ICCs grab for cash-The death of the 5 Test Series?

[Scmods]

Cricket has changed. It's no longer about the game, it's about making the ICC money. Unfortunately, due to this there are no longer regular 5 test series. The last two I can remember, 2005 Ashes and England in South Africa a couple of years back were MAGNIFICENT series. Rivalries were built up, heroes and villains made. THIS is what cricket is about, not 3 tests and 7 ODIs. It's a shame the game has gone down this route, it's a shadow of it's former self.

A tour used to be a big deal. There would be numerous tour games played to help players adjust to conditions, followed by a series. Now it's about getting teams in and out as fast as possible to maximize profits. It's fact that Test are a far more important and prestigious form of the game, so why is it there are constant meaningless ODI series while Test series are being rarer and rarer? The ICC is destroying the game, it is sad to see.

 

[silentstriker]

Explain what this means: "Making the ICC money." ICC is a non profit organization, any money it makes goes back out to the individual boards (all 90+ of them) or paying the umpires, etc.

And by "ICC destroying the game", you mean "The test nation countries in the ICC board that make up the ICC are destroying cricket." And considering ODI makes more money (i.e because its more popular), they seem to be doing what the fans want.

 

[Scmods]

Explain what this means: "Making the ICC money." ICC is a non profit organization, any money it makes goes back out to the individual boards (all 90+ of them) or paying the umpires, etc.

And by "ICC destroying the game", you mean "The test nation countries in the ICC board that make up the ICC are destroying cricket." And considering ODI makes more money (i.e because its more popular), they seem to be doing what the fans want.

Very well, allow me to change my phrasing. Individual cricket boards grab for cash is killing the game.

 

[silentstriker]

Very well, allow me to change my phrasing. Individual cricket boards grab for cash is killing the game.

Killing the game in what way - they are doing what the majority of fans (i.e casual fans) obviously want, right?

 

[Scmods]

As I said, 5 test series had character, rivalries, battles within battles. It seperated the good from the great, the great from the legendary. Nowadays tours are about cramming in as many ODIs as possible.

 

[silentstriker]

As I said, 5 test series had character, rivalries, battles within battles. It seperated the good from the great, the great from the legendary. Nowadays tours are about cramming in as many ODIs as possible.

But if its making money, then it means its more popular, no? Shouldn't that be the goal of the ICC? To make the fans happy?

 

[Scmods]

Just because advertisers give them money, doesn't mean the fans are happy.

Tell me, what would you prefer. A 2 test series against Pakistan followed by 5 ODIs, or a 5 test series against Pakistan?

 

[silentstriker]

Just because advertisers give them money, doesn't mean the fans are happy.

The advertisers are not stupid - they wouldn't give them money unless the fans watched. And they give more money for ODI's because more fans watch ODI's.

Tell me, what would you prefer. A 2 test series against Pakistan followed by 5 ODIs, or a 5 test series against Pakistan?

Neither, we've played too much recently. Fortunately for them, I don't constitute the type of fan that they are targeting, or the type of fan that brings in the big money.

 

[Poker Boy]

Totally agree - and the 5-Test series between England and South Africa in 2003 was an excellent, see-sawing affair too - but the ICC are partly to blame at least in the case of England. Because of the need to have two touring teams here to fulfill the ICC's tour programme we can only have a 5 Test series if the other team gets just 2 Tests or if we play 8 Tests in a season - neither is desireable! India or WI would not be happy if we gave either just two tests so three and four it has to be. btw, can anyone think of a great 3/4 Test series? A v WI 1994/5 and 1998/9, A v I in 2000/1 and 2003/4, WI v P in 1988..anyone think of anymore?

 

[C_C]

But if its making money, then it means its more popular, no? Shouldn't that be the goal of the ICC? To make the fans happy?

Test cricket, much like classical music, Chadonnays or french cuisine, is a cultured and acquired taste. It has to be 'developed' and nurtured.
As such, when it comes to any medium of 'fine arts', the audience would be few but they nonetheless epitomise the technical and artistic excellence of their fields.
Simply pandering to 'popular demand' would result in a far more 'dumbed down' culture of pop music, ODI cricket and 'rap poetry'. I dont intend to say that these are irrelevant or shouldnt be supported but it is a fact that popular demand almost universally is a 'dumbed down' version of a finer art. As such, ignoring or sidelining the highest form of art and expertise simply to satiate a 'quick-fix, dumbed down' public would ultimately result in the death of the said art. Simply because without the presence of fine art, the 'popular art' becomes almost too blaize and repetetive. Indeed, i've met many people who dont care about most ODIs- i find that i share their sentiments too unless its a very close match, the last match of a tied series or a final like ICC Champion's trophy, world cups and a few multi-team tourneys that are now in the past.

