4 Day Tests The Way To Go

[Fred Tetanus]

This could well have been discussed before but anyway.....

I listen to a sports radio show each morning on the way to work and one of the presenters is always banging on about how they should play test matches over 4 days in an attempt to revitalise the format. He usually gets a few laughs as the other presenters mock him but does he have a point? Would this be a good idea?

Me, I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea as the games usually seem to be won before or very early on the 5th day. When a 5th day is required the crowd is basically non-existent. If they were going to move to 4 days I wouldn’t want the actual length of play to be shorter though. Add an extra session into each days play. Perhaps have the extra session in the evening to capture the appeal of the day night tests as well. I suspect the crowd would be at least as big as the current 5 day format with the benefit of likely increased F&B revenue as the spectators spend more time feeding their faces and getting boozed.

Over to the forum for thoughts.

 

[Burgey]

If you add an extra session at night, people can come down to the ground while on their way home from the beach or the shops.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Totally opposed to the idea.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No. Having a side bowling for potentially 100+ overs in a day is pushing it a bit far.

Colour of the ball also an issue. You can't use the red ball, so would every Test match be using a pink ball?

The other commentators are right to laugh at it. The only way it could work might be to change nothing but just chopping a day off, and try to prepare more sporting wickets in general, which I definitely wouldn't be opposed to. Not sure how that would work financially within the system though.

 

[Fred Tetanus]

If you add an extra session at night, people can come down to the ground while on their way home from the beach or the shops.

Exactly! This I why I feel like crowds under this type of format would actually be higher in 4 days than they currently get in 5 days. They could even sell half day tickets in a specific section of the ground for people who didn't want to spend the whole day there. Have a 1hr break after the 2nd session with security clearing people out and cleaners coming in to ready it for those with tickets to the 2nd half of the day.

 

[Fred Tetanus]

Totally opposed to the idea.

Any reason for that? Reasoned discussion is always much better than blanket statement without and explanation.

 

[Fred Tetanus]

No. Having a side bowling for potentially 100+ overs in a day is pushing it a bit far.

Colour of the ball also an issue. You can't use the red ball, so would every Test match be using a pink ball?

The other commentators are right to laugh at it. The only way it could work might be to change nothing but just chopping a day off, and try to prepare more sporting wickets in general, which I definitely wouldn't be opposed to. Not sure how that would work financially within the system though.

Details like colour of the ball are obviously something that would need to be worked out. Don't have an answer for that one at this stage. Having to bowl 120 overs is no big deal though. These are professional athletes getting paid a truckload of cash not school children. No need to mollycoddle them. Besides, there will be an extra day at the end of the test to recover. Or they could even have a rest day after day 2 for that purpose.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Exactly! This I why I feel like crowds under this type of format would actually be higher in 4 days than they currently get in 5 days. They could even sell half day tickets in a specific section of the ground for people who didn't want to spend the whole day there. Have a 1hr break after the 2nd session with security clearing people out and cleaners coming in to ready it for those with tickets to the 2nd half of the day.

Probably never happen but actually doesn't sound the absolute worst tbh.

Would see a lot more all-rounders and bowler-heavy sides being selected

 

[TheJediBrah]

Details like colour of the ball are obviously something that would need to be worked out. Don't have an answer for that one at this stage. Having to bowl 120 overs is no big deal though. These are professional athletes getting paid a truckload of cash not school children. No need to mollycoddle them. Besides, there will be an extra day at the end of the test to recover. Or they could even have a rest day after day 2 for that purpose.

tbh you've almost sold me on this within the space of 5 minutes

 

[centurymaker]

It's the way forward. Sooner or later it will happen..for the good.

At the moment, what's happening is that.. just to ensure that the game goes the distance & that $$ are made, they are preparing unwatchable bat-dominating pitches..

With 4 day games, the balance will finally be addressed and will make for far better viewing.

