I am not sure that is the case. In India the merchandise sales are mostly the unofficial ones, not the original brands from the franchise. And the official merchandise purchased is mostly of Indian players. While many foreign players are popular only few command the fan following that Indian players have. Warner, AbD, Gayle, Gilchrist, Warne are a few who were and still are fan favourites and command huge following. Green and Starc don’t have anywhere near such a following. So, their purchases at auction has nothing to do with their ability to sell shirts or following.

That’s a pretty strong team with few players who can change the game by themselves. The only change I would probably go for is picking a batsman or bowler, depending on conditions in place of Knott and give the gloves to Flower.

Also, would be a better idea to pick a squad of 16 than 11 as that will give you enough players for all conditions. Or within the teams that you already selected you can probably make 3 playing 11’s for Fast&Bouncy, Swing, Spinning conditions. You already have the material.

If Mayank does perform as he is doing currently for the remainder of tbe IPL then he will most likely find a place in squad for T20 WC. For tests it is still too early and he is just coming back from injuries which made him unable to play for almost a year or so. Umran is now part of the group of fast bowlers who were given a contract by BCCI and marked for special care and training. BCCI as well as team management also asked his state ranji team, J&K, to give him more time in games, to get him acquainted to test cricket. Hopefully, in a year or so he will be part of the test team along with Mayank, Akash Deep and a few other perspective bowlers, all of whom are bowling 140+ consistently.

I believe all the tests during the recent England tour of India were played on good tracks which assisted spin but also had something for all. I still want Indian wickets to continue to assist spin as variety in wickets is the life for test cricket. It was only for a 3 or 4 years where the assistance for spin was too biased. Now, once again curators found the right balance and hope this continues.
I am not sure Umran would make it to tests yet. BCCI has carved out a group of fast bowlers recently to provide them with more training as well as managing them properly. These players were even given contracts. I do hope we get to see Umran and Mayank alongside Bumrah in Australia, but am not hopeful yet. Even Akash Deep had a good test against England and was bowling around 140’s consistently with good control.

MRF pace foundation was there since 90’s and had the great Dennis Lillee looking after the coaching part. The emergence of better fast bowlers in the last decade or so has a lot to do with players coming from across the country, not just the few metros which was the case for most part of crickets existence in India. With exception of a player like Kapil Dev, the players were pre-dominantly from metros and that too with larger presence of Mumbai and Delhi region players. The flow of money into the game and the emergence of IPL created lot of opportunities for players across the country. Now, someone can look at cricket as a profession even if they cannot reach the national team given the pay even in Ranji matches and IPL. This change helped and will certainly help unearth more talents in the coming years. I so wish to see Umran Malik and Mayank Yadav, even if both are rookies, operate in tandem in Australia series. Having two bowlers who could bowl 150+ partner with Bumrah is mouth watering prospect. I know it’s too early for them but there ia no harm in wishing.

I don’t see why India playing D/N tests is such an issue for Australia or other nations to host such tests when they are playing other opponents. In India, dew is a major factor and rather than the pink ball and night conditions aiding the bowlers, it will make it difficult for spinners to grip the ball and easier for the batsmen to play as ball comes on better on to the bat. And no amount of dew spray will help avoid it. During the ODI WC, dew wasn’t felt much in many matches as most opposition lost too many wickets in the first 15 overs during second innings to take advantage of dew. In the Ind vs NZ semifinals NZ almost chased the mammoth total as batting became easier after the initial 15 overs. The fact that they lost a few wickets initially and the total was huge, helped India.

As someone pointed out England doesn’t need D/N tests as light stays far longer over there. So, it is Australia, NZ, WI and SA who can host D/N matches since other Asian nations will have same dew problems as India. Effectively, there can be 1 D/N test in a 3 test series or 2 if it is 5 test series in the above said nations. So, whether India hosts D/N or not shouldn’t be an issue and when touring Australia they have 1 D/N test anyways.

