• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Could 4 day tests actually be brilliant? Or, how to make them so....

nexxus

U19 Debutant
Not that I want it, but the 4 day test thing could be interesting if it resulted in more bowler friendly conditions.

I reckon a 4 day test with the following might be great...

- Pitches with a tinge of green in Aus, Eng, SA and crumbling dustbowls on the Subcontinent (WI are skint, so they'll keep their low, dead tracks as is).
- Direct the umpires to play on for as long as possible, rather than whisking the players off the moment it gets just a tad dark.
- For me, the biggest win that DRS has provided is the willingness of umpires to give the bowler the full 3 stumps for leg before, extend that further by removing that heinous ball hitting outside off restriction. The double benefit is that it forces the batsman to play more and makes that 'tuck the bat behind the pad' feint a bit pointless.
- Dump the stupid Kookyburra, swingy Duke balls for everyone
- Allow the bowler to legally modify the condition of the ball however only the use of substances naturally existing on the field of play is allowed. ie. Fingernails are fine, toothpicks are not.

The batsman is king of the limited over formats, that isn't changing any time soon. Giving the bowler tests seems like a natural compromise to me.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
The ICC doesn't have a deep hatred of currency.

The 200 plays 180 plays 220 plays 190 matches with one hard fought century every 2-3 tests and RRs of around 2.4 appeal to a small % within the CW-style hardcore test cricket fans who are a drop in the ocean relative to the overall commercial audience. It'd be financial disaster.
 

Riggins

International Captain
I like (most of) those changes, but can't we just bring them in and still keep the game 5 days?
 

Red Hill

The artist formerly known as Monk
I'd love to see an old school series of timeless tests played. Endurance would need to be a real thing. Might see the use of more spinners than quicks. Tactically it would be really intriguing (different).
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I don't think the batsmen of today would really thrive on it - it's hard to curb your natural instincts that much. And I don't think it's good for cricket if they do. The Test would likely end in five days anyway.
 

Riggins

International Captain
Nah it'd be great. You'd get some serious scoreboard pressure when there was no reason to make sure you declare with enough time to bowl them out and you end up chasing 800 in the fourth. The much loved Australian method of batting out the draw would actually be a decent idea!!
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
I don't really want to see 1200 runs scored off 1200 overs though. That does not sound like something I'd want to sit through.
 

zorax

likes this
I'd love to see an old school series of timeless tests played. Endurance would need to be a real thing. Might see the use of more spinners than quicks. Tactically it would be really intriguing (different).
I think if we ever have a Test Championship; the final should be a Timeless Test. Just to ensure a result, and think of how much money you could make off a final that lasted 6-7 days.
 

Cabinet96

Global Moderator
Imagine the road they'd prepare for a timeless test though the greedy ****ers. Would rather watch a good five day test.
 

zorax

likes this
Even if it is a road, innings 3 and 4 would be interesting. The pitch would eventually break up, bowlers start to break down, batsmen and fielders get frustrated.

Make it a 5 day match and sides are more likely to play for the draw IMO. Flat pitch to last 5 days, and sides being unwilling to risk losing to win because they know if they draw the trophy is shared.

You take the draw out of the equation and you're going to see more determination to win.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
But an extremely high percentage of five day games end up with a result these days. What it would lead to is pretty boring cricket where batsmen feel that they need to take literally zero risks. Also you say innings 3 and 4 would be interesting but how boring as hell would the first seven days of that test?
 
Last edited:

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If they are going to *** with it & reduce it to 4 days....then at the very least increase the daily quota of overs from 90 to 100. That way it only really reduces from 450 overs to 400..as opposed to 360 with the status quo.
 

zorax

likes this
But an extremely high percentage of five day games end up with a result these days. What it would lead to is pretty boring cricket where batsmen feel that they need to take literally zero risks. Also you say innings 3 and 4 would be interesting but how boring as hell would the first seven days of that test?
I think that's the charm of it. Watching sides used to producing results in 5 days try and curb their natural game to suit the timeless test challenge. How would they cope knowing they could bat as long as they wanted? How would they bowl knowing their opponents will probably never declare?

Imagine batsmen like McCullum and Warner trying to come to terms with this, or India's bowling attack actually having to take 10 wickets to get the innings to end. Imagine the challenge for sides like Australia who carry such fragile quick bowlers.

I think it would be fascinating. You won't have anymore declaration bowling, perhaps 5 bowlers in each side, more aggressive bowling plans than simply 'bowling dry', and each wicket would be worth so much more.

Probably not great to watch live in the stands, but definitely very interesting to follow.
 

Dan

Global Moderator
Warner's not going to suddenly start making 100 (400) just because the Test can run for six weeks if it wants to. I think the extreme majority of non-weather affected Timeless Tests finished within 5 days anyway.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Timeless Tests are a nightmare for both the governing body-broadcaster complex (can we make this a thing?) and the fans at the ground. If a tour is to last a month and a half, how many Tests do you schedule? Do you schedule 3 Tests and watch the teams twiddle their thumbs for four weeks because they completed those Tests in 4 days each, or do you schedule 5 Tests and risk the teams playing out three 10 day Tests in the allotted period instead? Then you've got to cancel two Tests because you can't miss your steamboat back home. Even a timeless Test needs a limit to make things simpler and comfortably predictable for everyone involved. This might have been a reason why we settled on a 5 day limit to begin with. Nerds from the CW book club to confirm/deny.
 
Last edited:

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
There should be time less test, an uncovered wickets test, under arm bowling test and every thing in between. Let's see how these teams stack up in more testing scenarios. Won't happen but whatever.
 

Fuller Pilch

International Vice-Captain
Day-nighters
105 overs per day
New ball after 75 overs
Make all test series for top 8 at least 3 tests long (12 days of test cricket isn't too much)
Let gun associates play one-off 'tests' when teams in their part of world (British Isles, UAE etc)
 

Top