the pitches are for batting.
You named four great players in .. IMRAN KHAN,DEV,BOTHAM AND HADLEE, I would add the great fast bowlers of the time to.. Walsh, Marshal etc..
If I compare Lillie to McGrath … Lillie was more !!$$##@@ something to watch. McGrath line was there every ball bang on the spot never an easy ball … Lillie especially the early Lillie fire is what I felt…. maybe I am being way to hard …
The current WI side are not a patch on there 75 to 90 side… so victory over WI in three days is yawn … a three day victory over Clive LLoyds side whould have had me screaming and having a couple of drinks…
I think this is what I mean beating the WI in three days is yawn …. there is no more much great drama.. the Theatre and Majesty is missing … maybe I am way to hard…
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
MF..it was only a quick amble through the years..left out many greats including Greenidge,Hall ,Gilchrist,Thommo….lots of good ‘uns there…Ambrose at the WACA was frightening..Do you remeber Frederick’s blazing century at the WACA? Doug Walters six of the last ball? Hooksey 5 in a row or was it four of Greig..Roberts busting Hookes’ jaw and McCosker with his head bandaged…Earlier this year Graeme Smith removing his plaster and trying to save the game..lots still there,my friend
Midfielder said | November 29th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
All of em and more I can see the day that Boarder & Thompson held on and when in sight of victory … there goes Thmo..
I still follow cricket but as I said not to the same degree and I wonder aloud do the media in there desire to sell papers and rate on TV have to have a story on each of thefootball codes everyday, has this had an effact on me. Especially AFL & NRL where the media find stories almost out of nothing…. Seems to me in summer the media was cricket today we have on the Central Coast Radio the two lead sports stories that a RL player was not running freely at training, and about some AFL draft pick…
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Midfielder..I know of Sports Editors that tell the journos give me the goss…they want the stuff of the field rather than on the field…Same with Tv…the glam and the scandal…there must be people out there that watch or read this stuff…
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Midfielder,
The debate will always rage over Lillee versus McGrath, for those who saw both. Lillee is the fast bowling version of Viv Richards – others may have better statistical records, but like Richards (who scared the bejesus out of bowlers), Lillee scared the bejesus out of batsmen!
For me Lillee was the greatest fast bowler I saw, & I saw plenty of them from the 1970s onwards. Significantly, most of the great fast bowlers who followed him – Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, etc – also regard him as the benchmark.
The other thing is that sport is also entertainment. You need the technically superior players like McGrath, with his metronome line & length, but most of all you want to see guys like Lillee & Richards egging each other on. One day Richards will finish on top, another day it will be Lillee.
How many of us remember the Boxing day test at the MCG in 1981? On a brute of a pitch, the Aussies were bundled out for 198, with Kim Hughes hitting a courageous 100 not out. Then in half an hour before stumps, the game turned on its head.
The Windies ended the day at 4-10. Lillee picked up 3 wickets including clean-bowling Richards (off an inside edge) with the last delivery of the day. The crowd went ballistic!
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
According to this at that boxing day in 1981/82 there were only 40,000 there.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/02/1075570361219.html
When the West indies last played on at boxing day in 2000/01, when they were 3-0 down in the series, 73 233
turned up
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Dave1,
Are you on some kind of crusade?
Crowds can be up & done for all sorts of reasons. Back in 1981/82, there was still residual ill-feeling left-over from WSC, from players to administrators to fans. It flared up again with the rebel tours to SA in the mid-80s.
It probably wasn’t until the early 90s that the bad-feeling was finally put to bed. Also, I was into surf carnivals back then, along with thousands of other young kids & adults. You could walk up & down any beach holding a surf carnival on a Saturday of a test match, & almost every radio was tuned into the cricket?
So I think you need more criteria than just crowds to determine a sports health.
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
I don’t think I’m not on a crusade. However I’ve just read Moneyball. So I think their could be more factual analysis of this issues instead of having agendas run by columnists who asses the state of world cricket on the way they feel when they wake up on any given day.
Talking about the old days adn Surf lifesaving, one thing that has changed is their used to be more competition for cricket. Surf lifesaving was huge with the Kellogg’s and nutra grain comps. There was the NBL, tennis and golf used to have tournaments every week. Once upon a time even baseball was bigger and people would even know who had won the Claxton shield. That all gone now and cricket pretty much has the summer to its self nowadays
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Yes, that’s true about greater competition back in the 90s for various sports. Rationalisation by sponsors, I guess.
Moneyball is an interesting book. Haven’t read it, but have read various blurbs related to the story of the Oakland Raiders, I think it was?
Stats are valuable, but my problem with stats is that you shouldn’t let them takeover your intuitive feel for things. Of course, not everyone has the same level of intuition, but if you’re someone who trusts your intuition, you shouldn’t let stats rule your thinking.
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
gut again the crowd in Brisbane in 2000/01 was bigger than any of Clive Lloyd’s teams in Brisbane. Queenslanders weren’t queuing up to watch that great West Indian team.
