Cricket is unique. No other sport has three formats – one that lasts multiple days using a red ball, and two games that are played over 50 and 20 overs respectively using a white ball.
Each form of the game has its own charm and popularity in different parts of the world.
In Australia and England Test cricket is very popular. On the sub-continent, the shorter forms of the game prove to be well-supported, somewhat to the expense of the longer form – especially in terms of gate receipts.
All this cricket takes time.
Let’s use Australia as an example. In the next 12 months Australia will finish the current one day series versus South Africa, play four Tests against India, participate in a 50-over tri-series, play in the One Day World Cup competition, tour the West Indies for two Tests and three ODIs, compete for the Ashes over five Tests (plus tour games) followed by five ODIs and a T20 international, then tour Bangladesh for two Tests in October, and host New Zealand in November and December for three Tests.
Wow! That does not even include the IPL or Champions league!
It gets better though. In the four months after the three Tests versus New Zealand at the end of 2015, Australia host the West Indies in Tests, tour India for Tests and ODIs, and then tour South Africa for Tests and ODIs before a T20 World Cup!
That is a lot of cricket in anyone’s language. One can see why the subject of workloads for not only players but coaches is often discussed.
This does raise a couple of points.
Is there too much cricket being played? Has the game been devalued somewhat?
To answer the first question, I would say there is, however there has to be this amount of cricket played. Why you say? It comes down to the current ICC future tours programme.
As it currently stands, television contracts are in place. From a commercial point of view, this is reality. As a consequence, countries prioritise which games their players play to get them through the schedule.
This clearly shows that there is too much meaningless cricket being played, which then answers the second question.
The game is being devalued because fans part with their hard earned to go and watch their team, but because teams need to prioritise they don’t necessarily field their strongest sides. This is reality and, from a support staff point of view, I can completely understand why teams do this.
It brings me to my point of three different forms of the game. With the advent of T20, the IPL has joined the calendar, along with a host of other T20 leagues – here in England T20 has been played for over 10 seasons now. The other tournament that has been added to the calendar is the Champions League T20 – a fantastic initiative that gives players who may never get to represent their country an opportunity to play in an international tournament for their domestic team.
So what to do about the schedule?
I offer two solutions.
1. Scrap international T20 cricket
I propose that T20 cricket be the domain of domestic tournaments, with the pinnacle of T20 being Champions League cricket.
This would cut down on days played by getting rid of the T20 World Cup and two and three-match series between countries. That’s not saving a lot of days in a year, but it’s a start.
2. Trial four-day Test matches
A bit more radical, however I would propose increasing the number of overs in a day to either 96 or 102 and play four-day cricket.
This would make teams get through their overs (most international teams are poor with this), but the total of hours and overs played would remain the same. The result would be extra free days created for players to rest, recover, train and travel.
This would also help with costs of hosting a fifth day for countries.
I look forward to Roarers’ thoughts!
Trent
Guest
Spot on with T20 being best suited to domestic competitions. I get right into the Big Bash and IPL but I won't watch T20 internationals. I'm not so sure about the four-day Tests though. I want to ensure a result in every game. That's already not guaranteed with five days.
Rocco75
Guest
Yes I forgot South Africa. so that makes it 10 nations: Australia, India, England, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka New Zealand, Bangladesh are on the next rung. West Indies and Zimbabwe are on the lower rung. the top 6 are competitive at all 3 formats. the next 4 aren't. hence it's the same countries playing each other home and away in all 3 formats over a 4 year period. that's repetitive.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
If the relevant administrators are fair dinkum about over rates in Tests, run penalties need to be brought in immediately. I've lost track of exactly what the penalty is for slow over rates in ODIs/T20s ... is it still overs lost? ... but there very rarely seems to be any issue in those matches because the penalties are effective. Clearly the administrators just don't care about this issue at Test level. Start times have been brought forward 30 minutes to accommodate the now compulsory over time which gives broadcasters another half hour of product. Presumably all parties involved are quite happy to get 6pm and say ... "meh, 87 overs, close enough".
The Bush
Roar Guru
That doesn't explain why we're going back next year though, that only explains why it was brought forward.
Jason Gillespie
Guest
Run penalties are a good idea
Jason Gillespie
Guest
Simply trying to explore solutions to the scheduling problem
anchorman
Roar Rookie
Dizzy did they bowl the allotted 90 overs per day when you were playing!!!! I think not. It is not really all that long ago when they use to bowl 100 eight ball overs in a day and have time to spare.
The Magic Man
Guest
Great calls all of them... love idea of 4 day tests as long as time isn't lost. I always thought T20 should have been a domestic product and a clean way to differentiate domestic tournaments from international level tournaments.
Johnno
Guest
But it won't wash u right the mums will say no.Don't think shaun tait would mind.
Mal
Guest
Dizzy, Interesting but not likely to work. Teams are not bowling the current 90 overs, so there is no way they'll bowl 102 (even wth extra time to do it). The horse has probably bolted with T20I's too so rightly or wrongly, they're here to stay. Get rid of T20 and ODI cricket from the future tours program as this is just a cash grap. The ICC needs to see that less is more and that we don't need endless "best of series". Especially when 60 overs out of every 100 are running singles to 3rd man. There is a World Cup already for determining who's number 1. Clogging the calendar with wall to wall NZ v Bang, SA v WI, Aus v SL, Eng v Zim has never told us what we don't already know and has never held the attendion of even the most fanitical cricket watcher. Last night's 4-1 series result put Australia on top of the rankings, but who really cares? It will mean nothing if we don't win the World Cup final. FutureTours Program only has relevance for tests where a tournament is impractical. People question the idea of a rotation policy because it has been used so poorly when attempted. A squad of 5 bowlers for a 5 match series (of any format) ensures everyone gets at least one rest and the depth and fabric of a team aren't comprimised too much. Instead, we've gone 4 in- 4 out on a willy nilly basis and people have said rotation doesn't work. It would work if done properly, but my point here is, it would hardly be needed if there wasn't so many meaningless games which just cause player and fan burn out.