Comming to the subject matter at hand, i think its rather sad that 5 test series are gone. I dont think that 5 test series should be the norm- i am quite happy with 3 test series for most affairs. But this whole business of 4 test series stinks of rotten eggs and i think there should be the occasional 5 test series in contests such as Ashes, Frank Worrell Trophy, Wisden Trophy, Border-Gavaskar trophy, etc etc.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Anyone who would rather have 7 ODIs and 3 Tests, rather than 5 Tests and 3 ODIs isn't a true cricket fan.

 

[silentstriker]

Anyone who would rather have 7 ODIs and 3 Tests, rather than 5 Tests and 3 ODIs isn't a true cricket fan.

Ah, its elitist attitudes like these that are the problem.


I agree with you though.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That's good

 

[silentstriker]

Test cricket, much like classical music, Chadonnays or french cuisine, is a cultured and acquired taste. It has to be 'developed' and nurtured.

Hah, I love these terms. 'Cultured' tastes. As if those who don't like that crappy tasting chardonnay or the annoyingly mild french cuisine are somehow savage brutes.

Elitist much?

I think its the responsibility of the boards to grow the game of cricket. And Test cricket still has enough in it to keep it viable, but if at some point it doesn't, why should it be kept alive? The people clearly don't want it. Same with classical music - there is an industry for it, because there is a demand. If there isn't, classical music would go away too.

 

[C_C]

As if those who don't like that crappy tasting chardonnay or the annoyingly mild french cuisine are somehow savage brutes.

I dont think you've had good Chardonnay if you think its 'crappy tasting'.

nd Test cricket still has enough in it to keep it viable, but if at some point it doesn't, why should it be kept alive?

The same reason classical music was kept alive in western royal courts or Indian classical music was kept alive in subcontinental royal courts. Put simply, the pinnacle of any art (and ultimately, sport is art- some more than others though) should be kept alive simply because of the cultural value it imparts to the society.

Same with classical music - there is an industry for it, because there is a demand. If there isn't, classical music would go away too.

Err..NO.
Classical music, even today, exists because of the support it gets from the cultural ministry of various governments- not because there is a 'demand' for it. There is demand, but not nearly enough to break even on the expenses in several places, let alone turn a profit.
Culture cannot be equated with economics and its this 'economics trumps all' hyper-capitalistic attitude that has left North America to be extremely culturally stunted and stagnant compared to contemporary Europe. I dont want to debate this point- i have lived both in Europe and North America and its very apparent which side of the atlantic is more cultured.

 

[silentstriker]

I dont think you've had good Chardonnay if you think its 'crappy tasting'.

It is quite possible that I just don't like the taste, you know. In fact, I despise all wines, period. Even the more expensive ones.

The same reason classical music was kept alive in western royal courts or Indian classical music was kept alive in subcontinental royal courts. Put simply, the pinnacle of any art (and ultimately, sport is art- some more than others though) should be kept alive simply because of the cultural value it imparts to the society.

Why do you consider classical music the 'pinnacle'?

Err..NO.
Classical music, even today, exists because of the support it gets from the cultural ministry of various governments- not because there is a 'demand' for it. There is demand, but not nearly enough to break even on the expenses in several places, let alone turn a profit.

Then it shouldn't be kept alive as a living art. And by the way, you're saying that a sport should be kept alive by government agencies just because its somehow the pinnacle of something?

Culture cannot be equated with economics and its this 'economics trumps all' hyper-capitalistic attitude that has left North America to be extremely culturally stunted and stagnant compared to contemporary Europe. I dont want to debate this point- i have lived both in Europe and North America and its very apparent which side of the atlantic is more cultured.

There is that word again, 'culture'. I do not think it means what you think it means. I think its quite possible that European culture meshes with what your idea of 'cultured' should be.

 

[Dravid]

I agree with SS. But it really depends on the series. People come to watch the Ashes so theres a reason they still have 5 tests. Look at how many people go to watch a test in Lanka, or Pakistan, or sometimes in India. Test Cricket doesn't generate as big of a crowd as ODI Cricket in the sub continent. So it's only sensible to give the nations who generate larger crowds in ODI's more ODI games. Plus now, tours are more often than before. That means less time on hand, and more energy being used. Five tests consecutively in like 5-6 tours in a year will use up more energy then it already does.

 

[C_C]

Why do you consider classical music the 'pinnacle'?

I hate to come off sanctimonious yet again- but i come from a musical family (my mom is a professional singer in India in Rabindrasangeet and populist music) and having grown up in that setting, i can say that i understand the basics of music theory - tempo, scale, note, allegros, etc etc.
And quite simply, classical music is the pinnacle because it is far far more balanced and technically closer to perfection than pop music.
I am sorry to say but most pop stars dont know the ABC of music and its much like comparing your Popular science reader to Stephen Hawkins when you compare a pop star to a classicist in terms of skill or grasp of music. Most pop stars cannot change scales properly, cannot hold notes consistently or do anything more than permutations of the most basic vocal/instrumental skills. I am sure you'd consider Eric Clapton or Hendrix to be the pinnacle of guitar playing but they are nobodies compared to some classicists who've branched out into guitar (ofcourse, guitar is a rather limited instrument so classicists dont particularly like it).
I enjoy some mainstream music mind you - much like how i enjoy the fresh slice of pizza on my way home from the local pizzeria. But fine dining it isnt and mainstream music doesnt even scratch the tip of the iceberg in terms of what musical depth and artistry really is. If you understand music theory, which you obviously dont, this debate wouldnt even be occuring.

