Gillespie - Test cricket is on it's last legs

[Richard]

There is a reasonable argument that test cricket has declined since the 80's and I would agree considering no team has challenged the dominant team 'Australia' other than England and India in even winning one test let alone considering these teams respective series winning feats.

I hope you're not contending that because hardly anyone outplayed Australia between '89 and '06/07 (I'd say there was West Indies in '91, India in '97/98, Sri Lanka in '99/00, India in '00/01 and England in '05) that means Test cricket has declined.

I might remind you that there were just two series' between 1976 and 1986 where anyone seriously challenged West Indies - New Zealand in '79/80 (with Richards absent and Roberts missing the Test they lost) and Australia in '81/82 (with Greenidge missing the Test they lost), and those both in a three-Test rubber.

I don't doubt, myself, that Test cricket has declined in recent times, but it's since 2001/02 rather than since 1990, and the indication is the flat pitches and regular heavy scoring rather than the dominance of any one team.

 

[Richard]

I don't really see that happening much, if a player is good enough to play test cricket and 20-20 cricket then he will always pick tests. Even in academy level people are taught how to be test batsman, people who slog really well arn't chosen for county or national sides at a young level. People who play proper strokes however are.

The point I've always made is that as vast funds (for team as well as individual) are made available via Twenty20 that is not and never has been for the First-Class game, this could easily change. Players could easily prioritise Twenty20, and teams could easily do the same thing.

Not saying this neccessarily will happen, because there is no way to see into the mind of the cricketer in 2030, but I think you'd be very foolish and head-in-the-sand-ish to suggest it's not a certain possibility.

 

[analyst]

No I respect the leaders of the pack, as they play a very attractive brand of cricket, I was merely suggesting, this particular era has not given as many results for the reasons you just mentioned, flat wickets etc. Although I do think there is a lot of hope for test cricket, technology and pitch curators seem to be improving with every year, so I think test cricket will gradually get back to a decent standard. I don;t however think the 5 day format has a future.

 

[Richard]

The funny thing is that there have actually been more results, not less, in this era of flat pitches. Nothing to do with the flat pitches of course and exclusively to do with other factors that have come around the same time and slightly earlier - the most notable of course being a statutory minimum overs and the facility to make-up lost time. But there have been others - the mindset has shifted considerably from "avoid defeat then see if you can win" to "try to win and only look to avoid defeat if you've had your chance of victory eliminated completely". See the way virtually no-one ever bats into the third day in their first-innings any more, as it runs the risk of huge criticism should you run-out of time.

The number of uninterrupted Tests that've been drawn in the last 8 years are very small. And many of them have been on pitches that have been not merely flat but ridiculous, ARG-esque.

The reason I think an abundance of flat pitches lowers the standard is because it makes bowling harder and therefore batting much easier. As everyone knows, I think that since 2001/02 there've been several good batsmen who've been made to look like some of the best ever and plenty of very ordinary ones who've been made to look good or very good.

 

[analyst]

Well actually its more to do with the inability to produce a pitch to how its regarded usually. I don't agree with this nonsense that the home captain should have a say in how the pitch should be prepared, so IMO, if Headingley is always a green top , it should remain that way as is Mohali in India, like Perth in Aus is expected to offer Bounce.

I think players should be allowed to have certain expectations of grounds before they arrive at grounds, if history is ignored completely its unfair. This is my only request of cricket, to maintain a certain aspect of history and not whine about it, it will inevitably produce results and no unfair results either.

 

[Richard]

I certainly like certain grounds to conform to certain types - whenever we go to Headingley and don't see a greentop it disappoints me - but that said mostly the home captain (or more accurately board) will want the sort of pitch that is typical to the ground, because it is this to which they've become accustomed and which plays to the strengths which have grown-up around it.

And plenty of grounds don't really have any remarkable archetype. And some change all the time; I can't remember the last time Trent Bridge for example produced the same sort of pitch 2 Tests in a row.

 

[Manee]

I think Gillespie is using Test cricket as an analogy for his cricket career.

(Oh no I di'n't).

 

[Jigga988]

I think Gillespie is using Test cricket as an analogy for his cricket career.

(Oh no I di'n't).

Hah

exactly, he shouldn't have time for criticsm of any game but his own.

 

[BoyBrumby]

There's obviously a faint whiff of sour grapes about Dizzy's "rant", but there are grounds for concern. 2020 is where the real money is, so that could be a factor in tests losing their primacy. We've already seen the Sri Lankans voting with their wallets, as it were. No criticism implied or intended, btw.

Think we might end up with a situation like basketball, where the international game seems secondary to the NBA. Tests could well be usurped by the IPL. Worse case scenario, obviously, but measures should be taken to lock the stable door before the horse bolts. Removing Bangladesh from the 4/5 year test schedule would be a start. They're uncompetitve & tests involiving them are, frankly, a bad product to promote.

