Quote:
Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero
So this was mentioned in passing in the tour thread, but Lord's will only host one Test next summer as Cardiff has beaten it to hosting the West Indies Test that was going spare.
Heard a few people on BBC and Channel 5 saying how unfair this is to the West Indians that they won't get to play a Test at Lord's, and that Lord's should host two matches because it's the best ground.
It is the best ground in England, certainly of all the ones I've been too. But it does irritate me that there are three northern Test venues, hosting zero Tests this summer while London alone gets three. Of course, I'm juxtaposing separate issues there really but it all comes under the same umbrella.
What I'm asking is the following:
- Is it unfair on the West Indies that they don't get a Lord's Test or is that just life?
- Should any ground ever get two Tests a year, regardless of stature?
- Should there be measures to ensure Tests are allocated more fairly in terms of regions?
- Is Burgey the biggest **** you have ever come across?
|
- No, it isn't. They've played at Lord's twice in the last four years anyway, and cricket should be played for the benefit of the fans, not the players. Deal with it.
- No. What special stature does it really have, anyway? Lord's being the "home of cricket" is a phrase that seems to get knocked around pretty mindlessly. It isn't my home of cricket, I hadn't seen any cricket in London until this year. Most grounds are grateful to get one Test a year, seems odd that Lord's should expect two just because the MCC say so.
- Yes. Like I said, it should be for the benefit of the fans, and cricket has plenty of fans in the north. No Tests out of seven north of Nottingham this summer was a shocker.
- Hard to measure.