Given most of the tests lasting not more than 4 days, it would be better to start all tests on Friday so that the most happening day 2 and 3 fall on holidays. If match goes to day 4 and a result is possible, then the fans will certainly watch them.

To this comment and the one above this one about the popularity of T20/short forms of cricket and the possibility that along with popularity for short forms of cricket there is a fan base for Tests as well, I will add (slightly lengthy answer) the following as someone who is from India and saw the nation and cricket grow from the 80’s just as I was.

1. There was an opinion (not by you) that India probably didn’t have may short form sports before the advent of T20 and hence the popularity, which isn’t the case. In fact, it is other way around. test cricket was the only long form sport and in a way was more bang for buck for someone who valued every rupee as they got whole day of entertainment. Hockey, Kabaddi and Kho-Kho are popular sports at school level as the equipment or lack thereof for these sports made it easy for them to be played. Cricket was more of an urban sport, especially at a professional level. But it became a favourite sport in all areas because it just required a slightly flat 22 yards and everything else was manageable.

2. The reason short forms are so popular is because that is what is played by almost everyone bar professionals. Tests are something which only professionals can play and is recognised as such and players who succeed there are still held in high respect. But it is the shorter formats that everyone can relate to because that is what they play. A kid will not be able to appreciate the nuances of a tight defensive block on a 5th day pitch, at least not when they are just getting to know the game. But they understand hitting the ball out of park. Give a kid a bat and throw a ball and their response is to hack it as hard as they can. So, they relate to shorter formats, especially T20. Slowly they then get understand the game and appreciate the nuances. The prime example is my 8 years son who is growing up in T20 era. He started his journey by watching IPL, now keeps a track of Indian tests as well and over a period of time, I am sure he will just appreciate any cricket played by any team, though not with the same passion as when he is watching India play.

3. While everyone talks about free to air broadcast etc, one needs to understand that for many Indians most of the cricket isn’t free to air, except some important matches which are broadcast by the national broadcaster and no one watches it there. More importantly kids need to play the game. No amount of watching it on TV will help them love the game unless they play it. They will get to know the emotions and appreciate the techniques only when they play and then compare it with their heroes on TV. In India, kids still play cricket wherever they can, even in small bylanes. And IPL has helped in creating the belief that even if they cannot make it to the national team they can still make a living off cricket. One can see the impact of this in the constitution of national team. Earlier only 4 or 5 cities provided the players, now we can see players from remote places as well. So, naturally there is lot more interest in T20.

4. We were decent in ODI’s and nowhere as good in tests, so naturally people did find it easy to follow the team in that format. The 1983 WC win helped explode the game in no small measure. But with the era of Sachin, Dravid, Ganguly, Kumble etc, people believed we can be a force in tests as well and follow it closely as well. Being a developing nation as well as a tropical country, it is difficult for people to leave their jobs for a whole day and also sit in the harsh sun. Earlier there was no option but to either watch it on TV or go to the stadium, which had one of the worst facilities for spectators and still don’t match to the facilities in Australia or England even though they improved a lot in the last 2 decades. People track the game through apps and cricinfo for most part, whereas with T20 it’s completely different.

5. With regard to revenue sharing I believe that while logically it may be right for BCCI, which brings in majority of income to stake a claim to 37% of revenue, it may not be appropriate morally, especially in the light of the fact that we do make good revenues from elsewhere. I think the earlier structure of around 20% share is fine. The reason why I believe the earlier share of around 20% is fine is because India has a huge domestic structure which needs to be maintained with lots of teams and facilities. Players are willing to take up cricket because they can secure their careers even if they are able to reach Ranji Teams (County/Shield team equivalent) as the pay now is good enough for them to have a career without making it to the national team. In spite of the huge improvement the BCCI has done at grassroots level in the last 2 decades there is still a lot of investment that needs to be done and requires huge amounts of money.

