Tests have to make way for Twenty20

Russ, since you've put it like that, you may be right in saying I've misread Chris above. I was actually hoping that the case in asking the questions I did..

certainly, but that's not exactly of CA's doing, is it..

Brett, I think you completely misread Chris. He is arguing that cricket's structure where star players play international cricket almost exclusively is detrimental to generating interest in state/club cricket. And that cricket is basically unique in having international fixtures compete against domestic competition. Neither are wrong. Neither rugby nor association football schedule international games against their domestic competition. Cricket does so because in its earliest days, they couldn't stop players creating their own representative touring sides to get the biggest gate they could. And 130 years later, it is still hurting interest in domestic competition. For your interest, from 200 Seasons of Australian Cricket: April 1st 1882:

Club cricket seems to be in decline in Sydney, and intercolonial cricket is also threatened, according to the NSW Cricket Association. Where once thousands would attend club games this past season saw them reduced to hundreds. The NSWCA stated in its annual report, 'The refusal of members of returned teams to take part in intercolonial contests has shorn these matches of much of their wanted interest'.

[Colonial delegates] agreed [...] that no English team visit the colonies for three seasons after 1887-88, and that no Australian team visit England from this date. [...] The meeting was held to stem the tide of disillusionment with cricket in Australia where top players are often not available for their colony's sides and attendances and receipts from intercolonial games were suffering. While cricket associations might like more control over players, the players, especially the more 'professional' seem unlikely to give up potentially lucrative tours.

Brett, arent India notorious for poor away performances?!

With crowds the size they have been, I'm pretty sure Test cricket is paying its own way. 3 days of 30,000 plus to Sydney Test, 180k over 4 days in Melbourne. And the prices for Test cricket tickets are massive compared to the cost of a BBL ticket. Sponsorship is big, advertising is big. Your comment about Shield cricket misses the point. How many thousands of people can turn up to a game on a Thursday from 11am-6pm? Silly question, isn't it? And is T20 really the #1 form of cricket at the moment? With all the interest in the Test series, I'd say it's ranking 2nd. BBL games have had good atmosphere and interest, but their crowds have been nothing compared to the Tests.

Brett put not after the above comment pigs might fly, in response to Chris In response to chris opinions about international cricket seemed so not serious, i added a joke of saying pigs might fly, when in reality it is totally ridiculous, just like Chris's opinions about international and state cricket.

Johnno, not for the first time on The Roar, I'm afraid you've lost me. I have no idea why pigs are flying and what you're serious about..

Not.

Pigs might fly too Brett. I am serious .

Chris, surely you're not suggesting the international game be cast aside just to protect the state, county, and provincial scene?!? And you're not aware of any other sport where playing for your country is put in front of playing for your state?? Are you serious?? How about at least three codes of football for starters, and then about every Olympic sport to finish with?!? What a strange comment..

Well steggz pro sport is a business, and money is everything, and how can CA even fund test cricket and the longer form of the game in some way if it makes CA no money. And T20 provides that, it is making CA money $$$$ at this is the only thing that counts. And how do you know T20 will not take over test cricket as the no 1 form of cricket steggz. Why can't test cricket die if the majority of cricket fans want it too, or don't care if it exists as a form of the sport or not. Now I am all for the longer form of the sport, but it has to pay it's own way, it is unfair on CA and cricket fans of the shorter form of the games T20, to fund and subsidise test cricket or shield cricket. If there are enough fans out there that want it they will pay there own way, if not then test or shield cricket can die and will die a natural death. In India the crowds to test matches have been awful a lot of the time in the last 5 years, i could not believe how empty the stadiums were when Australia played some tests in India in the last 5 years. It is not the responsibiltyof fans of the shorter form of the game or CA to finance or subsidise test cricket or shield cricket , it is up to these forms to create enough interest and fans where it is financially viable for CA to invest in scheduling the longer form of the game. And it is a numbers game, and if there are not enough fans of test cricket or shield cricket then it is not up to the players or fans who only like T20, to support these other forms of cricket. I mean they do nothing for indoor cricket why should ODI or 1st class cricket be helped when financial demand does not warrant it Steggz. And I steggz am a 32 yr old male fan of test cricket by the way not T20, but i respect if T20 is the no 1 form with the majority of fans, and if 1st class or test cricket dies then I simply see that as the natural evolution of the sport and fads or interests evolve change and do not last forever steggz.

No. I am saying that you're making a ridiculous argument. Just because Shield games get smaller crowds, should we get rid of them? No! I, as a 26 year old man, do not want to see the death of Test cricket in Australia just because T20 gets bigger crowds that Shield matches. Long-form cricket is, and always will be, the pinnacle of the game. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a game of T20 here and there. But there is nothing like the atmosphere, the tactical games, the battle of attrition that a Test or Shield game gives.

What are you saying steggz do you think the shilled is more populate than the BBL, .

How many does the WACA hold? 17,000? A Sheffield Shield season, with 30 games, would get that and possibly double it. And that is even with games that are on in the middle of a working week, when almost everyone is either working or studying, and so mostly people who are unemployed or retired go.

Is that dedicated numnber zero? Or very close to it? The BBL final, despite a forecast of 42 degrees, sold out in 14 minutes. You add up the crowd at every day of every Shield game this year and it won't be that many.

Another troll.

There are more BBL fans because more people can go to a game at 7pm than at 11am on a weekday. Most people have jobs or studies to keep them occupied!

Maggie, a few points . You say dedicated number of cricket lovers, but still there are far more BBL fans than shield fans in pure numbers and massively so. These state shield fans you say are the extreme minority i hate to break it to you maggie. If the shield was so financially profitable, and making money is all that counts, then CA would put the shield on in prime time of the season christmas/january period but they didn't maggie. Why coz they think the BBL makes more money which is all that matters. And what do you define as superficial, are most T20 fans superficial then Maggie, if they are engaging in activities that you define as superficial, which is supporting the BBL so are these fans then superficial in your opinion Maggie. And are state cricket fans more purists, and less superficial Maggie.

Johnno, if you were to come to a Sheffield Shield match you would find a dedicated number of cricket lovers who go to every match at their home ground. One of the things I love about going to Shield matches is that the spectators are there solely for the cricket not for the superficial 'entertainment' that blights even Test cricket now (e.g. the embarrassingly silly Kiss-Cam).

Cricket focuses way to much on international cricket.International matches are suppose to be for world cups and international events but cricket runs national teams the same amount it does for domestic teams. Bad for developing the games and bad for developing players because of course no one is going to watch state cricket when Australia are playing just as much as the state teams. As far as im aware Cricket is the only sport that does this format.