Then it shouldn't be kept alive as a living art

And then we'll have no culture and everything would be the same ol same ol- much like the states. The difference between Europe and US is largely cultural- one has it, one doesnt. Culture is not just trends or doing whats popular - it obviously has a role in the culture but culture is also the preservation of the arts of the eras bygone. Not because it makes economic sense but simply because its much like preserving a Michelangelo painting - the form alone deserves to be kept alive simply due to the sheer beauty and mastery of it. Like i said, you are falling into the rather too typical American mindset of equating everything with money. Not everything is about turning out a profit.

you're saying that a sport should be kept alive by government agencies just because its somehow the pinnacle of something?

Yes!

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Then tell me, o great one, what exactly does culture mean ?
I wont be holding my breath....

 

[silentstriker]

I hate to come off sanctimonious yet again- but i come from a musical family (my mom is a professional singer in India in Rabindrasangeet and populist music) and having grown up in that setting, i can say that i understand the basics of music theory - tempo, scale, note, allegros, etc etc.

And quite simply, classical music is the pinnacle because it is far far more balanced and technically closer to perfection than pop music.

What does that mean? 'Technically closer to perfection?' Those words have no meaning when it comes to music. Otherwise, what is a perfect piece of music, and can I download it?

Yes!

So Mr. Culture, the governments of nations should now be in business of propping up unpopular sports with taxpayer money? Which sports should be funded this way, or does this pinnacle of sports limit itself to test cricket? You can take your socialist ideas and stick em you know where, thats what I think. Why should my money be used to prop up Squash?

Then tell me, o great one, what exactly does culture mean ?
I wont be holding my breath....

"the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another."

 

[C_C]

hose words have no meaning when it comes to music.

Do you understand music theory to be pronouncing such a judgement ?
Do you know what is and isnt a balanced piece of music, whats a decatonic or do-decatonic scale to make that pronouncement ?
Or do you consider yourself knowledgable about music simply because you listen to any number of vocally mismatched, scalarly inconsistent and tonal distorted trash that plays mostly on the radio ?
If you dont understand music, you have no business trying to judge music !
For you have to understand what constitutes music to guage its flaws or technical mastery.
I cannot explain to you (nor am i inclined to) what it means to be 'technically closer to perfection' in musical terms if you dont know the basics of music.
But make no mistake- musical quality is quite clear-cut if you know the fundamentals or beyond. Much like how the untrained mind wont pick up the logical
error in an engineering report, the untrained ear will also not pick up the nuances of music (though many do because of their innate talent in this regard).
A Carnatic or Hindustani musician will find Schubert or Chopin to be far superior in musical quality than Brittney Spears. Or a western classical musician will find Rabindrasangeet to be far superior than filmi music. Or consider Bheem Sen Joshi to be a superior vocalist to Sonu Nigam. It has nothing to do with taste or elitism. It has everything to do with understanding what constitutes music and appreciating a piece/player based on their technical mastery of music.

So Mr. Culture, the governments of nations should now be in business of propping up unpopular sports with taxpayer money? Which sports should be funded this way, or does this pinnacle of sports limit itself to test cricket? You can take your socialist ideas and stick em you know where, thats what I think. Why should my money be used to prop up Squash?

Test cricket is one of the few sports i can think of - badminton would be another. But in general, i am not much into sports so i dont care much about it.
As per propping up unpopular sports with taxpayer's money - well they'r already doing it with arts and as i explained to you, with good cause.
And as far as i am concerned, you can take your hyper-capitalist 'i'll sell me mum if the price is right' completely self serving and laughably ignorant philosophy of life and stick it up where the sun doesnt shine.
Your tax money is NOT something on which you have absolute say, given that it serves the society as much as it serves you,if not more tilted towards society. You arnt doing a service to the society by paying taxes- you are fulfilling your obligation. Some of those obligations won't match what you like but as far as i am concerned, its tough beans for you. As long as my money isnt being used to kill someone or some creature or torment it/torment people, i am not gonna create a fuss.

"the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another."

Again - expected. Very American, very crude and very blaize. Much like most of your country. Culture is what you described above. But much much more than that as well.
Its the celebration of all the worthwhile accomplishments of man- which given how common your 'sell me mum' types are, is few and far between.
Culture is also the sum total of philosophical and artistic heritage of a nation. Given that your nation doesnt understand the concept of heritage very well and is extremely illiterate about its own heritage ( i dont blame them honestly- if my country was as stark historically as your's i'd not be very inclined to learn about it) and given that you'r a quintessential immigrant/2nd gen 'wannabe', i dont expect you to understand these nuances either.