How to make Test cricket more interesting?

[GIMH]

Hello there Matt

 

[ret]

If you noticed, all my proposed changes involved things surrounding a Test (FC matches, larger Test series, better pitches), or the administration of it (umpiring). The format is what makes Tests what they are. No tinkering at all there. It's just about perfect.

Our goal should be to encourage and try to get as exciting and even matchups as possible (between teams as well as between bat and ball). That's all. Cricket is fine with everything else.

I m NOT talking abt replacing the test but adding the mini

the mini is NOT an ODI where both teams have allocated quota of overs to bat but it's a test with one inning played over 3 days, so you could have a team win/lose OR draw

 

[silentstriker]

I m NOT talking abt replacing the test but adding the mini

the mini is NOT an ODI where both teams have allocated quota of overs to bat but it's a test with one inning played over 3 days, so you could have a team win/lose OR draw

What would be the purpose of that though?

 

[ret]

What would be the purpose of that though?

I like Minis .... in fact, i really enjoy them .... I have played a lot of them [1 day minis], it's fun

Minis have the potential to take the best out of both the ODIs and Tests .... You not only have to put up a big score but also bat quickly to give bowlers enough time to get 10 wkts .... a team batting 2nd can go for a win but if it loses a few wkts then it can also change it's game and play for the draw

 

[silentstriker]

You not only have to put up a big score but also bat quickly to give bowlers enough time to get 10 wkts .... a team batting 2nd can go for a win but if it loses a few wkts then it can also change it's game and play for the draw

How is this different from Test cricket?

Minis have the potential to take the best out of both the ODIs and Tests ....

Haha, ODIs have no positives.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Minis have the potential to take the best out of both the ODIs and Tests .... You not only have to put up a big score but also bat quickly to give bowlers enough time to get 10 wkts .... a team batting 2nd can go for a win but if it loses a few wkts then it can also change it's game and play for the draw

Win the toss and bat for 2 days and you can't lose.

 

[ret]

How is this different from Test cricket?

1. there is no 2nd innings so less chance of a come back, in case you do badly
2. getting to see new strategies
3. better competition level as a couple of good innings can win/save a game .... conversely, a good bowling performance can tilt the balance

Haha, ODIs have no positives.

thats not what most people think .... for test cricket lovers like you, one of the reasons why you are seeing so many exciting test games is because players in general have brought in the ODI style to it, which is bringing out more games with results

 

[silentstriker]

thats not what most people think .... for test cricket lovers like you, one of the reasons why you are seeing so many exciting test games is because players in general have brought in the ODI style to it, which is bringing out more games with results

This is true, but the influence hasn't really been all ODI. Australia really started the scoring fast as a matter of policy under Steve Waugh, where they expected 300 in a day, and then 350 in a day. People are starting to realize you can increase your scoring rate without significantly increasing your risks. One thing that has improved largely due to ODIs, and South Africa, is the ground fielding, but catching is whats most important in tests anyway, and not ground fielding. But ODIs have also led the deterioration of what people might consider 'traditional' cricketing skills as well, so its a two way street. In any case, Tests right now are extremely exciting for me, with the exception of a couple flat pitches here and there, and I wouldn't want to change a damn thing in terms of the mechanics of the game, or even its implementation. A couple of minor things surrounding the tours (more tour games, slightly better pitches, better decisions), and I think it's just about perfect.

 

[Richard]

Andruid, the problem with your argument is that calling a match a "Test match" is not going to change its marketability or revenue raising potential one tiny little bit if the product itself hasn't changed. If you think that more people will pay to watch, or a television company would pay more to carry Kenya playing Ireland because its called a "Test", I believe you'd be sadly mistaken.

Your point about associates needing more money to build good infrastructure is a fair one. However to do that, they need to actually get more people interested. The only way they are likely to do that quickly is to play one of the big teams that actually makes a profit from test cricket, eg Australia, England or India. And against those teams you're back to the Innings + 300 runs defeat within three days problem.

The best way to raise the standards for associates is a long term one - good youth programs where kids get to learn the rules and experience the fun of cricket, combined with good access to professional cricket in the media, and the presence of a few successful "trailblazers" in FC cricket in top countries. For me, I compare it to the marginal sports in Australia - interest levels vary as Aussies achieve success in the big time abroad. Harry Kewell's success in EPL got people into watching it. The success of guys like Stuart O'Grady, Baden Cook and more recently Cadel Evans has got people more interested in cycling as a sport, evidenced by the ever increasing number of Aussies in the pelaton. Mark Webber may never finish a race in Formula One, but he is what the casual Australian fan is interested in when they watch a race. The future for associates in cricket will look up when kids see someone on TV or in the paper from their neck of the woods making money and having a great time playing cricket abroad, and then are able to find an avenue through which they can attempt to emulate their hero.

He's back.

Was getting worried about you TBH fella.

 

[Goughy]

Regarding a tiered system. Id have no issue (in fact Id like) if a subcategory was added for non-Test International FC games. Lets call it 'ICC' as most will be from the InterContinental Cup and the ICC is the ruling body.

Just as Test averages are included in FC averages so would the 'ICC' but they would be seperated out.

So we could say Tikolo has an ICC average of xyz. This number for purely non-Test FC International games.

All game FC games between 2 nations would be included such as the historical annual Ire vs Scot game and the modern InterContinental Cup.

 

[silentstriker]

Tegarding a tiered system. Id have no issue (in fact Id like it) if a subcategory was added for non-Test International FC games. Lets call it 'ICC' as most will be from the InterContinental Cup and the ICC is the ruling body.

Just as Test averages are included in FC averages so would the 'ICC' but they would be seperated out.

