Is there a future for test cricket?

[slow-left-armer]

The ICC recognised that the long term future of test cricket is under threat. Many games played with near empty stadiums (before COVID restrictions) and no one sure what the point of these games was

They took some steps to help this expanding the teams playing by including Afghanistan and Ireland and starting the Future Tour Programmes and it.s World Test Championship Final

Test matches should be competitive, meaningful and ensure all test teams participate, judging the FTP by these criteria it has failed.

At the start of the programme, did anyone expect that the Final not be 2 from the "Big Three" of Australia, India or England. It appears quirk of the cancelled tours meant that everyone's second team New Zealand qualified this time.

• There was an excellent competitive recent test series between West Indies and Bangladesh, but the results had no bearing on the top WTC places.
• while in terms of mis-matches Zimbabwe have been handed 2 innings defeats by Pakistan
• Participation by only including the top 9 teams tests against Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Ireland have no relevance, so why, in this ever increasingly crowded schedule, find time to play them? Ireland have only played 3 tests in over three years and no test planned for the foreseeable.

My Proposal:
as there are now 12 Test team, three divisions of 4 teams
Using Current rankings

• Div. 1 India, New Zealand, Australia and England
• Div.2 Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies and Sri Lanka
• Div.3 Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland

Four year cycle. Each team would play the others in their division home and away. only points gained in these matches would count.

At the end of the 4 year cycle

• 1st vs 2nd for the test championship, same as this years Ind vs NZ in June

also, mirroring the Davies Cup- no straight promotion and relegation

• 4th vs 5th: winner to Div.1 loser to Div.2
• 8th vs 9th: winner to Div2 loser to Div.3.

Advantages

• These test matches will be meaningful, as almost every team will enter matches either trying to get into a promotion place , or avoiding getting into a relegation spot
• They will be competitive as the teams will be more closely matched
• All teams will participate. Ireland would be guaranteed a minimum of 12 tests

Further Advantages

• Room for traditional bipartisan series. As only 3 home series are mandated in a four year cycle should, for example, England and Australia be in different divisions there will still be the opportunity to continue with the Ashes in that forth season
• Reduced Wear and Tear on players. England traditionally play 8 home series in a four year cycle. In this hectic timetable, there is a danger of burn-out, especially 3 format players, such as Ben Stokes. By not having these non-mandated series counting towards the WTC. There would be the opportunity to rest them without harming the points gained by their team
• Help for the minnows. Teams touring England, India and South Africa, normally take on an under strength county or representative side. it would be better for all to play a more competitive/meaningful one-off test against Zimbabwe, Afghanistan or Ireland in preparation on the major test series, similar Pakistan taking on Ireland (and only winning by 5 wickets) before their tour of England. Remember than teams once only toured New Zealand at the fag-end of their Australia tours and look where NZ are now.

 

[Athlai]

The viability of Test cricket has relatively little to do with what you've mentioned above (though competitive cricket does assist in bringing in viewers), and everything to do with TV/streaming.

In the above you've basically grouped all the lucrative moneymakers in Div 1 (and NZ) and have doomed the other divisions to starve.

 

[Athlai]

There definitely is a future in Test cricket. It's a pretty interesting topic to research as well. Last time I dug into this it looks like Indian networks own a lot of the Test cricket broadcasting rights in the West Indies/Sri Lanka. It can be hard to get the actual numbers of viewers but even non-Indian tours seem to be fairly safe viewing opportunities for the Indian market with those timezones.

I think as long as India are strong in Test cricket we will see money being invested into the game. Will it be much money? Probably not but you never know.

Broadcast is changing. We may end up seeing longer hour formats become more lucrative to advertising in the digital age and Test cricket will at least limp along to see the start of that era.

 

[honestbharani]

I am more and more interested in the 4 day, each day with 105 overs, format, if that can be pulled off.

 

[cnerd123]

People have been questioning the future of test cricket since the 1800s.

It will be fine.

 

[Flem274*]

the only threat to test cricket is money grubbing adminstrators who want to sell 90 dollar tickets to 5 t20 games rather than arrange fixtures for formats people take seriously.

 

[SteveNZ]

People have been questioning the future of test cricket since the 1800s.

It will be fine.

Close thread.

 

[Athlai]

Close thread.

Haha if you think the future of Test cricket isn't something that warrants discussion you have a lot more faith in the administration of international cricket than I do.

 

[harsh.ag]

Haha if you think the future of Test cricket isn't something that warrants discussion you have a lot more faith in the administration of international cricket than I do.

That's cause NZ officials routinely bemoan the fact that they have to schedule tests in between all the money makin' magic.

