A New Cricketing Dawn

[billyguntheballs]

The test championship doesn ot mean that each of the 9 nations will play each other in the 2 year cycle. That number has been limited to 6, which makes sense but also helps India wriggle out of a certain situation.

With all this talk, the ICC still havent revealed info on scoring systems and so on . A long way to go still.

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

Ireland haven’t even played a test yet - nothing wrong with having a second tier.

It'll all end in tiers, always does

Does seem a bit odd to give them and Afghanistan Test status then have a 9 team championship confirmed within months, not that I thought giving them Test status was a great idea given they are both competing at the lower end of that 9 team set up in ODIs and this is a lot different as Bangladesh well know.

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

Apparently though these 6 test “series” can be single tests !

Doubt many will venture from the tried and trusted, too much risk in saying England playing one Test in Bangladesh, and doubt they'd want to play them in 3+ .

aussies and England won't want to dilute the Ashes, might see the odd Test lopped off here and there like maybe England vs South Africa

Regardless if India avoid Pakistan or not, and other considerations as to making it "perfect", it's a lot better than a pointless ranking system. At least there is an end, some kind of structure even if components are non-standardised and it isn't completely round robin.

And like many things it will need tweaking, to find out if it works and how well you need to test it, my main fear is some of the teams involved may not give it much of a chance to work or evolve

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

4 day tests? What a barrel of sh!te!

To be fair a lot of innings don't make it much past 100-120 overs, and frankly those that go much past can make for a one sided (non) contest

It could add a new (tactical) spark to the game as well, sides piling on 600+ and declaring would do so at their own risk so the captain may have to consider earlier declarations than he may normally want to give his side the chance to bowl the opposition out twice.

May also bring in more hope when a side looks dead and gone with last wicket(s) resistance to hold on doggedly for a draw, reduce the impact of the wearing wicket (although arguably that's a negative) and maybe the home side will prepare result wickets although it could just make it easier to kill off a series with a flat wicket.


One thing is for sure, we can theorise until the cows come home what it will be like, but there's only one way to know............. ie try it. We've had so many changes to formats of the game what is another? Timeless Tests went, 8 ball overs went, there are so many bits added to ODIs which have been 60 overs and 55, would be a shame though if they were reduced to 40.

And it could level the playing field a bit more, although whilst I doubt I'm that close to being a purist I wouldn't like the fact that records would remain as one with the various changes - for starters more potential runs and wickets surely with an extra day (for individuals)

[luckyluke]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

It'll all end in tiers, always does

Zing!

[billyguntheballs]

I am totally against the idea of 4 days tests. We have just seen in the recent Pak/SL series and many series beyond, the type of drama the fifth day of a test can bring. Pak v Australia earlier this year is another fine example. Or how about Eng/SA 3rd test where SA either had to survive ar chase and although it ended in a collapse, we witnessed a gutsy century from Elgar.


All of that drama would disappear with 4 day tests.

[D/L]

Drama may take place on the last day of a 4 day test, I suppose.

Is there any proposal for more overs to be bowled or are we looking at tests with a maximum of 360 overs?

[ThomasTT]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

To be fair a lot of innings don't make it much past 100-120 overs, and frankly those that go much past can make for a one sided (non) contest

It could add a new (tactical) spark to the game as well, sides piling on 600+ and declaring would do so at their own risk so the captain may have to consider earlier declarations than he may normally want to give his side the chance to bowl the opposition out twice.

May also bring in more hope when a side looks dead and gone with last wicket(s) resistance to hold on doggedly for a draw, reduce the impact of the wearing wicket (although arguably that's a negative) and maybe the home side will prepare result wickets although it could just make it easier to kill off a series with a flat wicket.


One thing is for sure, we can theorise until the cows come home what it will be like, but there's only one way to know............. ie try it. We've had so many changes to formats of the game what is another? Timeless Tests went, 8 ball overs went, there are so many bits added to ODIs which have been 60 overs and 55, would be a shame though if they were reduced to 40.

And it could level the playing field a bit more, although whilst I doubt I'm that close to being a purist I wouldn't like the fact that records would remain as one with the various changes - for starters more potential runs and wickets surely with an extra day (for individuals)

I cant see how it would affect records any more than so many other changes to cricket through history. Tests have been scheduled for 3,4,5,6 days as well as timeless with 5-7 hours of daily play featuring from 10 to 25 overs per hour with or without overtime on covered or uncovered or even artificial pitches with the ball becoming smaller, the bats bigger, boundaries shorter, helmets coming in, poor light going out, the LB law changed etc etc.

