Lords may no longer be guaranteed test match cricket

[pskov]

This story was leaked/announced (can never tell the difference these days) today and I was slightly surprised that a thread hadn't been started up on it yet.

Lord's could lose out in new staging deal
Cricinfo staff
December 8, 2008
The MCC's ambitious plans for a £200 million redevelopment project at Lord's could be under threat, after the England & Wales Cricket Board revealed they are considering a new staging agreement that would guarantee the venue only two Tests in five years from 2012 to 2016.

Since 2000, Lord's - which has the largest capacity of any cricket ground in England with more than 28,000 seats - has successfully bid for two Tests a year, but Keith Bradshaw, the MCC chief executive, told The Daily Telegraph that any prospect of increasing that capacity hinged entirely on continuing their current volume of international cricket.

"We are disappointed that the ECB don't recognise Lord's as an iconic venue in the same way that Wembley and Twickenham are viewed by football and rugby," said Bradshaw. "We had big plans to redevelop the ground. If we don't have assurity of major matches, which underpins future investment, we will have to ask ourselves if those plans are still justified as a major investment."

The ECB's new plans are intended as an extension of the existing deal, which runs until 2012, and is designed to assist the counties with their financial planning. The intention is for all nine category A grounds to be guaranteed a minimum of 11 days' international cricket over the course of the five years, although this covers only 50 percent of the games in that period, which means the remainder will be the subject of fierce bidding.

The new longer staging agreements have been proposed to the ECB by the independent Major Matches Group, chaired by Lord Morris, and documents were sent out to the counties last week. "This is a step in the right direction," Jim Cumbes, Lancashire's chief executive, told the paper. "Without Test match cricket these grounds are just not viable. It is not about making fat profits it is more a matter of being able to support the infrastructure needed to host major international cricket."

© Cricinfo

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/381816.html

I personally think that Lords should no longer have two tests a summer assured that is for certain, but I think they should have at least one guaranteed. Taking into account the importance of the place in the history of the game, the fact that players always want the opportunity to play at 'the home of cricket' and it would seem to me a shame to take that privilege away from some touring teams, but also the basic fact that it always sells out and and silly prices too so makes the ECB a lot of money, I think it deserves at least one test a year.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't think your argument equates to "Lord's should be guaranteed one test a year." It should have to compete with everywhere else, but the fact that it sells out and has a great history gives it an advantage when it does compete (although that might not always be the case). Going against it is the general direness of the cricket it's produced recently. There's more of a case for dropping Lord's than there was for dropping OT .

 

[Richard]

There is absolutely no way on Earth that Lord's should ever go a year without a Test. The way I understand it, the place almost needs two per year to keep-up the sort of stuff we expect of it, but in many ways it's un-ideal it having two as it pushes out other grounds now that we have more than six places wanting to stage Tests.

Three new prospective Test grounds in a few years really does put t'cat amongst pigeons.

 

[Athlai]

There is absolutely no way on Earth that Lord's should ever go a year without a Test. The way I understand it, the place almost needs two per year to keep-up the sort of stuff we expect of it, but in many ways it's un-ideal it having two as it pushes out other grounds now that we have more than six places wanting to stage Tests.

Three new prospective Test grounds in a few years really does put t'cat amongst pigeons.

AWTA

Lords is England.

 

[steds]

The only thing more farcical than Lords getting two guaranteed Tests out of 7 every year is Cardiff getting a Test at all.

 

[Richard]

If Cardiff, The Riverside and The Rose Bowl weren't impinging on the Status Quo that'd been juuuuuuuust fine for over a century, Lord's having two Tests per season would be fine.

However, given that new grounds will unfortunately be wanting the best level of cricket (The Rose Bowl's pitch is still nowhere near good enough IMO) that means that things have had to change. Having one Test per season deducted from Headingley, Old Trafford, Edgbaston or wherever isn't ideal, but it's better than having two grounds lose them or one ground going several years without.

 

[pup11]

I think keeping the sentiments aside, one should look at the situation practically, since the Ashes 05 test the Lord's pitch hasn't produced a single result yielding test match, and that certainly isn't acceptable, they should do something with the pitch there as soon as possible otherwise it would be only fair enough if the ground isn't allowed to host test matches, despite its history and everything.

 

[superkingdave]

Pretty sure that Lords will be able to bid enough to get 2 tests a year anyway...biggest capacity highest prices/hospitality. Only thing that is likely to happen is increased prices (as has happened from the previous bidding process that saw Cardiff get an ashes test).

 

[andyc]

Not sure about two, but it should definitely be getting at least once a year. It's Lords, FFS.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah, don't want to see cricketers missing out opportunity to play at the Home of Cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

What you have to remember is that two tests a year for Lord's means three out of seven in London. That's a pretty shocking imbalance.

 

[wpdavid]

There is absolutely no justification in playing 2 tests a year at Lord's, and hasn't been for years, especially with London also staging a test each year at the Oval. You could argue that test matches at Lord's epitomise everything that is wrong with English cricket - looks lovely, but basically a social event to fill the time between Henley & Ascot.

EDIT
Just read Uppercut's comment about London.

 

[Uppercut]

There is absolutely no justification in playing 2 tests a year at Lord's, and hasn't been for years, especially with London also staging a test each year at the Oval. You could argue that test matches at Lord's epitomise everything that is wrong with English cricket - looks lovely, but basically a social event to fill the time between Henely & Ascot.
.

Yeah I agree with that. Lord's is a nice place, but it's so far up its own ass it's not even funny. What's the self appointed "home of cricket" going to do to get young people into cricket? Endless draws and toffs with Pimms just reinforce the image of a boring sport for the overpriveliged. Lord's should compete for test matches just like everyone else.

 

[superkingdave]

but if it was an open competition i'd wager there would be more cricket in London rather than less...perhaps 2 tests at the oval and 3 at Lords....because they can afford to bid so much more than the other places

 

[Craig]

I voted for two Tests a year. But if need be, then one Test is acceptable.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There is absolutely no justification in playing 2 tests a year at Lord's.

The justification is that it's historically the most famous ground in the World and in a split tour both Countries want to play there.

 

[Uppercut]

The justification is that it's historically the most famous ground in the World and in a split tour both Countries want to play there.

Then the Oval has to miss out.

 

[Goughy]

I find this an interesting topic as there are so many valid points.

It does appear unfair that a min of 3 Tests a season are in London when other cities get zero.

However, as stated, an open bidding system for Tests would certainly see the London grounds getting more than 3 due to their location, size, ticket prices and corporate sponsorship.

Also, giving 2 games to the same stadium when others get nothing seems unfair until you consider that the ground is Lords. A magnificent place, ie, the largest stadium in the UK with more history and tradition than you can hake a stick at.

 

[Jamee999]

Not sure about two, but it should definitely be getting at least once a year. It's Lords, FFS.

Thiiiiis.

 

[Beleg]

Headingley, Old Trafford, Edgbaston, Oval and Lords should get a guranteed test with the other two slots being rotated between Trent Bridge, Riverside, Cardiff and the Rose Bowl on an yearly basis.