 

[akilana]

I don’t know if there is a future for test cricket but I know there is no future for Bancroft in test cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Think for NZ, Afg, Ireland, Zim, BD, Windies and SL, the future is in 2 test series. Hopefully the other 5 sides continue to play 3, 4 and 5 test series.

 

[cnerd123]

Haha if you think the future of Test cricket isn't something that warrants discussion you have a lot more faith in the administration of international cricket than I do.

Here is the number of Tests played per decade for the last 70 years

1950s - 164
1960s - 186
1970s - 198
1980s - 266
1990s - 347
2000s - 464
2010s - 455

We also now have more Test playing nations than ever before, and for the first time Tests are actually being live streamed for free on the internet in regions where the boards are unable to secure TV deals. Factor in that the 2019/20 calendar was wrecked by Covid as well.

If these numbers suggest a sport in decline then I don't know what to tell you.

Test cricket is fine.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

My Proposal:
as there are now 12 Test team, three divisions of 4 teams
Using Current rankings

• Div. 1 India, New Zealand, Australia and England
• Div.2 Pakistan, South Africa, West Indies and Sri Lanka
• Div.3 Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland

Four year cycle. Each team would play the others in their division home and away. only points gained in these matches would count.

At the end of the 4 year cycle

• 1st vs 2nd for the test championship, same as this years Ind vs NZ in June

also, mirroring the Davies Cup- no straight promotion and relegation

• 4th vs 5th: winner to Div.1 loser to Div.2
• 8th vs 9th: winner to Div2 loser to Div.3.

Test cricket has a future - but that’s not it.

 

[Bahnz]

I mean the ground attendance thing to me has always been a bit of a red herring because if you go back and look at classic tests from the 80’s and 90’s there more often than not played in front of empty stadiums. If memory serves, Bothams 150 in the ‘81 Headingley test was played in front of a half full ground which would never happen today.

From an NZ fan pov there’s clearly been a shift towards playing less test cricket in the past 5 years or so. One test tour by Australia in the past decade compared to umpteen 2 week LO tours over the same period. It’s evident that the NZC has done the math and decided that tests aren’t really a goer. WI and SL seem to have the same attitude at least with regard to NZ - 1 tour since 2013 of each. Home tests now seem to be maxed out at 4 per summer even when major opponents come to tour.

 

[SteveNZ]

Haha if you think the future of Test cricket isn't something that warrants discussion you have a lot more faith in the administration of international cricket than I do.

OK, I'd have to qualify that. Is there a future for Test cricket? Yes, directly addressing the thread title.

Do we need to be optimistic, do we need to have flexibility, continue to generate new ideas, think fresh, cast off some of the traditions, be innovate to ensure that future? Also yes.

I just hate the dogma around 'test cricket is dying' etc. It's horse ****. It's not.

 

[SteveNZ]

I mean the ground attendance thing to me has always been a bit of a red herring because if you go back and look at classic tests from the 80’s and 90’s there more often than not played in front of empty stadiums. If memory serves, Bothams 150 in the ‘81 Headingley test was played in front of a half full ground which would never happen today.

From an NZ fan pov there’s clearly been a shift towards playing less test cricket in the past 5 years or so. One test tour by Australia in the past decade compared to umpteen 2 week LO tours over the same period. It’s evident that the NZC has done the math and decided that tests aren’t really a goer. WI and SL seem to have the same attitude at least with regard to NZ - 1 tour since 2013 of each. Home tests now seem to be maxed out at 4 per summer even when major opponents come to tour.

Yeah, it is a red herring. I don't know what the percentage of total revenue that gate takings are, but it wouldn't be high. And yes I know, TV networks love full stadiums. Me, I attended one day of Test cricket last year, and watched a day's play probably about zero on TV. But I drift in and out during a day, I read every article I can find, I watch endless replays, I post on here, my engagement is through the roof - even though your black and white attendance or 'eyeballs' (my least favourite term in the world) for me would serve to prove to someone in an office somewhere that I'm not engaged.

What we need is enterprising people up high in the ICC and boards/structures around the world who are prepared to protect the sanctity of Test cricket at all costs. Because if anyone thinks the game will survive on coloured clothing cricket, it won't.

Day night Test cricket, 4-day 110 over Tests, Test Championships, Test cricket windows, whatever. I'm all for it, but the David White approach of 'it doesn't boost revenue so we're not interested' fails to register that it damages the long-term viability of international cricket. We can play T20 at franchise level, it doesn't need to be an international format.