6. Lastly, no matter how much we may try, I don’t see test cricket moving beyond the Big 3 along with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, SA and New Zealand. No amount of investment from ICC can revive the game unless the local population itself wants to play and like the game. And if at all test are to revive it can be done through shorter formats alone. Apart from England, New Zealand and Australia all cricket playing nations are either poor or developing nations only. And no amount of investments from outside can sustain cricket for long. There has to be a way the game can survive below the national team level domestically and I see T20 as the way the game survives and then players move on to the tests. I enjoy all formats but I cannot force my son to watch and like test cricket saying that is the purest form or whatever. It has to be organic and luckily he started from T20 and now watches tests as well. Ultimately the only purpose of any sport for a spectator is to be entertained. There is no ulterior purpose. So, saying T20 is just entertainment is not an insult but rather endorsing the very fact for any sport is played. None of us would watch tests if they weren’t entertaining. It is completely a different argument what entertainment is. But suggesting those who love T20 as not cricket fans or even going as far as saying T20 isn’t cricket doesn’t help grow tests for shorter format, probably even less than 20 overs, is the format that is played by everyone everywhere across the world apart from professionals. I strongly believe T20’s will help test cricket survive, though it will be limited to few countries I mentioned above.

(Sorry for the long rant)

I have commented on this many times before. The way Warner played for Australia and for my IPL team SRH was completely different. He was as competitive, in fact he was the top run scorer for a few seasons and even lead my team to title, without being the persona that he was when he wears the baggy green. I suspected this had something to do with the team culture, but was just theorizing without evidence. Now what Uzzie says lends credence to my line of thought.
The way he defends his family, one can easily guess that he can go to great lengths for them. And I believe Warner had similar connection with the team and did whatever he had to, sometimes even without being asked as he just needed the broad direction, for the sake of team. The way he is loved by the SRH fanbase is something very different. They publicly criticised the management when Warner was let go.

Every sport was artificially created for entertainment only. At least that is true for anyone who wants to watch a sport. Without entertainment nobody will watch anything. Now what one feels is entertaining can and will obviously change. I enjoy every format of cricket. Tests are as much about entertainment to the spectators as are T20’s or ODI’s. Ultimately, without people willing to watch, either at the grounds or through electronic mediums, it will be difficult to survive anything for long. Tests themselves evolved from under arm bowling to over arm, timless tests to 5 days and uncovered pitches with logs for bats to covered pitches and highly improved bat making techniques along with superior safety equipment. Amd contrary to others I believe shorter formats have helped survive Tests as they are bringing in money. Who knows, with good enough money from T20 comps boards like SA or WI might be able to fund and pay their test players properly. T20 is just in its infancy and just like ODI’s took time to settle and find a balance between Tests and ODI’s, eventually T20’s and Tests will also co-exist. I am not as pessimistic about the future of tests.

It looks quite ironical or probably I missed things completely but there have been lots of discussion on how we need to save tests etc recently and when the actual game has been played there is a conspicuous absence of much engagement on the actual play on the field. Also the headlines seem to be anything but about actual play.

I am quite amused with the ongoing attendance wars in Aussie test season. As an Indian I obviously don’t know about regional rivalries, so I won’t go there. In India also there are times where certain grounds get larger attendences compared to other venues because of location of ground, the population of that city and facilities at the ground. While many grounds saw an upgrade in facilities across the nation, watching an entire day of cricket in the stadium is still a cumbersome exercise, especially given the heat over here.
With the advent of streaming services people are now resorting to watching and following test cricket on mobile rather than taking a day off and labouring in the sun. Heck, I followed the entire ashes series through a streaming service even as I was working and doing same with this test as well as India -SA test that started today. So, while large attendance is good, it is also important to spread the game to various venues to give the spectators a taste of live cricket.

Agree with your first line that Test cricket survived ODI, which at that time was described as pyjama cricket but tje recent World cup showed how people still care about the format, and will survive T20 as well. But I don’t consider them to be fad or any such thing. Just recall what we played as kids or for fun even as adults. It was the shorter formats, probably not even 20 overs a side. And this is what millions across the world play and a portion of such people go on to support Test cricket. Dearth of interest even at shorter formats will actually lead to death of Test cricket. We need kids to oick bat and ball to play the game for only playing leads to develop a love for the game.