This is a nothing change. In fact, I would argue its a change than changes less than changing nothing because of other changes......

Lets compare to the gold standard of modern cricket, the 2005 ashes series. The three results matches were essentially 3-day cricket ( and thus great) making the 4/5 day debate irellevant. But what about the two draws? Surely they prove the need for 5 days? Not really because floodlights and improved drainage would have meant far less overs lost.

If we stay at 5 days, the draw will become extinct. Is that great? Not in my opinion. Its a unique thing to cricket, having a draw as different from a tie. The two draws were both fantastic, one being a 7-hour battle for Australia to escape with nine wickets down, the other being england counter-attacking recklessly in the third innings robbing australia of the time need to win the game.

Losing all this is a far bigger change

[ThomasTT]

Originally Posted by billyguntheballs

I am totally against the idea of 4 days tests. We have just seen in the recent Pak/SL series and many series beyond, the type of drama the fifth day of a test can bring. Pak v Australia earlier this year is another fine example. Or how about Eng/SA 3rd test where SA either had to survive ar chase and although it ended in a collapse, we witnessed a gutsy century from Elgar.


All of that drama would disappear with 4 day tests.

Seriously? Day 5 was only needed in one of the four game in the SA series, and that game was more likely made worse because of it. With a big first innings deficit, the last 2-3 days become a slow procession towards inevitable defeat for SA rather than what could have been a tense battle to save a draw

[Summer of 77]

Originally Posted by D/L

Drama may take place on the last day of a 4 day test, I suppose.

Is there any proposal for more overs to be bowled or are we looking at tests with a maximum of 360 overs?

10:30 starts, play to continue under floodlights until midnight while the bowlers strive to get 105 or so overs in.

[Ali TT]

I'm not that bothered about the length of test matches. Make them four days and players, tactics and groundsmen will adapt. Some things will be lost, others gained.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by Summer of '77

10:30 starts, play to continue under floodlights until midnight while the bowlers strive to get 105 or so overs in.

112 overs and 3 balls, surely.

Seems a bit daft to me but perhaps it'll allow more days for T20. Deep joy.

[billyguntheballs]

Originally Posted by ThomasTT

Seriously? Day 5 was only needed in one of the four game in the SA series, and that game was more likely made worse because of it. With a big first innings deficit, the last 2-3 days become a slow procession towards inevitable defeat for SA rather than what could have been a tense battle to save a draw

That was just one example I used...

Originally Posted by D/L

Drama may take place on the last day of a 4 day test, I suppose.

Is there any proposal for more overs to be bowled or are we looking at tests with a maximum of 360 overs?

Very good question. Start a test in England at 10 rather than 11? Fill in an extra 10-15 overs a day? Stricter regulation on overs lost and time spent changing gloves, taking drinks and shenanigans?

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by ThomasTT

... This is a nothing change. In fact, I would argue its a change that changes less than changing nothing because of other changes......

If we stay at 5 days, the draw will become extinct. Is that great? Not in my opinion. Its a unique thing to cricket, having a draw as different from a tie. ...

Losing all this is a far bigger change

I suspect that not as much time is lost to the weather in many other countries as is here in the UK. In any case the weather tends to make up for itself because if there's damp around then wickets tend to fall more easily. Elsewhere short games would tend to happen either because the pitch doesn't hold up or because one side plays badly.

I don't think the introduction of four-day tests is at all motivated by the desire to arrest a decline in the frequency of draws, though it may have that effect. In any case, although it certainly is a charming feature of long-form cricket to have the possibility of one team fighting for a draw (and thus, as it were, one kind of game piggybacks upon another), nonetheless there's a sense in which it is a shame that the superior team didn't have long enough to press home their advantage. In the Platonic form of cricket as I envisage it, one plays just against the oppo and the wearing pitch, not against the clock. Personally I'd be happier to extend the playing time with a sixth day than I would be to lose the fifth.

That 2005 series was marked by daft play on both sides. It was very exciting indeed, but very hectic.

[sanskritsimon]

Here's Matthew Engel's take on it all. He's fairly scathing. The article is entitled: "Cricket is rotting away. Everything worthwhile about it is being destroyed."

[sharky]

I don't really see much point in that article, it makes no attempt at balance at all, just listing his own prejudices and how unfair it is that other people are being catered for rather than just him.

[Hector]

The expression 'Dubaivory Tower' is rather amusing.

[D/L]

(With apologies for posting this in separate threads)...

