The future of Test cricket outside of the big three

[Daemon]

tbf the two of them combined are almost an average length

Quite racist of TJB to assume I'm packing a 1.3 incher just because I'm brown.

 

[James]

A good way forward is the multi-team test series.

India, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies (let's say) play a series in SA (let's say). Here's how it could go:

1.1.2022 - 5.1.2022
India vs NZ
SA vs WI

9.1.2022 - 13.1.2022
NZ vs SA
WI vs Ind

17.1.2022 - 21.1.2022
WI vs NZ
Ind vs SA

25.1.2022 - 29.1.2022
Final

In the time frame of a 4 test series, you get this beautiful thing. Or just skip the final and just decide the winner on points and you get 6 tests in the span of a 3 test series.

Cool idea Harsh, would be awesome if something like that came about.

 

[England First]

This is almost a subject that makes me so annoyed I don’t want to read the thread and I just want it to go away.
Imagine test cricket without the historical great nations West Indies Pakistan Sri Lanka New Zealand South Africa. It’s not worth thinking about.

 

[Dan]

Four day tests don't solve anything really

They might help to cut costs, tbf. Sure the fixed costs of getting a team in for a tour won't change much, but you'll (in theory) reduce the costs of hiring out the stadium and broadcast staff and venue staff by only needing four days instead of five, and (again in theory) have a lower chance of having paid for all of it only for the last day not to be needed anyway.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of four day Tests personally, but I mean if we're more-or-less maintaining the total number of overs available and it helps less-rich boards from a financial standpoint, why not make it an option?

 

[Athlai]

A finals series of 4 teams in a host country would be pretty ****ing epic.

 

[Dan]

Five day Tests don't help when the countries least able to absorb the costs of unused fifth days are also the countries that are most likely to get rolled by an innings in two and a half by a touring side in a game that nobody really wants the TV rights for. In those situations, it does seem a little silly to make a cash-strapped board book the ground and the staff for five days when a compressed Test option is feasible.

 

[honestbharani]

They might help to cut costs, tbf. Sure the fixed costs of getting a team in for a tour won't change much, but you'll (in theory) reduce the costs of hiring out the stadium and broadcast staff and venue staff by only needing four days instead of five, and (again in theory) have a lower chance of having paid for all of it only for the last day not to be needed anyway.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of four day Tests personally, but I mean if we're more-or-less maintaining the total number of overs available and it helps less-rich boards from a financial standpoint, why not make it an option?

Do you mean like 7 hour play with 105 overs per day, meaning you only lose like 30 overs compared to a 5 day, 90 overs per day test?

 

[TheJediBrah]

They should reduce Tests to just one day. And limit the game to 3 hours in length. Maybe each side bats 20 overs. Might help I dunno

 

[GotSpin]

They might help to cut costs, tbf. Sure the fixed costs of getting a team in for a tour won't change much, but you'll (in theory) reduce the costs of hiring out the stadium and broadcast staff and venue staff by only needing four days instead of five, and (again in theory) have a lower chance of having paid for all of it only for the last day not to be needed anyway.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of four day Tests personally, but I mean if we're more-or-less maintaining the total number of overs available and it helps less-rich boards from a financial standpoint, why not make it an option?

Honestly, the boards just need to pull their fingers out of their arses and put some effort into marketing it better

 

[Kirkut]

Let's not try to make tests marketable. Test cricket is a heritage sport which relies on money coming in from limited overs cricket, and has a niche fan base like chess/croquet/curling.

 

[morgieb]

Let's not try to make tests marketable. Test cricket is a heritage sport which relies on money coming in from limited overs cricket, and has a niche fan base like chess/croquet/curling.

Unfortunately that isn't very realistic in today's society. Countries are gonna struggle to maintain Test relevance if they feel there's no money in it. It would suck hard if all Tests contained at least one of three countries. Diversity of nations and conditions is part of what makes Test cricket great!

The best approach should be marketing it better, but I am aware that's kind of tricky in certain nations.

 

[honestbharani]

I like the idea of day and night tests with 7 hour days where you bowl 105 overs per day and limit them to be 4 day games. You get a nice Friday-Monday game every week and you can do a 3 test series in 3 weeks and also get maximum eyeballs both at the ground and on TV.

 

[GotSpin]

This ridiculous idea of 100+ overs being bowled per day needs to be dropped. It's not practical and will never functionally work

 

[TheJediBrah]

Unfortunately that isn't very realistic in today's society. Countries are gonna struggle to maintain Test relevance if they feel there's no money in it. It would suck hard if all Tests contained at least one of three countries. Diversity of nations and conditions is part of what makes Test cricket great!

The best approach should be marketing it better, but I am aware that's kind of tricky in certain nations.

They do it for womens cricket. Relies completely on funding generated from the mens game. Wouldn't surprise me if it loses more money than Tests do in these places.

 

[Daemon]

Four day tests don't solve anything really

I agree. The cost savings wouldn't suddenly make them profitable or anything, or even be substantial enough to make a country want to play more Tests.

NZ would probably just take it and continue sticking to 2 Test series.

Notwithstanding the above, if combined with other efforts it may still help.

 

[cnerd123]

This ridiculous idea of 100+ overs being bowled per day needs to be dropped. It's not practical and will never functionally work

100 overs a day has been common throughout history, not just Tests but in FC and club games around the world. An ODI is 100 overs in a day. It's doable, just means slightly longer sessions (literally just 15 minutes longer per session)

 

[cnerd123]

Test cricket is a heritage sport which relies on money coming in from limited overs cricket

Countries are gonna struggle to maintain Test relevance if they feel there's no money in it.

The cost savings wouldn't suddenly make them profitable or anything, or even be substantial enough to make a country want to play more Tests.

Does cricket exist to make money, or does it make money to exist?

NZC may lose $700,000 per Test, but I wonder how much they earn per ODI/T20I, and how much their sponsorship income is.

All this talk about Test cricket being unsustainable might just be coming from administrators not willing to cover the losses of Test cricket with income from other streams. If that's the case, then the main issue is misplaced priorities.

 

[GotSpin]

100 overs a day has been common throughout history, not just Tests but in FC and club games around the world. An ODI is 100 overs in a day. It's doable, just means slightly longer sessions (literally just 15 minutes longer per session)

I don't think it'll happen and I can't see four day tests being a good thing

As I said before, boards just need to put some actual effort into marketing them

 

[the big bambino]

The extra overs per day for 4 day tests can be handled by changing the balance of selection to include 5 bowlers and relief overs from a batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Does cricket exist to make money, or does it make money to exist?

NZC may lose $700,000 per Test, but I wonder how much they earn per ODI/T20I, and how much their sponsorship income is.

All this talk about Test cricket being unsustainable might just be coming from administrators not willing to cover the losses of Test cricket with income from other streams. If that's the case, then the main issue is misplaced priorities.

??? it's a business. Of course you're going to try and maximise profits.