Could a Davis Cup-type structure fix Test cricket?

Chris, you must love playing "dungeons and dragons" and those other geeky weirdos that do medieval sword fighting in a suburban park on a sunday afternoon, and think there cool and relevant, when they just don't get it. To the rest of the World there irrelevant, like some people who act like everyone cares about state of origin. That is a drop in status, that test-cricket is becoming which is sad, but nothing can be done. It's moveing from mainstream sport, to cult classic movie status/ or a cult sport, played by Uni student wierdos who can't get laid, like medieval sword fighting.

At the end of the day, some things in life you have to give up on, and scrap/sack and evolve and do something else eg typwriter-to the computer. Test-cricket has terminal cancer, and is dieing a slow death, move on. I just can't see a Davis-Cup style working, in the top-10 cricket nations. Every year would be a psuedo world-cup/championship, it would get boring and meaningless. Davis-Cup each match doesn't go for 5-days. And it's wrapped up in 3-days, anyway not 5-days, and is played alot less than cricket anyway. I can't see this working. Test-cricket is an expensive sport to get good at, and maintain, it's not a sport that's easy for the Associate nations to get good at. Shorter formats of the game ODI/T20 are much easier, to develop and catch on to if you have no connection or history to the game. And is cheaper to develop, and more revenue in the sport especially the T20-Gravy train or monster to the traditionilists. I just can't see a future for test-cricket, especially when one of the Big-4 teams, South Africa's crowds are so low for test-cricket. Pakistan faces an uncertain test cricket future. The crowds were poor for the test-series in sri lanka that Pakistan played in. Sri Lanka test cricket crowds are poor. NZ test-cricket has picked up again but there tv-market is small. India are so rich they can afford to run there test side at a financial loss. So really only 3-teams, the Big-3 who formed an alliance recently, I can see as sustaining a test-team long term. 4-day tests or even 3-day tests are being looked at, but then again unlike T20 you get a result faster. Davis Cup has comeback a bit the last few years, but is very different in style to test cricket. Teams all have there own uniform, not both teams wearing white, it goes for 3-days not 5-days, each game is different (5matches done in 3 days). Test cricket 1-match takes flamin 5-days. I just see too many structural problems for test cricket in the modern World. It's a game that the world has passed by. I liken it to horse polo, a sport for the rich, not the masses. Test-cricket is not cheap to develop, T-20 is. You can play T-20 anywhere, indoors, in the backyard, 8-man teams at juniors, it doesn't matter, it's so easy. New people to the game, don't have time for 5-days(450-overs to wait to get result), the World is now to fast for test cricket which is to slow, and I see dieing in 20-years. Gloomy predicitions yep, but too many of the so called top-10 teams in world cricket, I can't see any long term sustainable evidence. Only 3-teams(Australia/England/India), convince me that they can sustain a top-level Test-cricket team. The others, Bangladesh( they barely play any tests unless it's Zimbabwe, they haven't toured Australia since 2003 and that was a top-end test series in the aussie winter)/Zimbabwe-Pakistan(both with to many political problems) Sri Lanka/South Africa/NZ, none of these 7 for one reason or another, show any evidence that they can sustain test-cricket long term going forward eg next 20-30 years.

I would prefer a Test cricket league. 2 groups would play home and away tests and the top 2 teams would then meet in a final. Here's an outline of how it would work if you started from the northern hemisphere summer (and you would start the next one from the southern hemisphere summer) Group A: England, Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, Bangladesh Group B West Indies, Sri Lanka, Australia, India, Zimbabwe From June to September, England would host the other 4 teams in their groups for 1 Test and also fly to the Emirates to play Pakistan. Pakistan would do the same, and fly to England. Meanwhile, The Windies and Sri Lanka would do the same (so the Windies would play 4 home tests and one in Sri lanka, while Sri Lanka would have played 4 home tests and 1 in the Windies.) As at the end of September this is how the ‘played’ table would look Group A England: played 4 home 1 away Pakistan: played 4 home 1 away South Africa: played 2 away New Zealand: played 2 away Bangladesh: played 2 away Group B West Indies: played 4 home and 1 away Sri Lanka: played 4 home and 1 away Australia: played 2 away India: played 2 away Zimbabwe: played 2 away In October / early November you’d expect India and Bangladesh would then host their 4 home games. The tables at the end of this phase would be this: Group A England: played 4 home 2 away Pakistan: played 4 home 2 away South Africa: played 3 away New Zealand: played 3 away Bangladesh: played 4 home 2 away Group B West Indies: played 4 home and 2 away Sri Lanka: played 4 home and 2 away Australia: played 3 away India: played 4 home 2 away Zimbabwe: played 3 away From mid November to mid Jan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe would host their 4 home games. In this period these 4 teams would also need to fly out for an away game (and Australia’s would fly to Zimbabwe when the groups were configured this way.) Anyway, by the end of Jan, all teams would have played each in a home and away game. You would then have the final (and it would all be wrapped up in 8 months) Also on the groups, you would rotate teams from group to group each time you had the tournament I figure.

