I have many childhood memories of watching Test cricket on television and at the SCG – there’s just something about the long form of the game that makes the stakes feel so much higher.
Bragging rights would usually go to the country that wins a Test series, not T20 or one-day internationals matches, as important as they are.
However, there is one fact nobody can deny: Test cricket is on the decline. It’s a slow decline, but its demise is inevitable.
If you look at Test matches over the past five years, there are two common features: lots of empty seats and shrinking television audiences.
With modern living, none of us has the time to devote five days of our lives to following a game, especially given there’s a chance of there being no result. There is little or no television and streaming audience when a match is played while we’re all at work.
It’s time for change. I know that many people will say that there have been changes, such as night-time matches for instance. Sure, this is a good move; however, it is not the silver bullet.
(Albert Perez – CA/Cricket Australia/Getty Images)
Cricket is now all about setting totals, run rates and exciting run chases. It is about batsmen fighting to preserve their wicket while finding innovative ways to keep the scoreboard ticking. It is more about bowlers finding creative ways to limit scoring and less about getting dismissals, although that is of course the bowling team’s primary objective.
It is about having a winner and a loser, not having matches drawn.
Test cricket is not about any of these things. It has become irrelevant to the modern paradigm of cricket. It is time to shorten the length of the matches, ensure every Test gets a result and make Test cricket more relevant to other forms of cricket in the 21st century.
It pains me to imagine any forced changes made to Test cricket, a form of the sport that has existed since the 19th Century. It is the conduit that connects Donald Bradman, Garfield Sobers, Richard Hadlee, Viv Richards and Shane Warne to modern-day players.
Nevertheless, I would prefer to have something from the traditional form of cricket than nothing at all to live on.
So with all that said, here is my idea.
A three-day Test format featuring 100 overs per day. Each team gets two innings. The first innings is 100 overs each over the first two days. The second innings is 50 overs for each team on the third day.
The winner is the team that has accumulated the most runs.
My model is not perfect, I know. What if it rains? What if there is bad light? Isn’t this just a longer version of one-day cricket?
Perhaps a fourth day could be played in these circumstances, or there could be provisions to play extra overs across the three days to make up for lost time.
Think of the possibilities. The Australian players would have fewer commitments to national duties and may be available for more of the Big Bash League. Three days is much less strenuous for fast bowlers, prolonging their Test careers instead of making more attractive the money of lucrative T20 tournaments around the world.
Imagine the selection debates and dilemmas. Do you pick a Glen Maxwell-type player? Do you choose Alex Carey over Tim Paine? It creates intrigue.
Cricket is at a crossroads. It can either stand by and watch Test cricket continue its slow decline, or it can redefine the long format’s relevance as the No. 1 form of cricket we all love.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Not sure tinkering by shortening is going to work either. Here in South Africa Tests against Aus, Eng and India fairly well patronized but crowds also diminishing. Against any other country the stadiums are totally empty. Can hear the slip fielder coughing from the square leg boundary . Bring in day nights , 4 day games , drum majorettes , whatever , it will still be the case. As much as it pains me to say , If Test cricket is to die a natural death because it cannot survive on its own . So be it ! It will be the end of my interest in the sport , but I am a minority.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Quickest way to kill it is to take it off free to air and strangle its exposure, like the Poms did. Slower death will be to start fiddling with the format like administrators did with ODI's. The CWC19 was a great example for reinvigorating a format. Look inside the game and enhance the elements which promote contests and results. This argument of 'time poor spectators' doesn't wash. Crowds were massive in the 1920's and 30's, yet people worked longer hours and had less holidays, couldn't travel to the city from the country as easily, had lower incomes and a smaller national population. The 'product' was exciting though; it had heroes who weren't denigrated in every forum and were judged on their ability with ball and bat. The real difference though was result wickets with location based characteristics, even though early on the Tests had no end date. Make no mistake, the same argument will be brought up in a few years about T20, because media and administrators will benchmark current crowds and then discuss the decline after a slow summer, or in a recession when discretionary income is at a premium. Administrators will no doubt tinker with the game or invent T10. However the solution then will be exactly the same as now with Tests & ODI's; ensure a contest between bat and ball, while focussing on the games positive elements.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
With you there. Empty stands are more a result of when the Tests are scheduled as opposed to 'time poor modern living'. T20 or 'popcorn cricket' is all very well for kids and ADHD viewers and dominating holidays summer nights brings in revenue, but Melbourne and Sydney Tests show fans will still support Tests, if administrators will support fans.
