• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Death of the Five-Test Series

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
better with 7 tests and 0 ODIs

And an official farewell flat wicket test, whereafter this kind of pitches will be banned for having disgraced the game for so long.
 

archie mac

International Coach
swede said:
better with 7 tests and 0 ODIs

And an official farewell flat wicket test, whereafter this kind of pitches will be banned for having disgraced the game for so long.
Which begs the question, how many 7 Tests series have there been? (I can think of one)
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
archie mac said:
Which begs the question, how many 7 Tests series have there been? (I can think of one)
None, (but it could be great if played as a best-off 7)

Its just my wishful thinking with 0 ODIs.

The ashes schedule next year is a disgraceful example.
next to no preparation as all the players arrive from an ODI world cup and then all tests are squeezed together to make way for another lengthy ODI-tri series before another ODI world cup.

The ashes is an anticipated sell-out with up to 20,000 england fans making the trip. Yet this best of the best cricket is treated in this appaling manner to make way for endless boring ODIs.
pathetic.
England should rest their test-players from the round of ODIs that end just 2 weeks before the first test.
 

greg

International Debutant
LongHopCassidy said:
Personally, I think the standard of cricket warrants a five-Test series for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, and also India-Pakistan series.
It's not the standard of cricket that makes the case for 4-5 test series, but the well matched nature of the two teams competing.
 

archie mac

International Coach
swede said:
None, (but it could be great if played as a best-off 7)

Its just my wishful thinking with 0 ODIs.
The 1970/71 series in Aust. was sort of a 7 Test series, with one being washed out without a ball being bowled. As the sides were named and the captains tossed it is considered in Aust. to count as a Test.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
greg said:
It's not the standard of cricket that makes the case for 4-5 test series, but the well matched nature of the two teams competing.
True. But the two aforementioned series would also qualify by that reasoning.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I have always thought of this being a good process to decide a series length -

Firstly let me state the whole idea of the process is to make tests more competitive and avoid more and more boring matches/series.

The number of matches to be played in a series should depend upon the result of the previous series. An initial series length is decided as 3 or the previous series length (like 5 for Ashes, Eng-RSA). There after the no. of matches to be played in the next series should depend upon the result of the previous series. If the result of a series is a draw the two teams play one match more than the previous series in the next series. If it is in favour of 1 team with a margin of 1, they play the same matches. If it is in favour of 1 team with a margin of 2, the no of matches is reduced by 1, if margin of 3 - then 2 and so on.

The minimum matches in a series would be 1. If a test team achieves a state of 1 match against all teams because of losing to the other test nations - they lose their test status. If a team achieves the state by winning - well they can be crowned ultimate test champions for the period they manage to keep this scenario.

For awarding teams test status - performance against test teams in 4 day matches should be kept in mind. A 50% draw plus win record in a given period could mean they can get the right to play a test match. The teams earning such a status to play international teams in 4 day matches would be 4 teams a year (4 semi finalists of the inter-continental cup) touring two countries each playing 2 FC matches against international sides and against domestic sides of the same country gaining vital experience in the process.
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
PRATYUSH

I dont think this will work. A lot of time passes between some series making it unreasonable to use the last series to decide the number of matches.
England were completly outplayed in the last ashes. Also for commercial reasons its not realistic to cut the ashes. It has to become seriously one-sided for 30 years or something in order for either side wanting to reduce it.

To get rid of the one-sided games I would instead give strong teams the right to send their A-team to the weak country and the weak country has to beat that A-team before earning the right. If the A-team wins, then the strong country is the winner of the series, if the weak country wins a real series will be staged.

Also I dont get this "test status" why does cricket have that? some exclusive club where everyone has to play everyone inside, but if your just outside you get nothing. With the problems caused by one-sided tests, Kenya will now have no chance of getting in and its wrong.
Surely Kenya, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should not be seperated by some strange "status"
Whats the point of kenya playing no-one and Bangladesh travelling around being massacred. Surely they should play eachother. Whether it might not be good enough to be "official tests" or "first class" or whatever, well these things should not get in the way. let them play
 

swede

School Boy/Girl Captain
In the long run, I think cricket should get a world cup.

It may seem wrong and does have problems but its the only fair thing for all small countries who are locked out from the top fascinating and lucrative series. for instance, I think many NZérs prefer ODIs simply because they are barred from the good series and would have to play well for decades for that to change.

An world cup would change that. It should even be an annual world cup! the 4-year cycle is ridiculous for cricket. top cricketers play mainly for their country. compared to football their country is their club and should have an annual championship.

The format should obviously be a straight knock-out played over just 3-4 weeks at the same time every year cementing it as a major annual international event like Wimbledon or the tour de france.
It would be great for small countries, but also for strong teams who could then lose the burden of having to play series they dont want to but could focus completly on 5-match series against the teams their populations want to see.
 

Top