'Test cricket won't be around in time' - Brendon McCullum

[cnerd123]

I understand why people think T20 will be to blame, eventually, for the decline of Test cricket. You need to pay people in order to have Test match - not just players, but match officials, ground staff, TV crews, etc. If all these people now expect IPL-level salaries for their services, we can no longer afford to pay them to play Tests, and therefore we cannot afford to have Tests.


I think what people miss is that stuff like the IPL suddenly means a lot more people now want to become a professional cricketer/umpire/scorer/groundsman/coach/etc. Because there is a real living to be made doing it if you can crack it at that level. I expect the pool of talent to pick from to rise over time, which means that when it comes around to hosting a Test match, you may not get the best people working for you, but you'll still get pretty good people who aren't good enough for the IPL, and who are looking for income/experience/exposure. Plus we can trust that, when it comes to players and umpires, that the very best in the world will always hold Tests as the pinnacle. You'll get the odd Chris Gayle here and there, but by and large anyone who has dedicated their life to the sport will love and appreciate Tests. For sure we'll get the best in the world involved in Tests consistently, even for lower pay packets.

The reason why cricketers from WI, Sri Lanka, etc seem to be giving up Tests for a career in Franchise T20s isn't because they don't value Tests anymore, it's because they don't get treated well by the Board, and they are much better off pursuing a Franchise T20 career, occasionally playing ODIs/T20s to keep their reputation (and thus value) up. There isn't a single cricketer I can think of who has given up Tests purely for financial reasons - it's all driven by injuries/age/bad relationships with the cricket board.

So really, I don't think we have to fear T20. If anything, I think the T20 industry will be what keeps Test Cricket viable in the years to come. The biggest threat to Tests is incompetent administration.

 

[Athlai]

I don't think it's up to the ICC to make Test Cricket profitable

Most cricket boards around the world are shambolically run. We already know they choose to hire former cricketers in administrative roles instead of actual competent administrators, and that a large chunk of the time spent by the leadership of these boards goes towards politics and squabbling in order to hold on to their positions of power. So already they aren't working as optimally as they can.

Furthermore we are well aware of the various money-wasting ventures these boards constantly undertake - failed tournaments, constructing/renovating grounds for a World Cup and then being unable to recoup the costs, constantly increasing how much they invest into grassroots and outreach programs (which have now become necessary to introduce kids to cricket because they can't just watch it on free TV anymore). Constant spending driven by short-term planning/greed, lacking any proper long-term vision.

On top of that, no doubt there is a degree of corruption in play too, in some boards more than others (*cough* Zimbabwe *cough*), and people finding ways to get exorbitant salaries that far outweigh the value they actually bring in.

You find me one Full-member Cricket Board that does not suffer from atleast one of the above problems, who then also cannot afford to host Test matches, and then maybe I'll believe that Test Cricket is no longer viable. But the truth is that Test Cricket is dying at the hands of those meant to protect it. People's eyes all lit up when they saw the Indian Cricket money, and back when the ICC would distribute all revenue equally, all these boards got too ambitious (greedy) and start raising up their costs on Indian Cricket money. Now they don't get that money anymore, and it's just dawning on them that they cannot cover their own costs.

And what's their solution? Admit they ****ed up and need to cut the fat from their organisations, get their **** together, and stop wasteful spending?

Nah. "Test Cricket is too expensive".

zzz

A lot of words and not a lot of content here.

The governing body of international cricket should absolutely be involved. It doesn't matter how much investment you throw into a problem, the expectation that some countries will be able to fully support Test cricket is not feasible. Television contracts are changing as modern viewers are seeking media from alternative sources, England and Australia are even having restructuring issues and they're typically seen as the big money cricket bodies outside of India. Cable subscription television (one of the great life lines of Test cricket in the post 2000s era) is dying. Cricket itself even if it was the most ideally run sports body in history, would not be able to prevent the decline in cable subscriptions hitting so many markets around the world.

Test cricket may be able to survive in India, but Test cricket can't survive without anyone else to ****ing play it.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Just ban Twenty20. Problem solved.