An insightful (apart from the Boycott criticism) and well written article, I thought. I don't share the author's optimism that it may influence those who need to be influenced to help divert test cricket from its route to extinction, though. They are the people who benefit most, financially, from the dumbing down of cricket.

Any road up, why should we expect cricket to be immune from this phenomenon?

Cherish it whilst we have it, I suppose.

Altogether, now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2xxrvNZSW4

[billyguntheballs]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

Here's Matthew Engel's take on it all. He's fairly scathing. The article is entitled: "Cricket is rotting away. Everything worthwhile about it is being destroyed."

That was well written but from a very old fashioned, English attitude on cricket overall. He seems to me, and I've read stuff form him before, who still pines for the days of black and white TVs and listening to test matches on radio.

His complete, even arrogant disregard of club based T20 cricket comes from the POv of a man unable t osee the bigger pictures. Kids in Pakistan, India, the Caribbean and beyond want to travel and watch their heroes play for THEIR cities. The PSL has revitilised cricket on TV in Pakistan, the CPL has managed to extend the life of cricket in the Caribbean. It has also provided many younger players, who might have gone unnoticed due to corruption, oversight, bias and whatever else, to shine. Without the PSL, would we have Shadab Khan, Fakhar Zaman or Hasan Ali?

He then wants the English ty20 league to flop although the domestic cirucit is crying out for a viewership boost and this may be the only way to do it. How can anyone who claims to love cricket hope for it "to flop"? And then he also has a problem with the DRS, which is a system now helps provide the best posisble decision and far better decisions during the days of home umpire bias which led to dirty deries like Pakistan in the Windies for example or several really bad tempered series between Eng/Aus. Maybe he still believe sin the myth that English umpires can do no wrong.

I honestly believe, if the entirety of cricket is to get better, it must move away from the tea and biscuit administrators still stuck in 1930 and not go too far into the folds of the bollywood game. Someone needs to come along to find and walk the middle path. To preserve test cricket but also expand the boundaries of what is possible in T20 cricket.

I believe a test league and ODI league are a great step forward, IF they are administered properly.

[ThomasTT]

Originally Posted by sanskritsimon

I suspect that not as much time is lost to the weather in many other countries as is here in the UK. In any case the weather tends to make up for itself because if there's damp around then wickets tend to fall more easily. Elsewhere short games would tend to happen either because the pitch doesn't hold up or because one side plays badly.

I don't think the introduction of four-day tests is at all motivated by the desire to arrest a decline in the frequency of draws, though it may have that effect. In any case, although it certainly is a charming feature of long-form cricket to have the possibility of one team fighting for a draw (and thus, as it were, one kind of game piggybacks upon another), nonetheless there's a sense in which it is a shame that the superior team didn't have long enough to press home their advantage. In the Platonic form of cricket as I envisage it, one plays just against the oppo and the wearing pitch, not against the clock. Personally I'd be happier to extend the playing time with a sixth day than I would be to lose the fifth.

That 2005 series was marked by daft play on both sides. It was very exciting indeed, but very hectic.

6-day tests would be the ultimate bore-fest. Currently, as the number of draws go down, something else goes up; the blow-out. There are many more of them now. This is not surprising. With more time in the game, there is more time for the team on top to set absurd targets. With 6 days it would be even worse.

In the Oval SA test mentioned earlier, the better part of a sunday was wasted with England piling up runs they did not need with SA bowlers seeking wickets that would make no difference. Pointless cricket. Once SA got set a 500 target, they did offer resistance but ultimately it was hopeless. And of course with proceedings dragging on to monday, the game was won in an empty ground. 3 days of boredom rather than 2 great days with Elgar possibly battling through sunday. Had it been six days perhaps England would have set a target of 800. Great.not.

Of course its a balance. We dont want contrived cricket. But the best teams dont always need to win. If a team leads 3-0 at half time in football, it has a 99% chance of winning. I am quite happy if a similar big first innings lead in cricket, only yields an 80% chance of winning, because a team doesnt just need to be on top but engineer a win. Its a huge test of the captains skills and it keeps games alive.

I regularly hear people claiming to have become disillusioned with test cricket but often they dont seem sure why, mentioning something vague about too many tests or something that doesnt really make sense. I think the few draws/many one-sided games may be the real reason. So many games are essentially decided after the first innings, creating days of processional cricket in test after test with no chance of a great escape.

[sanskritsimon]

Have you got figures to support your suspicion that draws are declining in frequency, Thomas?