 

[Bahnz]

By the way, saw the idea of multiple tiers of test cricket being floated on cricinfo yesterday. I hated this when it first did the rounds about 10 years ago, and I hate it now, for several reasons:
1) I firmly believe that talented players benefit from exposure to top level opponents. A tiered structure would deny them that, and would make cricket even more stratified between the haves and have nots.
2) Cricket fans care about series against certain opponents more than others. If you lock teams off in a separate division from the opponents that the fans want to see for 3 or 4 years (at a minimum - WI would've been shut in tier 2 for the past 20 years if this had happened - no series wins v England, no WR run chase v Australia, etc), the sport will wither and die in those countries.
3) Due to the nature of international sport, teams can go from cannon-fodder to competitive in a very short space of time. All it takes is 2 or 3 players coming into their own. The opposite is true as well. If you start out a 3/4 year cycle with one of the teams in division 1 having a couple of greats retire, and another in division 2 unearthing the next Imran, then the whole format would end up looking very silly.

 

[nzfan]

WTC has made test cricket a bit more glamorous... I say that perhaps because NZ is in the finals I'm not sure but it definitely has increased interest.

Tier system is not bad but not like 3 tiers considering there is only really 8 or 9 serious test teams. A two tier with relegation and promotion for one team is not a bad one. Three tiers are an overkill.

At this point in time this is how it'd look

Tier 1 - India, New Zealand, England, Australia, Pakistan
Tier 2 - West Indies, South Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe

This of course will never fly with any of the big 3. Imagine telling Australia if they get relegated they will only be playing vs SA, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe for the next year.

It'll only work if there are standard number of tests set but we know it never will. Pakistan won't play India and ashes won't exist.

No way out of it. The ICC test championship is probably the best they would have come up with considering the complications.

 

[Line and Length]

Bahnz raises some very valid reasons to reject multiple tiers. It would not only be the players in the 'lesser' countries that are denied the opportunity to play against top level opponents, the supporters in those countries would be denied the opportunity to witness top tier players. Interest, particularly among the impressionable young, would dwindle and the sport would go backwards. By all means have multiple Tests between the stronger countries but expose these newer Test playing nations to at least some one-off Test matches against the best.

 

[JOJOXI]

Agree with Bahnz completely - there is this odd situation where if a 'Tier 2' nation gets beaten convincingly by a 'Tier 1' nation its justification for the calls for a 2-tier system but not so when there is a one-sided series between two Tier 1 teams. I think some of the more interesting series are actually an England playing away to West Indies, a New Zealand or Australia away to Sri Lanka. I'm intrigued about the upcoming Pakistan v West Indies series.

If I'm not mistaken Sri Lanka were outside the top 5 and Australia and South Africa in the top 5 when Sri Lanka beat Australia at home and Kusal Perera played that great knock for Sri Lanka to win in South Africa.

I think there are wider issues that Bahnz points out to a 2 tier system but also you just lose interesting Test cricket.

Bahnz raises some very valid reasons to reject multiple tiers. It would not only be the players in the 'lesser' countries that are denied the opportunity to play against top level opponents, the supporters in those countries would be denied the opportunity to witness top tier players. Interest, particularly among the impressionable young, would dwindle and the sport would go backwards. By all means have multiple Tests between the stronger countries but expose these newer Test playing nations to at least some one-off Test matches against the best.

Unfortunately I think that is where we are probably heading when you see India play Australia and then home and away v England in between a WTC final v New Zealand. I suspect increasingly the 'big 3' will play amongst themselves and the rest will be even more vulnerable to the big 3 - given most other Test series lose money. I do think even with newer Test playing nations a 2 Test series at worst should be a minimum. Can new Test playing nations learn much from one match especially when rain could play a part.


I would like to see a bit more innovative thinking though. Lets say Covid is no longer a consideration for cricket next year why can't there be more series during the IPL. Yes a side like England will be missing a lot of their key players but could you not try and get an England B side to play a quadrangular ODI series against Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland.

Afghanistan, Irelamd and Zimbabwe would apart for a few IPL players be at full strength. England could play an England Lions side and get players in and around the senior coaches etc. Maybe you could take 1 player from each county so no side massively loses out in County Championship. For Ireland, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan this would still be a good test and opportunity for learning - if you had a double round-robin that is 6 games that these 3 sides wouldn't otherwise play.

As an example the IPL started 9th April this year, the County Championship 8th April. Lets say the Afghanistan, Ireland and Zimbabwe squads arrived in Late March. Could you play Round Robin games on the 6th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 16th and 18th of April with the final on the 21st. The England B players only miss 3 County Championship games and you could have the final between the 2 top visiting sides in which case the England B players would only miss 2 County Championship games.

If the County Championship goes back to 2 divisions of 9 teams could you have Ireland play the Div 1 team not in action and Scotland play the Div 2 team not in action every week. USA and Canada have played in past 50 over competitions in the West Indies - could an Afghanistan U25 side of players just outside the Test squad play Ranji Trophy?

There are costs involved but given Canada and USA have been able to play in the Super 50 competition in West Indies you'd presume these costs are relatively small.