 

[cnerd123]

A lot of words and not a lot of content here.

The governing body of international cricket should absolutely be involved. It doesn't matter how much investment you throw into a problem, the expectation that some countries will be able to fully support Test cricket is not feasible. Television contracts are changing as modern viewers are seeking media from alternative sources, England and Australia are even having restructuring issues and they're typically seen as the big money cricket bodies outside of India. Cable subscription television (one of the great life lines of Test cricket in the post 2000s era) is dying. Cricket itself even if it was the most ideally run sports body in history, would not be able to prevent the decline in cable subscriptions hitting so many markets around the world.

Test cricket may be able to survive in India, but Test cricket can't survive without anyone else to ****ing play it.

Well your base assumption is wrong here - the ICC is not the central governing body of International Cricket. Not an independent one anyways.

It's the 10 (now 12?) Full Members sitting around the table, with 1 chair for all the associates, and they discuss how to do things between themselves.

So basically, it's like 13 different business all sitting around a table negotiating deals amongst themselves, and the largest and richest of all those businesses is being asked to give handouts to the other struggling businesses, because if they fail then who are they supposed to do business with.

That's why I say it's not the ICC's (read: BCCI's) responsibility to save world cricket. Simply because that is not how it has been set up.

Ideally, yes I'd agree with you. I wish the ICC was a proper independent governing body of world cricket. Then it would absolutely have a role to play with making Tests viable. But being realistic, there is no point arguing for this to happen, because this was never what the ICC was designed to do.

Realistically, if we want Test cricket to stay viable in the future, each individual board needs to make that their priority. I don't know if it's feasible for any cricket board to exist, in this day and age, without ICC handouts. I really don't. You would imagine that, if well run, all the subcontinent teams have sufficient fanbases and support for the sport that it could be sustainable in of itself. Them struggling to make ends meet reflects poorly on their administration, and isn't a reflection on the popularity of the sport. But places like NZ, WI, even SA...I don't know. And hey, if they ran themselves optimally and still couldn't make ends meet, then I concede that I'm wrong, and that we really do need the ICC/BCCI to step in and save Tests in these countries. But I have not seen that yet. All I see are countries putting cricket behind pay-walls and bemoaning why no on watches it, hiring high-paying executives who care about making short terms profits, and constant bickering between Administrations and Players. Clearly there is room to improve.

 

[Athlai]

The ICC is the international governing body of cricket, thats like saying the WICB isn't the central governing body of West Indian cricket because its made up of a confederation of regional bodies. It's pedantry. We also aren't discussing "world cricket" we're discussing "Test" cricket.

Without ICC handouts, it will cease to exist one day.

 

[Borges]

Just ban Twenty20. Problem solved.

I don't think so; T20 (or before that ODIs) is not the cause of the problem, they were conceived as the attempted remedy
T20 was the result of a mass movement of people in England from cricket to other sports (football).

Test cricket (and FC cricket) needs to be supported financially; much like other pure classical art forms (music, dance) are supported.
What we need are administrators who realise that test cricket needs to be preserved; those who are willing to sustain it even if that may not be the most financially attractive option; those who believe that money is the means to serve cricket rather than cricket being the means to make money.

If cricket administrators, at the boards, and at the ICC, were all like clean versions of Srinivasan, test cricket would flourish. A small fraction of the money that the ICC and the big boards rake in is all that is required for the sustenance of test cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Depressing thought. Depressing but made slightly more joyful in the knowledge that Australia won't be around either.

Never change <3

 

[cnerd123]

The ICC is the international governing body of cricket, thats like saying the WICB isn't the central governing body of West Indian cricket because its made up of a confederation of regional bodies. It's pedantry. We also aren't discussing "world cricket" we're discussing "Test" cricket.

Without ICC handouts, it will cease to exist one day.

I mean, if you want to just be ideological about it and think about the way things 'should' be rather than how they are, sure.

