How much time does Test cricket have left?

[centurymaker]

South Africa most probably have only about 2-3 years left as a Top Class side..

By 2019 WC-
Amla 36 yrs
ABD 35+ (he's hinted he may retire after WC)
Steyn 36
Faf 35
Morkel 34+
Philander 34 (injury prone)

and given the increasing drain in talent in the domestic setup, I don't see how SA will remain a Top 3 side after having to replace most if not all of the players above..


Sri Lanka & New Zealand have both declined in Test Cricket and future doesn't seem any better. WI are done.

Only India (or Kohli rather) can keep Test Cricket healthy for some years. (on the surface level at least)

India mostly cbf about Tests and if you happen to get a glimpse of Ranji, you'll notice how **** it is.. guys bowling 118 ks are picking up 4fers 5fers

Pakistan can't play at home and thus are also suffering from decreasing talent.

Cricket isn't as big in Aus as it used to be but it's healthy still. While in England, it may even get better with plenty of SA talent moving in.

 

[centurymaker]

South Africa could really really decline in yrs to come

 

[TheBrand]

South Africa most probably have only about 2-3 left as a Top Class side..

By 2019 WC-
Amla 36 yrs
ABD 35+ (he's hinted he may retire after WC)
Steyn 36
Faf 35
Morkel 34+
Philander 34 (injury prone)

and given the increasing drain in talent in the domestic setup, I don't see how SA will remain a Top 3 side after having to replace most if not all of the players above..


Sri Lanka & New Zealand have both declined in Test Cricket and future doesn't seem any better. WI are done.

Only India (or Kohli rather) can keep Test Cricket healthy for some years. (on the surface level at least)

India mostly cbf about Tests and if you happen to get a glimpse of Ranji, you'll notice how **** it is.. guys bowling 118 ks are picking up 4fers 5fers

Pakistan can't play at home and thus are also suffering from decreasing talent.

Cricket isn't as big in Aus as it used to be but it's healthy still. While in England, it may even get better with plenty of SA talent moving in.

I would say NZ experienced a resurgence in test cricket from 2013-BMac's retirement. Since then it's declined a wee bit, but all the tests last season were pretty well attended, I assume because it was BMac's farewell tour. I went to the first 3 days of the Hagley Test and it was packed all 3 days.

 

[Athlai]

As long as it remains profitable or even close to profitable for the ICC they'll continue to assist in funding the other Test playing nations. Last year had the most Tests played since 2008, 6th highest in the last 127. The narrative that Test cricket is dying is one held by certain fans only.

ODI cricket meanwhile dropped below 100 matches played for only the 2nd time in the last 21 years. 20th highest in the last 46 years. In 2016 for the first time there were more T20I played in a year than ODIs.

Test cricket isn't dying, it isn't even slowing down. ODI cricket on the other hand...

 

[centurymaker]

As long as it remains profitable or even close to profitable for the ICC they'll continue to assist in funding the other Test playing nations. Last year had the most Tests played since 2008, 6th highest in the last 127. The narrative that Test cricket is dying is one held by certain fans only.

ODI cricket meanwhile dropped below 100 matches played for only the 2nd time in the last 21 years. 20th highest in the last 46 years. In 2016 for the first time there were more T20I played in a year than ODIs.

Test cricket isn't dying, it isn't even slowing down. ODI cricket on the other hand...

Number of Tests played in a year has to do with the FTP.

 

[Athlai]

Number of Tests played in a year has to do with the FTP.

Yes.

 

[centurymaker]

I would say NZ experienced a resurgence in test cricket from 2013-BMac's retirement. Since then it's declined a wee bit, but all the tests last season were pretty well attended, I assume because it was BMac's farewell tour. I went to the first 3 days of the Hagley Test and it was packed all 3 days.

Yup, I was referring to post-BMac period and looking ahead.

 

[centurymaker]

Maybe end soon as BCCI won't want Cook to overtake Tendulkar's run tally.

BCCI don't have to do anything, Cook won't survive another 6 years with his technique and age. Would be surprised if he even gets close.

Soon Trump is taking over, and world will have far bigger problems than declining Test Cricket.

Don't be surprised if there is a big war by 2018-19. This might seem far-fetched atm, but with a bigger overview, it's really not

 

[Furball]

 

[Zinzan]

As long as it remains profitable or even close to profitable for the ICC they'll continue to assist in funding the other Test playing nations. Last year had the most Tests played since 2008, 6th highest in the last 127. The narrative that Test cricket is dying is one held by certain fans only.

.

That's not the narrative nor was it the question posed though. It was more about the long term sustainability of Test cricket, especially given outside the big 3, they're losing money on other Test cricket series played around the world. Apparently the crowds for the SL/SA series, in their peak part of the season is almost non existent.

It's not a matter a 'dying' as some of us as being wary of the possibility of commercial realities kicking in at some point in which they decide there's a better way financially while still protecting the future of the game than propping up 70-80% of Test cricket played with finances from other forms.