Midfielder said | November 29th 2009 @ 1:39pm | Report comment
Sheek
I agree Lillee was the best bowler I have ever seen..
The match that does spring to mind is not a test but a match between Old & WA… I think WA got 72 runs the match was over. Lillle bowled out OLD and at one stage had Old 5 for 10 and he had taken 4 …
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
Dave1..Interesting crowd figures. Perhaps this points to the fact that Australian Crowds did not turn up when their team was getting beaten. And it could also point to the fact that spectators want a contest between two evenly matched teams.
I also agree with you that players are better behaved. I have always said England and Australia have a Tradition of Test Cricket. Duneidin had 6000 plus yesterday. Again the cricket was good.
I am not going to jump to conclusions but I remain convinced more needs to be done in the biggest market of all. If more than 70% of all revenue is generated in India it makes sense to preserve and enhance the appeal of Tests in the biggest market.
Dave1 said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
The high crowds in 2000/01 when the west Indies lost 5-0 might get you thinking that Australians just want to see Australia thrashing the other team.
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Dave1,then as a proud sporting Nation we just need to grow up and appreciate good sport,regardless of who is playing it. I resent home crowds booing opposing players. Ponting’s treatment in England was unwarranted and Murali’s treatment in Australia was shameful. Gilchrist at the Wanderer’s was distraught. Spectators,like administratora and players,also need to be mindful.
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Dave1,
Clive Lloyd’s 1984 Windies were one of the truly great teams – Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards, Gomes, Lloyd(c), Dujon(k), Marshall, Holding, Garner, Walsh, Harper(12th). From the 1981 team Roberts had been replaced by Marshall & Croft by Walsh.
But the Aussie team was quite terrible, & in free-fall after the retirement of the ‘holy trinity’ – G.Chappell, R,Marsh & Lillee.
Aussies do like to see the best, but only if their own team is competitive. At least, that is how I see it.
Dave1 said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
Also, useful information when people start complaining about the Pakistan crowds this season
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/402742.html?comments=all
“If a stump falls and no one is around to write about it, does it mean Australia must be playing Pakistan”
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
Sheek..good debate and lets all get together at the SCG Test. Pick a day and a spot and I’ll catch up with you for a bit of festive cheer.
Brett McKay said | November 29th 2009 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Vinay, I’m up there day 1, and would love to. I was actually thinking of suggesting the afternoon prior, as a bit of a ‘preview’ session??
vinay verma said | November 29th 2009 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
Brett,you can get my details from Zac or from my Profile. The day before might be a problem.Keep in touch.
sheek said | November 29th 2009 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
Vinay,
I hope to meet you one day, however I’ll be down the south coast over New Year, then back at work on the 2nd. I still have to organise a coffee/chat with Spiro!
Freud of Football said | November 29th 2009 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
There has been some mention of the crowds during these glory days.
Mark Waugh is the one cricketer in the last 20 years that I would have paid to see, Id have been happy to pay full price and only watch his innings and leave afterwards. That is what cricket lacks nowadays, you pay to see a bunch of over-coached batsman facing mediocre (in comparison with their predecessors) bowlers on billiard tables, it’s not a contest and there is no beauty.
Warne and McGrath, on their day, I would have also paid to see, who wouldnt pay to get in to see them tear a team apart but far too often the pitches were against them, it was “sad” to see Warne take 1 or 2/150 odd on occasions, he was a far better bowler than that but with pitches so batsman-friendly it happened, hence only ME Waugh would have gotten my money, he was the one guy who could have drawn me to the game every time.
A Mark Waugh innings of 10 was more exciting than a Steven Waugh innings of 100.
Lara and Tendulkar at the start of their careers but they changed too much into efficient run-makers over time, Tendulkar’s 175 was more the exception than the standard for him nowadays.
tifosi said | November 29th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
Robert craddock from foxsports just about sums up where the West Indies are today.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26414571-5018870,00.html
Will be interesting to see how the crowds pan out for the rest of the summer. Im expecting some pretty dismal numbers.
As much as people like to see your team win, people also want to see a contest. West Indies dont provide it.
Freud of Football said | November 29th 2009 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
The Windies simply aren’t a test team right now, there isn’t the quality that they need and that’s likely to extend from the poor infrastructure and administration in the Caribbean.
I hope they put up a fight, the worrying thing is I think this will harm Aus, many don’t expect Pakistan to be a challenge but after cruising by the Windies, Pakistan might just come out and cause a few upsets.
M1tch said | November 30th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
The New Zealand v Pakistan game showed test cricket is well and alive, there will be bad teams that tour to Australia..just a few months ago we lost to England again..its not all doom and gloom.
Dave1 said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
@Sheek
In Moneyball they are wary of intuition
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1301.Moneyball_The_Art_of_Winning_an_Unfair_Game
“There was, for starters, the tendency of everyone who actually played the game to generalize wildly from his own experience. People always thought their own experience was typical when it wasn’t.”