The more important question should be are the reducing numbers from T20 games, which I don’t have any idea with regards Big Bash, are moving towards Test Cricket?. If not then that is even more worrisome turn of events, suggesting people just moving away from cricket. And from what could see only some particular Test series are able attract crowds, which was anyway the case earlier as well. So reducing number of spectators at even BigBash may not be such a positive thing for the game.

Apart from few nutcases and retards, I don’t think anyone disagrees with the broad message that Khawaja wanted to say. However, I am not sure I want him to do that on the field of play. Being an important player in Aussie national team he has enough clout and reach to take the message off-the field without any issue across various social media platforms and other spaces without any issue. It would have been completely different if the team decided to wear black armbands with permission from ICC. But an individual wearing something to express his personal view about a geo-political event should be discouraged. And I don’t think he was wearing it to grieve a personal loss.

Would have been nice, but there is lot of history as well as continuing tensions, which make it more problematic than great. It’s like having a combined Ukraine and Russian team in the current scenario.

There are some comments here, some out of frustration because the format they love the most, Tests, are declining and a few probably because they think their tastes and opinion is better than what millions of people who actually spend money and bring in revenues to the game, that have blamed either ICC or the so called Big 3 or the shorter format itself for the decline of Test cricket. Before I post my rant, let me make it clear that I love cricket in any format and don’t agree when someone says T20 isn’t cricket. I enjoyed and relished our victories in Australia in the last 2 test series and one of the most important cricket moments for me is 2001 Kolkata Test along with 2011 WC win. And I enjoy T20 as well.
The shorter format is the format that is played by millions of people for fun across the world and it’s not even 20 overs a side. Those who say T20 isn’t cricket should probably go and say to the kid playing in some street or ground or an employee playing a few overs of cricket after work with his mates, that what they are playing isn’t cricket. Someone from 1900 would then call current Tests as not cricket, since they aren’t timeless and are played on covered wickets with all the protection for batsmen. And from what I read, it took cricket administrators somewhere around 70+ years and stiff opposition to legalise overarm bowling. So, what some say as ‘THE Cricket Format” was never so nor will remain to be so. The game had evolved and will keep evolving. Looking down upon people who enjoy T20 and saying T20 isn’t cricket is absolutely wrong. And to lament that T20 has turned cricket as another entertainment is quite surprising, as the ultimate aim of any sport for the spectator is entertainment. I wouldn’t watch a Test match as well if it isn’t entertaining. What one constitutes to be entertaining may be different, but there is no superior purpose for sport apart from entertaining the spectator.
The Big 3, and especially India, towards which the accusation of not sharing funds is directed at, were sharing almost 65% of revenue till recently and will continue to share around 50% of the revenue generated by them. Moreover, I don’t think if at all Test cricket has to survive in few nations it can do so by being subsidised by other nations. A nation like NZ doesn’t require others to subsidise Tests. SA, while not a very rich country, can still subsidise Test cricket. The problem is not just about the money to host the matches, it is also the waning interest from public because of multitude of reasons. India toured WI this year and played 2 Tests. And the number of people who turned up and more importantly the TV watching figures, as that is how many are consuming cricket, especially tests, was abysmal. ICC or WI board or any other nation cannot force people to watch something. People may be working their asses off to sustain their families or simply not interested to spend the entire day at the ground. Whatever may be the reasons majority of people aren’t that interested in watching 5 days of cricket except for few nations and that too only few contests between certain nations.
Of course, there can be some experiments to help revive the 5 day game. Like ICC can have 2 or 3 teams under its flag, like ICC presidents XI, where good players from associate nations are included and get to play against the A teams of established test playing nations initially and over a period of time with the official test teams themselves, with all expenses borne by ICC. As it is many nations cannot put forward a strong test playing 11 but can have one or two players who are talented. So, this way they would find a chance to play against the top talent and prove themselves and we needn’t have too many bilateral tests where the contest is lopsided.