 

[DriveClub]

That's not the narrative nor was it the question posed though. It was more about the long term sustainability of Test cricket, especially given outside the big 3, they're losing money on other Test cricket series played around the world. Apparently the crowds for the SL/SA series, in their peak part of the season is almost non existent.

It's not a matter a 'dying' as some of us as being wary of the possibility of commercial realities kicking in at some point in which they decide there's a better way financially while still protecting the future of the game than propping up 70-80% of Test cricket played with finances from other forms.

Thanks that's what I was trying to ask

 

[Burgey]

Been hearing it since WSC. And given how the game was before the 60-61 series, I dare say it was being said then as well.

 

[Athlai]

That's not the narrative nor was it the question posed though. It was more about the long term sustainability of Test cricket, especially given outside the big 3, they're losing money on the other Test cricket played around the world. Apparently the crowds for the SL/SA series, in their peak part of the season is almost non existent.

It's not a matter a 'dying' for some of us as being wary of the possibility of commercial realities kicking in at some point in which they decide there's a better way financially while still protecting the future of the game.

Tests have been more about TV broadcasting rights than crowds for a long while and the longer something is on with decent TV ratings the better. The shortening of the game actually can hurt broadcasting deals. One of the major issues with that though is that in a India/New Zealand Test series, the TV rights are sold by home territory. So NZare getting the TV money to broadcast in their territory and India in the other. Who wins more there?

Test cricket isn't unprofitable on the whole, but as crowds dissipate and further reliance is placed on TV broadcasting deals we see certain member nations profit while others struggle.

And yes when I say other nations, I mostly mean India.

A few nations are trying to create a sort of work around to assist in TV broadcasting rights internationally but the home territory issue will still exist.

Full Members in discussions over radical shake-up of selling television rights | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Zinzan]

Tests have been more about TV broadcasting rights than crowds for a long while and the longer something is on with decent TV ratings the better. The shortening of the game actually can hurt broadcasting deals. One of the major issues with that though is that in a India/New Zealand Test series, the TV rights are sold by home territory. So NZare getting the TV money to broadcast in their territory and India in the other. Who wins more there?

Test cricket isn't unprofitable on the whole, but as crowds dissipate and further reliance is placed on TV broadcasting deals we see certain member nations profit while others struggle.

And yes when I say other nations, I mostly mean India.

A few nations are trying to create a sort of work around to assist in TV broadcasting rights internationally but the home territory issue will still exist.

Full Members in discussions over radical shake-up of selling television rights | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

You're 100% correct about TV rights btw, but I do think ground attendance is still indicative when you get the sort of non existent crowds you get for Tests in NZ & SA. I highly doubt there'll be much TV demand to watch NZ & Bangladesh scrap it out in a test match for example.

 

[Groundking]

I really don't understand what people expect in regards to cricket, when it is arguably the most expensive major sport around to play and 60% off the full test playing nations are really quite poor (per Capita), one of the 'nations' is a consortium of various different countries to make up the team with cricket at various levels of prevalence between each constitution of the team and various levels of wealth, whilst also being fairly sparse in terms of population, on top of that one of the truly wealth nations (NZ) has a tiny population. This is all going against cricket and it's still surviving and thriving in fact.

Honestly I think the future of Test cricket and cricket in general in actually incredibly bright, but there are really 3 BIG BIG problems cricket faces currently. The first is Pakistan, you cannot possibly hope for a healthy all round game when the games second most populous nation hasn't played at home for a decade and hasn't played it's big historical rival. It's actually ridiculous, Pakistan economically in another 10-15 years could really help out cricket globally, but how do we expect it to do so if they don't play at home? That's the first serious and massive problem

The second is Cricket in South Africa, politics and a board doing poorly are really hurting them, one only has to look at the strides from strength to strength Rugby has gone through in the country recently to see the potential sport has in the country, and the ICC could do a lot to help, but choose not too, the 4th wealthiest country and 5th most populous country to play cricket really should be able to hold profitable tours with at the very least NZ alongside the big 3 and not loose out too much playing everybody else.

Finally is the ICC's incompetence at spreading test cricket, they finally have the perfect catalyst to drive expansion in T20, yet they do everything they can to scupper the game, there's absolutely no reason what so ever that the next T20 and 50 over world cups shouldn't have 20 and 16 teams in respectively, yet we're reducing the World Cup to 10 teams and this years T20 was only 10 teams in the full part of the tournament. This also spreads to test, it's ridiculous that Bangladesh are still only getting token tours, and I thing Ireland really should be a test playing nation, if only because we're always going to have 2 teams tour England every summer, so it makes no sense why a token test or 2 couldn't be played after/before the series with England. If the ICC was serious about expanding cricket this should have been done years ago, yet to no avail.

Fortunately 3 of the most populous countries on earth adore cricket and are amongst the fastest growing countries in the world (growing on average between 5 and 8% annually every year), so it's mostly just a waiting game and keeping cricket relevant in these countries (India should be no problem) until they can seriously contribute (India already does), and nobody really expects cricket to die in England or Australia do they? So just holding on for 2 decades or so should have us in a far healthier state of affairs.

