Taking the pulse: how healthy is international cricket & where are we heading.

[kiwiviktor81]

Test cricket is going to die within 25 years.

Nah

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Cricket is and has always been a **** sport when it comes to depth and competitiveness. There are at any time 4 good teams at best. The rest are crap with perhaps a few good players.

Nah

The thing about Test cricket is that it lasts for 5 days and the better side almost always wins as there is little to no luck factor. Contrast this to soccer which is 60% luck 40% skill. In soccer a vastly inferior team can find parity, like when New Zealand drew with Italy at the 2010 World Cup. In Test cricket even a marginal weakness gets ruthlessly exposed for 5 days.

This is why Test cricket needs a two-tier system. We need sides like Afghanistan and Ireland playing top-level cricket but we don't need them getting slaughtered by Aussie every year.

 

[Jono]

What do you mean nah? There are only like 8 or so test nations anyway. There is no depth compared to other sports which have 20 team leagues etc.. Its just a fact and the nature of cricket as a sport.

 

[harsh.ag]

Seriously why does every sport need to be "global". Test matches will do fine until we render this planet unfit for human habitation. Then we will have space cricket.

 

[Jono]

Its going to be annoying when we have space cricket and the DRS ****s up with hawkeye not taking into account the lack of gravity.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The worst thing about space cricket is that fielders will be able to jump forty metres over the boundary to catch sixes and then throw them back into the field for an out.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

What do you mean nah? There are only like 8 or so test nations anyway. There is no depth compared to other sports which have 20 team leagues etc.. Its just a fact and the nature of cricket as a sport.

I mean nah there's plenty of depth. The problem is, if you compare to soccer, a team that is 10% as skilled as another team can still be competitive due to the luck-based nature of the sport. In Test cricket you have to be at least 80% as good as your opposition or you get massacred.

This is incidentally why T20 cricket has much more upsets and is probably better for lower grades of cricket.

The fact is that Test cricket needs almost Olympian levels of skill to even be able to play. This means there will always be few who do it, no matter how popular it is.

 

[SuperMurali]

Test cricket is going to die within 25 years. And it does not please me to say that. Not in the slightest.

No it won't. we can have a bet. if there's still test matches in 2040 you have to change your avatar to the BCCI logo

 

[Daemon]

What do you mean nah? There are only like 8 or so test nations anyway. There is no depth compared to other sports which have 20 team leagues etc.. Its just a fact and the nature of cricket as a sport.

Yeah, it's got a lot to do with the format of test cricket. If the game was all t20 there'd be a lot more depth and competetiveness, though obviously at the expense of the greatness of tests. Worth remembering the laughing stock of world cricket atm won the last t20 world cup.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I worry about South Africa in the medium term.

Over the next ten years they are going to be taking steps backwards as an international side, acknowledged internally to try and help ensure that in twenty five years time (i.e. the next generation) they are a game that is more representative of the nation. Let alone the loss of generational talents (AB, Amla, Steyn).

How much will the paying public endure a product that has been compromised - even as a domestic game, even if the reason for so is very desirable. Encouragingly, supposedly the crowds for the Ram Slam were decent, and more representative, than what had traditionally been seen in SA cricket.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The other thing is whether it will dawn upon the "triumvirate" that their product is forever tied to those teams from whom they are taking away money.

And will they care - e.g. India being self sufficient via IPL.

 

[Skyliner]

I worry about South Africa in the medium term.

Over the next ten years they are going to be taking steps backwards as an international side, acknowledged internally to try and help ensure that in twenty five years time (i.e. the next generation) they are a game that is more representative of the nation. Let alone the loss of generational talents (AB, Amla, Steyn).

How much will the paying public endure a product that has been compromised - even as a domestic game, even if the reason for so is very desirable. Encouragingly, supposedly the crowds for the Ram Slam were decent, and more representative, than what had traditionally been seen in SA cricket.

I've always thought of South Africa as such a powerful cricketing nation, but they don't seem to get the prestige that their strong international performances should accord them. I mean, not in regards to length of test series's but in terms of being an international powerbroker. In that respect, the 'Big 3' concept is all about who is driving and controlling the revenues of the game, and less about which are the strongest cricketing nations in terms of what they produce on the field.
Perhaps SA as a nation will perceive in some way, "hey, we are not one of the major nations of this sport. We are not one of those ones seated at the top table" and be slighted by that. Maybe the nation will pivot away from cricket to a greater extent, and more to rugby and soccer where they are seen to perhaps be treated with a greater degree of respect and high standing.

 

[Pratters]

I worry too but not every thing is doom and gloom.

- The best part is the start of day night test cricket finally. Crowds came in numbers for the first one and will get more eyeballs on test cricket.

- Most nations have started T20 leagues. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it will make smaller nations a bit more independent financially.

We need a proper cricket calendar. T20 should happen at specific times during the year and rest of the time should be devoted to first class and test cricket.

The big 3 structure right now is obviously extremely harmful. Once the nation's have a bit of money coming in from T20 they may not accept the structure and I expect it to tweak a bit for the better in 4-5 years.

 

[Ryan19]

Yes, a 4 test series against South Africa played at Hamilton / The Basin / Hagley / Napier - or some similar configuration of grounds - would surely average a daily crowd of about 7,000 per day across the whole series. This is about the equivalent of what the ODI's played at the boutique grounds over the holiday period achieve.
Hagley and the Basin in particular are always very well attended for tests.

Hasn't Hagley had one test? The only time I see more than 7k at the Basin is on a weekend against a top quality opponent (India, Australia, England).

 

[LegionOfBrad]

I've always thought of South Africa as such a powerful cricketing nation, but they don't seem to get the prestige that their strong international performances should accord them. I mean, not in regards to length of test series's but in terms of being an international powerbroker. In that respect, the 'Big 3' concept is all about who is driving and controlling the revenues of the game, and less about which are the strongest cricketing nations in terms of what they produce on the field.
Perhaps SA as a nation will perceive in some way, "hey, we are not one of the major nations of this sport. We are not one of those ones seated at the top table" and be slighted by that. Maybe the nation will pivot away from cricket to a greater extent, and more to rugby and soccer where they are seen to perhaps be treated with a greater degree of respect and high standing.

The problem is their domestic TV rights are small. So touring teams don't get a large cut when touring and they don't have a traditional enormous rivalry like the Ashes which gets Sky massively overpaying (even more so next time around as BT will be trying to muscle in) to bump their wallets.

It's all about the money sadly.

 

[marc71178]

I mean nah there's plenty of depth. The problem is, if you compare to soccer, a team that is 10% as skilled as another team can still be competitive due to the luck-based nature of the sport.

Not content with posting **** about cricket, you're branching out into other sports now then?

 

[GIMH]

I mean nah there's plenty of depth. The problem is, if you compare to soccer, a team that is 10% as skilled as another team can still be competitive due to the luck-based nature of the sport. In Test cricket you have to be at least 80% as good as your opposition or you get massacred.

This is incidentally why T20 cricket has much more upsets and is probably better for lower grades of cricket.

The fact is that Test cricket needs almost Olympian levels of skill to even be able to play. This means there will always be few who do it, no matter how popular it is.

Have you not watched much football? It's fine if you don't like it but you're chatting nonsense as to how it works. 60% luck? Drivel

 

[BeeGee]

The problem is, if you compare to soccer, a team that is 10% as skilled as another team can still be competitive due to the luck-based nature of the sport.

Jesus Christ, what a big steaming load of horse manure.

 

[91Jmay]

Given that teams who are objectively less skilled have won test matches before, your point about cricket is also null and void.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Also that cricket matches can literally be influenced by the toss of a coin.