Johnno
Guest
More specific. Rule only applies pro level,not at amatuer,semi-pro or junior level.
Brett McKay
Expert
That's ridiculous, Johnno. Good luck getting that past the mums of junior batsmen....
Johnno
Guest
Brett I;m saying if the helmet is broken, you have to play in a cap or go off. As I said if you get felled by a legit bouncer your fault as a batter, you were not good enough to get out of the way. If it's a no-ball bouncer or beamer , different you can replace your helmet. Have to provide incentives for the bowlers, and batters if they don't wanna be hit in the head and have there head taken off, train hard in nets vs good fast bowling and learn how to hook. But it will never wash. Shoes get changed a bit. I don't mind bowlers changing shoes, but batters no excuses.
Brett McKay
Expert
Johnno, it's actually dangerous to keep batting in a broken helmet. What you're talking about brings with it a serious risk of injury, which will just never, ever wash. Regardless, you watch a day of Test cricket, and I don't even care who's playing, but you count just how many times in that day a helmet or a bat or pads or shoes are changed. I bet you don't use many fingers. Gloves is a different story. I'm sure they sometimes do get changed when it's not really needed, but at the same time, if bowlers can shine the ball, then surely batsmen are entitled to a dry grip of the bat.
Johnno
Guest
mds1970 not a bad idea, only thinh is , teams may waste some time, but penalties apply no drinks if running late. But some may say, no we want drinks break, a 5 minute rest as fielding the outfielders have to do a lot of running. I have always wanted subs for fast bowlers with out haveing to be penalised if they go off and wait when they come back on. Say 2-3 subs allowed per innings and the bowler don't have to wait, he can just comeback out. The Shaun Taits, and Brett Lee's would love it, out and out 150 clicks, fresh as a daisy bowl 6 rampant overs. Then have a rest.
Johnno
Guest
More about only valid reasons to change your helmet Brett. You get hit by a good bouncer bad luck mate, if your not good enough to hook or pull, or duck. eg Justin Langer's hit by Nntini was not a no-ball, he misread the bounce, bad luck. But if Matt Hayden had been hit in the head by Simon Jones beamer in the ODI game on 2005 Ashes tour, that would be a no-ball and deemed a valid reason to change helmets. I am a special talent, I may as well be the Greg Matthews of the roar, or the Brian Lara of the roar.
Brett McKay
Expert
"Helmet breaks bad luck, you get hit by a bouncer, work on your ability to deal with short pitch deliveries , that’s what the nets are for. Only time you can change helmet if helmet breaks from a bouncer, is if it was deemed a no-ball eg a beamer,or foot over the line." It takes a special talent to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences, Johnno...
mds1970
Roar Guru
It shouldn't be hard to bowl 96 overs in a day. An idea I've had is that drinks & breaks be taken after overs rather than time. So no drinks break until 16 overs, lunch taken after 32, tea taken after 64 etc. If players have to wait longer for their breaks, they'll know they're tracking behind in the over rate and it's time to get on with it.
Johnno
Guest
Dizzy a few points -Sheffield shield already has and always has used 4-day cricket seems to work, the spinner debate of being spin being devalued is the only issue. -Slow over rates, and rests(time-wasting) during session ways to get deal with it are this. -"Lose runs, or foreift wickets in 1st or 2nd innings if slow-over rates, eg 1 wicket for every 5 overs you behind,without what's defined a valid excuse. Then 2 wickets if you 10 overs behind with out a valid excuse. -So many times in cricket i seen when a team is trying to save a game they waste time with pit stops from trainers repalceing equipment. -No changing bats,gloves,or helmets during innings, no mucking about. Your bat breaks bad luck you will have to retire hurt style(use a different bat model if you worried about that) Bad luck wrong sorts of pads,or shoes, or gloves bad luck, you have ample time before play starts to get logistically sorted out. Helmet breaks bad luck, you get hit by a bouncer, work on your ability to deal with short pitch deliveries , that's what the nets are for. Only time you can change helmet if helmet breaks from a bouncer, is if it was deemed a no-ball eg a beamer,or foot over the line. -Cricket getting rid of runners was one of best rules to eliminate time wasting more, and force players to work on fitness more.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
I agree completely with the scrapping of International T20 games. Four day tests is an interesting one. I don't think the change would make any difference to the quality of the players. In a lot of games we currently see big first innings leads being achieved yet the follow-on is never enforced. This is done primarily to allow bowlers to rest and recover. With only four days available I think we would see the follow-on being enforced most of the time, thereby increasing the stress and strain on bowlers, possibly leading to more injuries. What about a rule saying that the team batting first must declare after 150 overs? Teams can still amass 600 if they are good enough and more aggressive batting late in the innings would be encouraged. However with most scores around 450 - 500 the team battingg second would have a better chance to get back into the game, making for a more even and longer-lived contest.