 

[Bijed]

Hmm, posted this a few minutes ago but it seems to have disappeared

Anyway, is the two-division structure for test cricket completely shelved? I just wonder if it might have been a positive for the commercial viability of test cricket as maybe more people would want to go and watch a more closely-fought contest (whether or not the structure would have actually achieved this is a separate date). Also, were there talks of granting test status to other nations? It's possible that test cricket could have turned out to be a massive hit in one of them. Not saying any of this would be a magical silver bullet or anything, but it might have helped.

I personally don't feel test cricket is dying, but that may be due to my perspective as an englishman. I do have the nagging feeling, however, that test cricket might suffer unreasonably in years to come because of perceptions that it's outdated etc and that BIG CHANGES are needed and there'll be a resulting administrative ****-up which will do the game serious harm. Hopefully I'm just being paranoid, though.

 

[DriveClub]

I really don't understand what people expect in regards to cricket, when it is arguably the most expensive major sport around to play and 60% off the full test playing nations are really quite poor (per Capita), one of the 'nations' is a consortium of various different countries to make up the team with cricket at various levels of prevalence between each constitution of the team and various levels of wealth, whilst also being fairly sparse in terms of population, on top of that one of the truly wealth nations (NZ) has a tiny population. This is all going against cricket and it's still surviving and thriving in fact.

Honestly I think the future of Test cricket and cricket in general in actually incredibly bright, but there are really 3 BIG BIG problems cricket faces currently. The first is Pakistan, you cannot possibly hope for a healthy all round game when the games second most populous nation hasn't played at home for a decade and hasn't played it's big historical rival. It's actually ridiculous, Pakistan economically in another 10-15 years could really help out cricket globally, but how do we expect it to do so if they don't play at home? That's the first serious and massive problem

The second is Cricket in South Africa, politics and a board doing poorly are really hurting them, one only has to look at the strides from strength to strength Rugby has gone through in the country recently to see the potential sport has in the country, and the ICC could do a lot to help, but choose not too, the 4th wealthiest country and 5th most populous country to play cricket really should be able to hold profitable tours with at the very least NZ alongside the big 3 and not loose out too much playing everybody else.

Finally is the ICC's incompetence at spreading test cricket, they finally have the perfect catalyst to drive expansion in T20, yet they do everything they can to scupper the game, there's absolutely no reason what so ever that the next T20 and 50 over world cups shouldn't have 20 and 16 teams in respectively, yet we're reducing the World Cup to 10 teams and this years T20 was only 10 teams in the full part of the tournament. This also spreads to test, it's ridiculous that Bangladesh are still only getting token tours, and I thing Ireland really should be a test playing nation, if only because we're always going to have 2 teams tour England every summer, so it makes no sense why a token test or 2 couldn't be played after/before the series with England. If the ICC was serious about expanding cricket this should have been done years ago, yet to no avail.

Fortunately 3 of the most populous countries on earth adore cricket and are amongst the fastest growing countries in the world (growing on average between 5 and 8% annually every year), so it's mostly just a waiting game and keeping cricket relevant in these countries (India should be no problem) until they can seriously contribute (India already does), and nobody really expects cricket to die in England or Australia do they? So just holding on for 2 decades or so should have us in a far healthier state of affairs.

Good points GK but there is obviously a problem where richer countries have better cricketers while poor countries have substandard cricketers. It's pretty apparent right now imo there is a growing imbalance between cricketers between rich and poor countries. It's more pronounced than ever, raw talent won't be able to propel teams anymore like in the amateur era, so how is cricket going to address this problem?

 

[Adders]

Good points GK but there is obviously a problem where richer countries have better cricketers while poor countries have substandard cricketers. It's pretty apparent right now imo there is a growing imbalance between cricketers between rich and poor countries. It's more pronounced than ever, raw talent won't be able to propel teams anymore like in the amateur era, so how is cricket going to address this problem?

Nah, don't think I agree with this at all.

Look at some of the ATG players Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa have produced in the last 40 years compared to England. England would be considerably more wealthy than all these test nations plowing far more money into the sport than any of them. I'm not saying that money doesn't help........but the evidence is very clear that it is not the bee all and end all for producing great cricketers.

 

[Groundking]

Nah, don't think I agree with this at all.

Look at some of the ATG players Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa have produced in the last 40 years compared to England. England would be considerably more wealthy than all these test nations plowing far more money into the sport than any of them. I'm not saying that money doesn't help........but the evidence is very clear that it is not the bee all and end all for producing great cricketers.

Yeah, the issue isn't the quality of player, I'd argue that every test nation has something to work with going forwards, but the biggest problem is the sustainability of actually being able to afford to play the game.

 

[Adders]

What I think money does is allow the players to be the best that they can be. No money in the world is going to get England a Murali or a Viv Richards but what it does is allow players like Cook, Jimmy and Broad etc to make the very very most of what talent they have.

So the poorer sides can definitely produce the rock star cricketers, but their sides are also generally filled with more mediocre players. Whereas England for instance will always have 11 players on the park that are at least test standard.