The WICB example is terrible ftr. That dynamic you just describe is at the crux of why cricket is dying in the West Indies - because each representative is out for their own self interest instead of looking out for the region as a whole. There have literally been talks about the member boards wanting to become independent for years now.

 

[Athlai]

Where in any of what am I saying implies that I think the ICC or WICB are a well functioning body? I'm saying they're what we have and without them doing something Test cricket will die.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Where in any of what am I saying implies that I think the ICC or WICB are a well functioning body? I'm saying they're what we have and without them doing something Test cricket will die.

ICC maybe, but not sure the WICB collapsing and doing nothing will end test cricket for the rest of us

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The ICC has brought in the test championship as its solution. This will ensure games are played for those that want to win or compete in it.

It has created WT20 and Champions Trophy to maximise funding availability to members and associates. It does its best to get every dollar out of them and the World Cup that it can. The U19WC may grow into a profitable tournament one day too. What more can the ICC do?

 

[Athlai]

ICC maybe, but not sure the WICB collapsing and doing nothing will end test cricket for the rest of us

Yeah my "they" was ICC there.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah my "they" was ICC there.

I was only playing. Hope you don't mind. I did the ninja thing so you wouldn't be offended.

 

[cnerd123]

But you're shifting focus from the member boards to the ICC as a whole, and that I disagree with.

The NZCB, for example, exists to administrate cricket in New Zealand. If New Zealand fans want Test cricket, it is up to the NZCB to preserve it and deliver it to them. If they cannot do it, they fail.

The ICC doesn't not exist to protect and deliver Test Cricket. I'm serious. Look at their stated Vision:
https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/the-icc/our-vision

The ICC has a long term ambition to become the world’s favourite sport and our four year strategy that will take us through to 2019 is the first step on that journey. During this period we will lead the continued drive towards more competitive, entertaining and meaningful cricket for players and fans. We will grow the sport by creating more opportunities for more people and nations to enjoy it and increase the competitiveness of international cricket at all levels. We will promote cricket by delivering exciting and engaging global events, attracting new and diverse fans and building long-term successful commercial partnerships. And finally, we will continue to make considerable efforts to protect the integrity of the sport.

Where does it say promote and protect Test cricket? It doesn't.

The blame for the death of Test cricket should not fall on the ICC. Sure, it may need the ICC to do something in order for it to exist. But the blame falls first and foremost on the individual nation cricket boards. They are accountable to the local cricket community, they exist to serve them, and if they cannot deliver Test Cricket and make ends meet, they are the ones failing. Hold them accountable. That's the first step. And if they do everything they can literally do, and Test cricket is still dying, then you turn to the ICC/BCCI and ask them to step in.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

*****, you already identified that he was arguing about should be the case, and you're saying what is the case at present, so is it implicit then that you like the status quo? Or do you have changes to suggest?

 

[Athlai]

But you're shifting focus from the member boards to the ICC as a whole, and that I disagree with.

The NZCB, for example, exists to administrate cricket in New Zealand. If New Zealand fans want Test cricket, it is up to the NZCB to preserve it and deliver it to them. If they cannot do it, they fail.

The ICC doesn't not exist to protect and deliver Test Cricket. I'm serious. Look at their stated Vision:
https://www.icc-cricket.com/about/the-icc/our-vision


Where does it say promote and protect Test cricket? It doesn't.

The blame for the death of Test cricket should not fall on the ICC. Sure, it may need the ICC to do something in order for it to exist. But the blame falls first and foremost on the individual nation cricket boards. They are accountable to the local cricket community, they exist to serve them, and if they cannot deliver Test Cricket and make ends meet, they are the ones failing. Hold them accountable. That's the first step. And if they do everything they can literally do, and Test cricket is still dying, then you turn to the ICC/BCCI and ask them to step in.

NZCB cannot make Test cricket profitable for NZ, if it was only up to them then NZ would no longer be a Test playing nation. I think you underestimate the ICC's presence in assisting countries not named India in securing favourable revenue sharing between countries in billateral series. As well as how much of the ICC money doled out to members after a world cup, that goes to shoring up the big deficit years nations like NZ experience when we have Test cricket against teams that don't draw crowds or international TV audiences.