 

[Sanz]

Wow, I just feel so sorry for these guys who gave their all for their country and and now they are disowned.

"For guys like myself and [fellow ICL players] Jimmy Maher and Michael Kasprowicz, our time playing international cricket has gone by, but some of us would like to still represent our states.....It's quite sad. The ICL isn't wanting to take guys out of state cricket and Test cricket. In our contracts it clearly states that if you are asked by your state or country to play that form of cricket, ICL will not stand in your way."

 

[aussie]

Dizzy is right, because the ICC is a joke of board it has no control of the rise of 20/20 cricket.

he younger generation & new cricketening audience is gaining interest in cricket because of 20/20 not test cricket. So test cricket does have a problem in the future.

 

[morgieb]

There's obviously a faint whiff of sour grapes about Dizzy's "rant", but there are grounds for concern. 2020 is where the real money is, so that could be a factor in tests losing their primacy. We've already seen the Sri Lankans voting with their wallets, as it were. No criticism implied or intended, btw.

Think we might end up with a situation like basketball, where the international game seems secondary to the NBA. Tests could well be usurped by the IPL. Worse case scenario, obviously, but measures should be taken to lock the stable door before the horse bolts. Removing Bangladesh from the 4/5 year test schedule would be a start. They're uncompetitve & tests involiving them are, frankly, a bad product to promote.

Hopefully that won't happen. International cricket should ALWAYS be the pinnacle of your cricket career.

 

[Furball]

Hopefully that won't happen. International cricket should ALWAYS be the pinnacle of your cricket career.

Well, the way to make as much money from the IPL is to be an international superstar.

International cricket will still be relevant in the IPL era, because the best international players will fetch the highest fees in the auction.

 

[Robertinho]

Gillespie is on his last legs.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, the way to make as much money from the IPL is to be an international superstar.

McGrath: $300,000
Sharma: $900,000

Hopefully, after the initial idiocy, the player's value will be based on their talents and what they bring to the field.

 

[silentstriker]

Think we might end up with a situation like basketball, where the international game seems secondary to the NBA. Tests could well be usurped by the IPL. Worse case scenario, obviously, but measures should be taken to lock the stable door before the horse bolts. Removing Bangladesh from the 4/5 year test schedule would be a start. They're uncompetitve & tests involiving them are, frankly, a bad product to promote.

I think that's a bit of a red herring there. I have no issue with removing them as they don't deserve Test status based on their performances but frankly, aside from the fact that it goes into the record book as Tests, it's not a huge deal. They play two test series that people just ignore anyway, and don't pay attention to. With the amount of other cricket that's constantly being played, it's irrelevant except for statistical purposes (e.g, Bangladesh games go into the Test record).

I don't see how people in India, for example, who never watch Tests anyway, including India-Australia ones, will care one way or another whether Bangladesh play a Test or not. The Test-loving population might care, but most of us ignore those Tests anyway, unless it happens to be our side playing them, and even then, with so much other cricket around, it's pretty much a short interruption.

If you have international sport, there'll be mismatches. I don't know an international sport where you don't have mismatches. The only way to avoid mismatches, or one country outproducing another for whatever reason, is to have a controlled league based system: e.g, the IPL, where all teams are on an even footing. Test cricket will never be on an even footing considering the startling differences between the Test nations and their infrastructure, interest, and a bunch of other factors. Sometimes countries will be lucky and be on top, but the idea of seven-eight countries competing for any large length of time on any sort of an even footing is fantasy. Unless, of course, you introduced things like the IPL and standardized everything. But obviously, that can't happen with countries.

 

[Precambrian]

McGrath: $300,000
Sharma: $900,000

Hopefully, after the initial idiocy, the player's value will be based on their talents and what they bring to the field.

Taking into consideration future potential, and that Sharma would last longer, fair that he gets more than McG. But 3 times? Thats ****.

 

[Sanz]

McGrath: $300,000
Sharma: $900,000

Hopefully, after the initial idiocy, the player's value will be based on their talents and what they bring to the field.

Not going to happen. In the NBA, Stephen Marbury is going to be paid 22 Million USD for the current year, Steve Francis, 19 Million USD

 

[Sanz]

Taking into consideration future potential, and that Sharma would last longer, fair that he gets more than McG. But 3 times? Thats ****.

But the initial contract was only for 3 years and Mcgrath is/was definitely going to be the better bowler for that duration.

 

[Precambrian]

But the initial contract was only for 3 years and Mcgrath is/was definitely going to be the better bowler for that duration.

McG was certainly better than Ish in the first IPL. However McG is getting older wbile Ish is only getting better. Plus there is no comparison as to the marketability of both.