As much as I want to think that is true, I believe there is more to Test cricket sliding in many nations apart from just money. For all the criticism the Big 3, especially BCCI, get till 2023 they were getting only around 30 – 40% of total revenue generated and 90% or more revenue was generated by them. From 2024 on wards BCCI is expected to get 38% revenue from ICC and it generates 85% or more revenue. The Big 3 put together are likely to share around 50% of total revenue. In a way they are, especially the evil BCCI is sharing lots of revenue it generates. And it also provides facilities for Afghanistan team in India.
BCCI also needs to cater to thousands of players at state level and provide facilities and infrastructure. The amounts earned by BCCI may look huge but the areas to put that money and the number of players to sustain below the national team are also huge.
The most important I feel is that for test cricket to survive it needs patronage of people in countries. And apart from the top few, this number is sliding for n number of reasons. And as a fan of every format I am of the opinion that Test cricket will remain successful in select few countries as was the case for most part of its history and the shorter formats will spread the game in new places. One idea I have is ICC should form a ICC 11 team or 2 teams from associate nations and pit them against A teams of big teams before becoming a test team itself. Its akin to competing under olympic glag. The expenses of managing these olayers can be borne by ICC itself, thereby nurturing talents in associate nations whivh may nkt be able to put a successful team but individual talents can spring up.

I wish I could give more than 1 like to your comment. Before BBL, IPL or T20 format getting invented, ask any Test cricket fan how many overs of cricket they played for fun, purely ojt of love for the game. I can bet that more tban 90% wouldn’t have played more than 20 overs a side. The short form of cricket is what captures the imagination of the young and few move on to the next level, slowly building technique. So it is natural for people to like a format that they can easily associate with.

Demeaning and looking down on a format that large number of cricket lovers watch and more importantly bring in the much needed revenue to sustain domestic cricket is not the correct way. Some call T20 inferior or not even cricket, which is absurd. It requires different technique, temperament. If it was so easy all Test players should have been excellent T20 players. It is a fact that Test cricket was/is losing fans even before the advent of T20. WI cricket was down in doldrums long before T20. So was Zimbabwe, Kenya and many such small nations. SA has it’s own politics for their state of cricket. So if a team like SA or NZ which are very good at Test cricket are unable to find takers for test cricket in tbeir own nations, it cannot be the problem of the so called evil big 3 or T20. It is the shift in peoples preferences. NZ is a rich country and can subsidise tests without depending on others, but they won’t do it.

The way to market tests isn’t looking down on other formats or saying shorter forms lack technique. The difference which needs to highlighted is that in test cricket the players are free to decide how to play and what tactics to adopt. In shorter forms players are forced to play a certain style by design as time is limited. Test cricket is more like war with multiple battles going on while shorter forms are battles. So, while the basic things are same, batsman and bowlers of two teams trying to outdo each other, in Test cricket a side can concede a battle and lay low and still win the war. In short formats olayers don’t have that luxury. So, test cricket is cricket with lots of freedom for players to decide their tactics, while in shorter forms the way players play and the tactics adopted are dictated by the limited time.

