6 day test matches?

[Deja moo]

[COLOR-dark-blue]should test matches be extended to 6 days in order to force a result?[/COLOR]

 

[luckyeddie]

should test matches be extended to 6 days in order to force a result?

No, never, whatever.

It was tried in the past (see references to 'The Timeless Test' between South African and England). It produces monotonous, dragged-out, negative cricket.

I'd go the other way - make them 4-day but insist on 100 overs a day.

Do you knpw, back in the 1950's and 1960's, an over rate of 15 an hour (we sometimes get 13) would have been regarded as deliberate slow play?

 

[Deja moo]

i meant 6 day games in the context of prolonged spells of rain interruption...eg. the recent draw between west indies and sri lanka.

maybe there could be a provision for the playing captains to take the field for another exra day in case of a prviously agreed upon period of play lost to rain....

 

[luckyeddie]

i meant 6 day games in the context of prolonged spells of rain interruption...eg. the recent draw between west indies and sri lanka.

maybe there could be a provision for the playing captains to take the field for another exra day in case of a prviously agreed upon period of play lost to rain....

Some of the greatest battles of them all have been those where one side have been valiantly trying to save the game - and games in Pakistan against England would probably need about 8 days (17 draws out of 22).

A draw isn't always a bad game. I understand what you are saying regarding weather, but the logistics would be a nightmare regarding travel, accommodation and the like. You would automatically be making tours a week longer (5 tests).

 

[chris.hinton]

Orangepitch PLEASE post normally instead of just all those fancy colours

 

[Hoggy]

5 day tests are fine, most matches are decided in 3-4 days anyway.

It wouldn't suprise me if Australia beat Bangladesh in 2 days in the coming series.

 

[Langeveldt]

I reckon there should be a reserve rain day, if both captains agree to making a game out of it, i see no reason why not...

The WI SL test could have turned out into a very good game if we had today as well to play in...

 

[Rik]

Orangepitch PLEASE post normally instead of just all those fancy colours

Why? It's pretty funny if you ask me. In moderation of course.

 

[Langeveldt]

Why? It's pretty funny if you ask me. In moderation of course.

Yeah as long as we can read it

 

[luckyeddie]

Why? It's pretty funny if you ask me. In moderation of course.

I despise it - and that's good enough for me.

 

[marc71178]

At the other extreme, Duncan Fletcher want 400 over Tests, where each side bat for 200 overs max.

WTF?

 

[Rik]

I despise it - and that's good enough for me.

Yeah well, your an old fart so I'm going to do the usual and ignore you

 

[Kenny]

Yeah well, your an old fart so I'm going to do the usual and ignore you

Now, now Rik......respect for your elders an all that! The thing about calling someone an 'old fart' is that we all will get there eventually!

On the subject, no way. 5 days is long enough, and we already have time added at the start and end of play where possible to make up any lost rain time.
I do feel that lights should be used in bad light situations though.

 

[luckyeddie]

Now, now Rik......respect for your elders an all that! The thing about calling someone an 'old fart' is that we all will get there eventually!

Don't worry about it. I don't ignore Rik because of the way he says things - there's a much better reason.

 

[Bazza]

6 day tests? No thankyou. Why all these radical ideas all of a sudden? Is there really that much wrong with the game in it's present state? I don't think so. So why is everyone trying to change everything in so many ways??

And Duncan Fletcher's idea sounds like a longer version of two innings one day cricket, which is a non-starter for mine.

 

[Rik]

Don't worry about it. I don't ignore Rik because of the way he says things - there's a much better reason.

Because I'm young and spritely, and I hardly ever post any more!

 

[krkode]

Some draws are classics. Some aren't.

If a whole day gets washed out and that produces a draw, too bad. But if a batsman plays his heart out to save the game for his team, it'd be murder to extend the game by a day just to get a result. One of the things about test matches, is "game saving."

If a player knows there's going to be an unlimited number of days just to get a result, the first innings could decide everything, and it could prevent a real heartfelt performance, because some games are out of reach for victory, but not so out of reach for a draw.

An example, I think, of a classic draw, was England's tour of South Africa, South Africa made to follow on, Kirsten clunks 274 and saves the day and game. It would've been aweful to pull that match through just to get a result.

Aiming just for a result rather than a quality play is more like ODI cricket than Test cricket.

 

[Deja moo]

then how about keeping 5 day tests with a rest day in between?......the players would be fresh ( australia allegedly could not bowl out WI in their last innings as they were tired of being in the field so long)

 

[royGilchrist]

I dont see the point of 6 day tests.

I dont think we have witnessed so many decisions in test matches like we are seeing today. So the length of the tests is one thing we must not change I think. Infact with the way Aus plays, and the amount of disparity amopng teams, it will be even less exciting, the result of the test will be even more evident.

Also, having a rest day is not good. As far as I remember the tests with rest days historically had more draws, for some conspicuous reason.

 

[marc71178]

then how about keeping 5 day tests with a rest day in between?......the players would be fresh ( australia allegedly could not bowl out WI in their last innings as they were tired of being in the field so long)

With the amount of cricket played - a rest day is too much now for the schedulers to cope with.