The ICC don't promise us anything and I expect Test cricket to probably cease within my lifetime. I'm not stoked about that.

 

[cnerd123]

*****, you already identified that he was arguing about should be the case, and you're saying what is the case at present, so is it implicit then that you like the status quo? Or do you have changes to suggest?

I don't know. I can't suggest anything without knowing the actuall finances they are dealing with, and why they pay as much as they do for certain things. It's easier to just talk **** the figure out what's going wrong. But some stuff is pretty clear on the surface - the short term decision making that priorities money and TV deals over all else, lack on transparency, politicking with the players, and in some boards just open corruption.

I just don't like the look of these badly run boards then going to the ICC/BCCI asking for handouts to save cricket in their own countries. Like no. Get your own **** together first. You don't get to have a bailout when you could be taking care of yourself better.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

NZCB cannot make Test cricket profitable for NZ, if it was only up to them then NZ would no longer be a Test playing nation. I think you underestimate the ICC's presence in assisting countries not named India in securing favourable revenue sharing between countries in billateral series. As well as how much of the ICC money doled out to members after a world cup, that goes to shoring up the big deficit years nations like NZ experience when we have Test cricket against teams that don't draw crowds or international TV audiences.

The ICC don't promise us anything and I expect Test cricket to probably cease within my lifetime. I'm not stoked about that.

I'm not going to entirely doom the test championship to failure just yet as long as India away tests are not on Government free to air tv in India like I have read that the World Cup games are.

We need nations to want to win it, and compete in it, and games could attract a wide pay tv audience in India with India not playing if it effects where they are on the ladder. Especially if India is in position to win the Championship - which they probably will be quite often if they schedule it right for themselves.

Thats the money.

For the games - people will have to play and meet tour responsbilities if they want to compete in it. CA already made that point when dropping Bangladesh this year saying if it was part of the test championship, the tour would have gone ahead. That is critical.

It isn't going to change NZ getting stuff all tests, but hopefully this current 4 in 18 months type thing will be over nor India or CA going on years without playing a test here.

 

[cnerd123]

NZCB cannot make Test cricket profitable for NZ, if it was only up to them then NZ would no longer be a Test playing nation. I think you underestimate the ICC's presence in assisting countries not named India in securing favourable revenue sharing between countries in billateral series. As well as how much of the ICC money doled out to members after a world cup, that goes to shoring up the big deficit years nations like NZ experience when we have Test cricket against teams that don't draw crowds or international TV audiences.

The ICC don't promise us anything and I expect Test cricket to probably cease within my lifetime. I'm not stoked about that.

See so why don't you want the NZCB to just do a better job. Do you think they're run as optimally as can be expected? Do you think that Tests cannot survive in NZ even if the best decisions were made, and that the only hope is ICC bailout?

If so that's pretty bleak, and if true then yea you do kinda need the ICC/BCCI to save tests in NZ.

 

[Athlai]

See so why don't you want the NZCB to just do a better job. Do you think they're run as optimally as can be expected? Do you think that Tests cannot survive in NZ even if the best decisions were made, and that the only hope is ICC bailout?

If so that's pretty bleak, and if true then yea you do kinda need the ICC/BCCI to save tests in NZ.

I think from a corporate POV that Test cricket just isn't ever going to be the way NZC turns a profit. I have issues with NZC but not with regards to how they're balancing the books. ODI and T20 cricket is just a far more profitable venture overall.

Check out something like this
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...lands-schedule-a-harbinger-of-what-is-to-come

The NZ chairman also mentions that we probably outright lose $50k on hosting a West Indies Test.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ship-but-fourday-tests-remain-in-the-distance

So a Test costs any country roughly $500k USD to host, when the West Indies tour, after accounting for tickets, advertising and TV money walk away less $50k NZD. And you'd almost certainly call NZC a fantastic example of a "well run" cricket board for the Test nations with massive issues like SL/WI/Zim.