Congratulations to the Aussies. Deserved Champions. This format ensures that there is no whining about easy groups etc as everyone plays everyone and only the team prevailing in the end becomes champion.
We lost the match in small moments and mistakes in the first half. The pitch was more or less similar to the semi-finals against NZ, just that we didn’t lose wickets of Gill and Sreyas, who kept the score ticking in middle overs. Rohit once again playing superbly but this time he was required to play a bit longer as in the earlier matches Gill was still batting at the other end. While Kohli and Sreyas wickets were earned by Aussies, felt Rohit gave away his wicket and that for me was a very important moment. Kohli showed that the pitch was still easy to bat on as he went on at a strike rate of 90+.
This match also showed that Pat Cummins, for all the criticism of him on these pages, some valid but very much exaggerated, is a good leader and the think tank behind the scenes did good job. Both Bavuma and Cummins won the toss in an important match and it would have been easy to just opt for batting by Cummins as well as the Aussie team struggled in chasing, even if they somehow overcame the odds. While Bavuma succumbed to the fear of failing to chase and surrendered the advantage of conditions, Cummins looked beyond their shortcomings and took advantage of conditions at the toss and what was expected in the second half. By opting to bowl, he didn’t expose Aussie batting to play on a slightly slower pitch as stroke making for the slightly struggling middle order would have been difficult. At the same time, by making India bowl second, except for the initial 10-15 overs period in second half, he knew it would be largely nullified, as was the case in Ind-NZ semi finals. India just had the advantage of huge score against NZ and Cummins backed his bowlers to just somehow to tackle that and succeeded. Aussies would have also watched the Ind-NZ clash and saw what Mitchell and Williamson did during the first 10-15 overs when pacers had some help. By not allowing further wickets, that duo threatened to close in on adaunting total. Head and Labushagne applied the same thought and didn’t have the pressure to achieve a huge target. Once the initial overs were done, batting was easy.
Disappointed as Indian but if we see the whole tournament India and Australia were the only teams which defeated all the teams and the best team on the day inched ahead. No shame in that, though record books note only one teams name as champions. Unfortunately, we defeated Aussies in league game and Aussies had us on the important day. How I wish the days were reversed.
PS: Have to add here that Cummins as a bowler is a tireless fighter. He showed that in Aus-Ind test series in 2020 and he showed it yesterday as well.

Well, I am open for suggestions. I felt these were the best players in the respective positions and give balance to the team.
In pace not many were as good and effective as Shami or Bumrah so they are there along with Madhushanka who was as good with both new and old ball.
Iyer is the highest scorer in the middle order across all teams and he scored them at a good strike rate.
I had the choice to select DeCock as WK and opener or KL Rahul down the order and take Rachin Raveendra as another opener. I opted for KL as he was very good with keeping and batting as well. This opened up opening slot for Rachin, who can give another bowling option.
Kohli has been the best batsmen at no 3 this WC
I had a choice between Maharaj and Jadeja and went with Jadeja as he also adds batting depth and a good fielder.
So if there are better alternatives for the above positions I am interested to listen.

Nothing much to argue with those selections, though I feel some players, especially middle order may be playing out of positions. So my team would be
Rohit Sharma (C)
Rachin Raveendra
Kohli
Mitchell
Iyer
KL Rahul (WK)
Maxwell
Jadeja
Shami
Bumrah
Madhushanka
Dropping Zampa might look a bit odd but given how Maxwell is bowling he can play good support role for spin duties. And Rachin can be a useful bowler too if the pitch offers spin. And if it is a good batting track or assisting pace then I might gamble by taking Green in place of Maxwell. Paying with Maxwell is like playing 1 batsmen less or 2 batsmen more. On his day he easily is worth two additional batters and on his off day team will be less 1 batter.

One important aspect in the last two games was dew was more or less non-existent in the second innings and helped grip the ball better for spinners. Both were coastal cities. Need to be seen how it plays out in Ahmedabad.

I believe it is more the conditions than the pitch. As one could see after 15 overs in the first innings seam movement off the pitch went away and the track became very good for batting with even bounce. As for spin and wicket slowing down, that is the traditional way pitches in Kolkata play out. Ahmedabad soil type is different and the climate there is dry right now. So, the pitch will be more suitable for batting, even if there might be some movement early on and some assistance to spin as the game progresses.

If only the NZ main strike bowlers were a bit more economical, India might have been 30 to 40 runs short and that would have been the difference. And NZ in spite of losing 2 wickets had a healthy RR of around 6 and thereabouts at 15 over mark. Ifs and buts I know but I think that is the key difference that tilted the balance.

While I don’t rate SKY in ODI’s yet, I think he didn’t get many opportunities to come good, except for England game. Yesterday he had just 1 over and against Bangladesh when was looking good, was run out. I hope we don’t have to find out how good he is apart from for 2 or 3 overs at the end even in the final.