I believe they are already introducing promotion and relegation in test cricket. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/10/icc-challenge-matches-associate-members-test-chance-cricket They were going to introduce a tournament between the top four ranked test nations in 2017 but dropped it because the tv money wasn't there. I'd like to see that some day. I think some sort of davis cup competition is more suited to one day cricket. You can give each region an opportunity to host a multi-team tournament 1 hosted by RSA & Zim, 1 by Aus & NZ, 2 by the subcontinental nations, 1 by Eng & Ireland and 1 by the West Indies. 4-5 teams in each tournament with each nation playing a home tournament and an away tournament. Award points for the first 5 tournaments with top 4 or 5 to play in the final tournament,

That's the sad part of the ICC, really can't think of a sporting body that invests so little in growing or keeping it's sport competitive.

I reckon a Home and Away type set up would be a better option, every team must play x amount of Tests and against each team home and away. Each series must last at least 3 Test's. A series win is worth x points, and maybe like soccer an away win is worth more. After a 4 year home and away cycle the top team wins the right to host a 5 test World Championship series, 2-5 play off against each other in the semi and qtr finals.

This idea is definitely worth further consideration, particularly if you combine it with the format of the women's Ashes and the World Cricket League. A tie could be played for points across all three formats (eg, a Test, two ODIs and two T20s). I also think a round-robin format over a multiple-year cycle would be good, because it would ensure that teams have competitive matches for the duration of the tournament. You could the have a final to decide the winner. This would force teams that haven't met in years (eg Australia and Bangladesh) to play each other and would give some meaning to hitherto pointless limited-overs matches. Of course, there a range of logistical problems to overcome. Incorporating windows for marquee Test series, like the Ashes, and for World Cups and the IPL would be an enormous challenge. But it wouldn't be impossible. For example an Australian summer could see three to four teams tour to play these three format ties. The next summer they could host a five-Test Ashes series. It's worth more thought. On a separate note, and his will be a controversial suggestion, rather than teams being promoted to Test status, why not just call any international first-class match a Test. The only real impact will be potential changes to records and stats, but does that really matter? If a Bermudan batsman scores 500 against Nepal, or a Italian bowler takes 20 wickets against Germany, why should it matter if these break Test records? Football doesn't care that Archie Thompson has the FIFA world record (not counting those Micronesia results!) for goals scored in a match. I also recall the leading try scorer in Test rugby was Japanese. No-one has ever suggested these players are the best of all time. Why do we sanctify cricket records so much?

Banglas is giving South Africa a good run for its money. There's stacks of money in Test cricket. All we need is for the ICC to contract and fund the countries that can't pay their players. Pay them the same as the big countries pay their players. In no time at all, the Windies would reclaim stars from basketball.

This is not a new suggestion. Problem is there is no money in test cricket so noone other than Australia/England and India make much of an effort. Personally, I believe there could be, but there needs to be a better use of technology and a clear, stable structure we can all make sense of. There are just too many political forces at play in international cricket as it stands and with India running it, you can pretty much guarantee it will be a hell of a lot more screwed up before it ever improves. For mine, there should be a home and away first past the post system lasting four years for the top 6 nations but the other test nations are still played against here and there to give them an opportunity to improve. The key word is this level is supposed to be a 'Test', so what the hell is the likes of Bangladesh doing in it?

I think Test Cricket's 2 biggest problems are that its too batsmen friendly. and 2nd tier nations don't get a fair shake. personally I'd rather watch an exciting 3 day test on a green top or Dust bowl then a boring 5 day test full of defensive fields on a flat track. Shame the TV people are trying to get guaranteed 5 day tests for their profit margins. The 2nd Step would be to have Top Tier test nations have A teams that go on tour against minor nations. Australia A could go on a 5 test 10 match tour through Europe playing teams like Scotland, ireland, The Netherlands and maybe the german team or another low tier European nation in one off tests. The Game would be a draw on novelty factor alone and should bring in crowds. With 12 test playing nations that would give most minnows a solid 3-6 tests a year to improve their standards Then eventually you could have a tiered system on a 4 year cycle with promotion and relegation

I like the idea of a relegation/promotion type thing, but not the demotion from test status. In some instances, the poor performance isn't solely down to the players, the administration can cause decline. I like the idea of a top and bottom group. Maybe less Aus vs Eng and more Aus vs SAF etc. Why do we never get 5 tests between Australia and South Africa or India and only ever against England?

The thing I like most about this idea is that each year it would determine an overall winner in Test cricket. We have World Cups in the shorter formats of the game every four years but nothing in the Test arena.

Don, the problem is that the numbers following Test Cricket around the world is dwindling. It is going great in Aus, but not so much in places like India, West Indies, Sri Lanka etc. I dont believe the game itself needs fixing, but something does need to be done to increase the numbers following Test Cricket in these places around the world.

I was watching the Windies T20 competition on tv the other night, and there seems to be a strong market for Cricket in the region as the stadium was close to full to see Trinidad host Jamaica. There was brutal and exciting batting on show in the match and i believe i saw a stat that said there was close to 400 sixes in the tournament. That is where i believe the problem lies in the Windies, they have a love for the gun-ho excitement created in T20 and dont seem to appreciate the patience and technique in Tests. The players also seem to only have one mode - all guns blazing. Same can be said in other nations. T20 may be the biggest killer when it comes to tests in certain areas of the world.

Does Test cricket need fixing? Why?