 

[centurymaker]

With more overs in a day, possibly 100 or more and with the game being 4 days.. teams will be more keen to play 5 bowlers, which can only be good.
5 batsmen, 1 wicketkeeper, 5 bowlers. Balance restored.

 

[straw man]

I'm in favour of day-night tests because of the obvious benefits to attendance and viewership; by comparison I can't really see what benefits four-day tests offer. Is there anything to suggest more people would attend or watch on TV for more hours? I'm very doubtful about that.

Attending the cricket is already a pretty long day for spectators, so making it longer again may have the opposite effect of making people less likely to go along in the first place imo, especially if they're taking kids. While you don't have to attend the whole day, people might also feel like they're missing out by attending only a part of a day, getting to and from the ground and paying for tickets.

No. Having a side bowling for potentially 100+ overs in a day is pushing it a bit far.

This too. Especially if it's hot and the other team have been batting all day - it's going to affect the quality of cricket played. So we get an extra 20 overs of part-timers in the day, which does noone any good.

Losing a day to rain would also have a proportionally larger impact and you wouldn't want to further lengthen other days to make up for it.

In summary, it seems like an entirely arbitrary change-for-change's sake with slim to no benefits and a few negatives as well. Thumbs down.

 

[Fred Tetanus]

I'm in favour of day-night tests because of the obvious benefits to attendance and viewership; by comparison I can't really see what benefits four-day tests offer. Is there anything to suggest more people would attend or watch on TV for more hours? I'm very doubtful about that.

Attending the cricket is already a pretty long day for spectators, so making it longer again may have the opposite effect of making people less likely to go along in the first place imo, especially if they're taking kids. While you don't have to attend the whole day, people might also feel like they're missing out by attending only a part of a day, getting to and from the ground and paying for tickets.



This too. Especially if it's hot and the other team have been batting all day - it's going to affect the quality of cricket played. So we get an extra 20 overs of part-timers in the day, which does noone any good.

Losing a day to rain would also have a proportionally larger impact and you wouldn't want to further lengthen other days to make up for it.

In summary, it seems like an entirely arbitrary change-for-change's sake with slim to no benefits and a few negatives as well. Thumbs down.

Totally short sighted and backward thinking. See above for the benefits with every one of your concerns addressed and debunked.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Any reason for that? Reasoned discussion is always much better than blanket statement without and explanation.

Removal of a fifth day would have removed some of the greatest moments in test cricket, the end of the (1st) tied test, the 'Miracle of Headingley '81', the final wicket at Edgbaston '05. Some of the most glorious moments of test cricket - basically the reason people live for this wonderful sport - would not have happened.

 

[straw man]

Totally short sighted and backward thinking. See above for the benefits with every one of your concerns addressed and debunked.

It's not short-sighted to ask 'what are the benefits?', to which I haven't seen a single compelling argument so far.

 

[Camo999]

I reckon 4 day tests are a great idea. Start on a Thursday, finish on a Sunday. Could neatly have a three test series in three weeks etc. It wouldn't necessarily need to be all tests being moved to this format either but as an option it is a good one to have, particularly for lower profile match-ups.

 

[Compton]

I'd also be concerned that asking the quicks to bowl another 10 overs in a day would serve no purpose other than to knock 10 clicks from their pace. It would essentially finish 90mph bowling IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd also be concerned that asking the quicks to bowl another 10 overs in a day would serve no purpose other than to knock 10 clicks from their pace. It would essentially finish 90mph bowling IMO.

not necessarily. It would definitely change team balance, 5 bowlers could become the norm. At the least a few more all-rounders might get games.

 

[centurymaker]

Nope, play 5 bowlers

 

[Fred Tetanus]

It's not short-sighted to ask 'what are the benefits?', to which I haven't seen a single compelling argument so far.

That's because you are backward thinking. The benefits have been outlined clearly. Test cricket is dying and needs to be revitalised. This will almost certainly result in bigger crowds and more revenue for the game. Day 5s are a wasteland generally. They lose money not make it.