So we could say Tikolo has an ICC average of xyz. This number for purely non-Test FC International games.

I think that'd be great. I just don't want them called Tests. International FC matches (IFC?) would be fine, and I have no problem with encouraging and supporting countries who want to do this.

 

[ret]

This is true, but the influence hasn't really been all ODI. Australia really started the scoring fast as a matter of policy under Steve Waugh, where they expected 300 in a day, and then 350 in a day. People are starting to realize you can increase your scoring rate without significantly increasing your risks. One thing that has improved largely due to ODIs, and South Africa, is the ground fielding, but catching is whats most important in tests anyway, and not ground fielding. But ODIs have also led the deterioration of what people might consider 'traditional' cricketing skills as well, so its a two way street. In any case, Tests right now are extremely exciting for me, with the exception of a couple flat pitches here and there, and I wouldn't want to change a damn thing in terms of the mechanics of the game, or even its implementation. A couple of minor things surrounding the tours (more tour games, slightly better pitches, better decisions), and I think it's just about perfect.

Let's not forget the money that ODIs have brought to the game, which has led to
1. more people taking cricket as an option
2. more professionals support staff [as Boards can pay them a high salary]
3. better facilities at the stadiums and for the players

there are so many in-tangible benefits as well

i am a cricket lover more than a 'format' lover so I appreciate all forms of contests b/w the bat and the ball, along with exploring new avenues to continue the fascinating contest

 

[Goughy]

I think that'd be great. I just don't want them called Tests. International FC matches (IFC?) would be fine, and I have no problem with encouraging and supporting countries who want to do this.

Im trying to find a list of the FC games each Associate has played over the years. Any ideas?

 

[Nishant]

1. there is no 2nd innings so less chance of a come back, in case you do badly

Thats just silly tbh...comebacks is what makes test cricket the game that it is...it makes tests more exciting and highlights the fact that the winning team would have to be on the top of their game for a long period of tym before they are deserved winners. There is a place for ODIs and a separate place for tests. Both are good in their own ways....dnt try to mix them...u r just ruining the positives of both...especially tests.

 

[andruid]

I think that'd be great. I just don't want them called Tests. International FC matches (IFC?) would be fine, and I have no problem with encouraging and supporting countries who want to do this.

If that would guarantee a real improvement in terms of acknowledgment, and rewards (financially) for the efforts that go into preparing for these matches then I would go for it. I mean its appalling that this season the BBC has only bothered mentioning the Intercontinental Cup matches that involve Ireland and Scotland. I mean if they decided to do that and refuse to report on Test matches that didn't have England involved they would get hanged.

 

[Nishant]

Let's not forget the money that ODIs have brought to the game, which has led to
1. more people taking cricket as an option
2. more professionals support staff [as Boards can pay them a high salary]
3. better facilities at the stadiums and for the players

there are so many in-tangible benefits as well

i am a cricket lover more than a 'format' lover so I appreciate all forms of contests b/w the bat and the ball, along with exploring new avenues to continue the fascinating contest

completely agree with u here....i am a cricket lover...i want my team to win every game regardless of what format they are playing. different formats bring out differnet skills that are required frm a player. ODIs are a great form of cricket and have really improved the way test cricket is played as well. ODIs, themselves have forced players to be fitter and compete more as well...all forms of cricket are good IMO...there is no need to say that one is better than the other even if certain tournaments are more important than the other.

 

[Richard]

Regarding a tiered system. Id have no issue (in fact Id like) if a subcategory was added for non-Test International FC games. Lets call it 'ICC' as most will be from the InterContinental Cup and the ICC is the ruling body.

Just as Test averages are included in FC averages so would the 'ICC' but they would be seperated out.

So we could say Tikolo has an ICC average of xyz. This number for purely non-Test FC International games.

All game FC games between 2 nations would be included such as the historical annual Ire vs Scot game and the modern InterContinental Cup.

I think that'd be great.

Yeah, likewise. Even more important in ODIs, of course - I once proposed the idea of "senior" and "junior" ODIs (if we must insist that Bermuda vs Sri Lanka is either it'd be the latter). That's as good as if not better though.

I'm not entirely sure how often until recently international cricket was played by teams without Test\ODI status however.

 

[Richard]

If that would guarantee a real improvement in terms of acknowledgment, and rewards (financially) for the efforts that go into preparing for these matches then I would go for it. I mean its appalling that this season the BBC has only bothered mentioning the Intercontinental Cup matches that involve Ireland and Scotland. I mean if they decided to do that and refuse to report on Test matches that didn't have England involved they would get hanged.

Coverage of the New Zealand vs Sri Lanka Test and ODI series a year ago was negligable. I wouldn't be surprised if it was nil, in fact.

 

[silentstriker]

If that would guarantee a real improvement in terms of acknowledgment, and rewards (financially) for the efforts that go into preparing for these matches then I would go for it.

I think it is silly to throw money at a country where there is no real interest in cricket at the grassroots level.

I mean its appalling that this season the BBC has only bothered mentioning the Intercontinental Cup matches that involve Ireland and Scotland. I mean if they decided to do that and refuse to report on Test matches that didn't have England involved they would get hanged.

They didn't report because it doesn't make sense for them to do so financially. They report on matches not involving England because enough people are interested in it.

 

[Richard]

In any case, the hint is in the company name - British Broadcasting Company. Obviously they're going to report on anything involving a British team (and Ireland too), plus something (like, for example, India vs Australia) which holds interest for a lot of British residents.

New Zealand vs Sr Lanka or Kenya vs Bermuda in a non-major tournament, though, is highly unlikely to get much if any correspondance.