Josh
Guest
Why not 3 days of 150 overs. You can fit a one day international on day or day/night so why not stretch it out from 10am start through to a night time finish adding day/night to every test and with 450 overs you actually get more overs in removing the likelyhood of a draw on even the most dosile of pitches. Every test cab then be played over a long weekend be it Friday or Monday
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes Australia, England and India could probably subsidise these Tests, but for financially smaller members where they lose $500,000+ per Test, it becomes problematic. Of course that's where the ICC's financial sharing model comes in. It's far from perfect though is a far sight better than the one the Big Three tried to introduce 3 or 4 years ago where these boards took the vast majority of the financial "pool" for themselves.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
The ICC - and by extension its members' boards - were and continue to be trapped in many ways by franchisee T20 comps. The Indian Cricket League (ICL) was set up in 2007 as an ICC/BCCI-independent comp and threatened to derail cricket by attracting players with $$ away from ICC-sanctioned games. Hence the BCCI set up the IPL. The commercial threat remains that if players aren't provided the ability to earn big dollars through ICC-sanctioned T20 comps, then corporate/commercial interests will fill the vacuum which threatens the integrity of ICC cricket. No dissimilar to the Packer years. The WICB/Chris Gayle stand-off where Gayle went off to play T20 and therefore wasn't selected for intl games, is an example of this challenge faced by the ICC and its members.
bowledover
Roar Rookie
100% agree. Drop the toss, let the visting team decide to bat/bowl in the first test. I like the whole let the losers pick in the next test theory as well. Also, visiting teams should get warm up matches against the next best that the home country can offer not weak teams... to improve the adjustment phase and expose more players.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Jeff, the best way for lesser quality teams to get better is to play more cricket. If you look at 2018, we should have played 16 Tests, while England played 13. In the same time, the Windies played 8 and Bangladesh even less. Not only did these teams play less Tests, the quality of the opposition was significantly weaker, eg Zimbabwe. Sure a lot of these games might be underwhelming in terms of crowd numbers when played in Australia, but play them in Darwin or Cairns and you'll still get a few thousand along
badmanners
Roar Rookie
Must have been a work day, I was also there on the weekend and it was pretty full watching Sachin as an 18 year old scoring his second test ton and Ravi a double. Aussies wanted to go off due to light rain (and the fact we were looking like losing!) and Sachin was arguing with the umpires to stay out there! Won everyone's hearts.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Jeff, right now the ICC is allowing franchises who control domestic comps like the BBL & IPL to dictate the scheduling which is totally wrong IMO. We had the ridiculous situation where India had to request a late start to the World Cup because of a scheduling conflict with the IPL. I agree the lesser financially secure nation can't presently have leadup games but surely they could if the ICC was prepared to support them? I don't think the cost would be great and those countries that have the money to go it alone, eg Australia, India, etc, alos have the talent to put up strong sides to play them in practice games. It's all about having the will to make this work and right now, the ICC doesn't have it because all they can see is T20 dollar signs.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I would add though, I have often thought that if some countries just can't make Test cricket work, I wouldn't mind Tests being reduced back to 4 or 5 core nations - Aus, Eng, Ind, NZ, SAF for example and have tours every 3 to 4 years. Obviously hard on the other countries and doesn't meet the global expansion objectives of the ICC, but still....
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Totally agree with your proposition Paul re adapting to foreign/exotic conditions. However the reality is in these times that a) scheduling curtails acclimatisation and b) some teams can't financially afford to tour much longer than the international fixtures are scheduled for. So the days - for example in Ashes - of Australia playing 5 or 6 tour matches against County sides before the First Test, followed by 1 or 2 FC matches between Tests, is gone. That's the biggest issue; financial cost to touring teams. Aus/Eng/Ind could probably do it (if they can fit it in to the FTP, but for other nations it's really problematic.
Paul
Roar Guru
Apart from the great West Indian sides in the '80's & '90's, the same should have been said about the Perth pitch, when it was lightning fast and bouncy. I have no issue with guys needing to play where the host nation decides, Noah. It surely is up to the coaches and players to learn how to adapt. Sure there's an advantage to India, but ONLY if they have bowlers and batsmen capable of taking advantage of the conditions
Paul
Roar Guru
But is the home ground advantage down to anything other than players not being good enough to adapt? I think back to those outstanding Australian teams that were rampant everywhere, except India and it took a lot of work on Steve Waugh's part to get them over the line for a series win. I maintain players need to acclimatize, not only to the different conditions, but the food, lifestyle, etc. The old fashioned lead up games should come back, IF Cricket Australia want to a) keep Test cricket alive and b) give the Aussie team a fighting chance against some increasingly competitive teams around the world.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
That's right. SOK.
Neel
Roar Guru
That pitch was ridiculous. Last time Australia played there the match finished within three days.
Neel
Roar Guru
Steven O’Keefe excelled in that match, Jeff. He took two 6-wicket hauls in that match. Steven Smith played a gem of an innings on that pitch in the 2nd innings.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Pune is a bit over the top. That I recall on in the stt Test Aus played there, the Indians themselves had a hard time. Not that that makes for a balanced cricket match. Which Aus spinner excelled in that match?
Noah Barling
Roar Pro
I like that pitches are variable over continents, but I think having a raging turner like Pune is a bit of an unfair pitch
Noah Barling
Roar Pro
What makes day 3 finish any different to day 4 finish? If people want to come for the final day they will, if they don't they wont