ICC considers repackaging Tests!

[silentstriker]

Plans are afoot to make Test matches more attractive and ensure the Twenty20 format does not destroy the traditional five-day game, according to IS Bindra, who takes charge as the ICC's principal advisor next month.

Bindra said the sport's governing body was concerned at dwindling Test attendance. "We need to learn from our experiences and move forward," Bindra told the Week, an Indian magazine. "We in the ICC have had very serious discussions for the last six to eight months on how to repackage Test cricket, make it more exciting and introduce an element of competition.

"It does not mean tinkering with the form but we are looking to bringing in more audience in Test matches." Bindra, a former president of the BCCI, declined to reveal the measures being considered but said the "the ICC was looking at ways to increase scoring-rates [and] have a world championship of Test cricket."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/353834.html

As a rule, I do NOT like any attempts to repackage Test cricket. The line about increasing scoring rates is especially ominous, as the scoring rates in Test cricket have really never been higher, and the vast majority of Tests yield a result, which should be the goal. Test cricket does not need faster scoring to be appealing - it just needs more even matches. And to be frank, we just saw some great series between India and Australia, and now are seeing another unexpected one with West Indies and Australia. To me, it's not broken - don't try to fix it. I am not sure how radical those changes are, but I hope it's just hot air coming from the ICC on this.

 

[silentstriker]

Though I must say that a world championship isn't a bad idea.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

IMO, the world championship changes hands when the incumbent world champions lose a series at home.

 

[steds]

As a rule, I do NOT like any attempts to repackage Test cricket. The line about increasing scoring rates is especially ominous, as the scoring rates in Test cricket have really never been higher, and the vast majority of Tests yield a result, which should be the goal.

Totally agree.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They only need to do something because apart from in England and some parts of Australia the crowds are very small.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Would be nice if the game grew beyond Britain and her dominions, too.

 

[NUFAN]

IMO, the world championship changes hands when the incumbent world champions lose a series at home.

I don't mind this at all.

Similar to boxing, to be the best you have to beat the best, rather then other results out of your control going your way.

Only problem with this, is you have to make sure the schedule is even, so there isn't more than say 4 years between visits to a country.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Would be nice if the game grew beyond Britain and her dominions, too.

Be a while before that happens, at international level anyway. It's growing, but very slowly. Awareness of the game in many countries is still virtually nil.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO, the world championship changes hands when the incumbent world champions lose a series at home.

Only three countries have ever beaten Australia at home - even when they weren't that good, they still don't lose at home. And WI and England have won multiple times in Australia, and NZ has won once. No one else has ever won.

 

[pasag]

"the ICC was looking at ways to increase scoring-rates ..."

 

[chaminda_00]

World Championship would only work if they got rid of minnows. i.e Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and New Zeland.

***hides from Kiwi posters***

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Only three countries have ever beaten Australia at home - even when they weren't that good, they still don't lose at home. And WI and England have won multiple times in Australia, and NZ has won once. No one else has ever won.

Precedent schmecedent. India have taken Tests off Australia in Australia, and South Africa have been unlucky not to. There's nothing except psychological barriers that would stop them taking two Tests if they were able to take one.

The cricketing landscape only really broadened to include India and SA as legitimate title contenders after 1992/93 (the last home series Australia lost) anyway. All that's quelled talk of other series defeats at home is Australia's uncanny dominance after this point in time, which is evidently set to change.

 

[silentstriker]

Precedent schmecedent. India have taken Tests off Australia in Australia, and South Africa have been unlucky not to. There's nothing except psychological barriers that would stop them taking two Tests if they were able to take one.

The cricketing landscape only really broadened to include India and SA as legitimate title contenders after 1992/93 (the last home series Australia lost) anyway. All that's quelled talk of other series defeats at home is Australia's uncanny dominance after this point in time, which is evidently set to change.

I am not so sure about that, tbh. Not at home at least.

 

[chaminda_00]

Precedent schmecedent. India have taken Tests off Australia in Australia, and South Africa have been unlucky not to. There's nothing except psychological barriers that would stop them taking two Tests if they were able to take one.

The cricketing landscape only really broadened to include India and SA as legitimate title contenders after 1992/93 (the last home series Australia lost) anyway. All that's quelled talk of other series defeats at home is Australia's uncanny dominance after this point in time, which is evidently set to change.

The thing is that even crap sides like Sri Lanka could go a decade winning just at home. But it what you do both home and and away that makes you a awsome team or No 1. Really only a truelly dominate side would actually take a Test series in Australia. Most likely they would have been No 1, prior to taking that series by actually beating everyone else home and away. Beating Australia at home would be more of a final fontier then the series win that makes you No 1.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I am not so sure about that, tbh. Not at home at least.

You think so? No way at all that Lee, Clark, Third Wheel and Stand In can take 20 wickets in Perth, Hobart or Adelaide without a lot of help. I can see pitches changing accordingly to force more results - which does nothing but help visiting attacks used to McGrath-and-Warne-only decks. If our batting collapses more often (and it probably will) then each game is just that little bit less predetermined.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

yeah .....

World Championship will be a good idea...

 

[chaminda_00]

You think so? No way at all that Lee, Clark, Third Wheel and Stand In can take 20 wickets in Perth, Hobart or Adelaide without a lot of help. I can see pitches changing accordingly to force more results - which does nothing but help visiting attacks used to McGrath-and-Warne-only decks. If our batting collapses more often (and it probably will) then each game is just that little bit less predetermined.

Johnson showed last season he can be a handful on Australia pitches. If anything the Australian grounds will limit the weakness in the Australian attack due to extra bounce and occasional more support for seamers.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The thing is that even crap sides like Sri Lanka could go a decade winning just at home. But it what you do both home and and away that makes you a awsome team or No 1. Really only a truelly dominate side would actually take a Test series in Australia. Most likely they would have been No 1, prior to taking that series by actually beating everyone else home and away. Beating Australia at home would be more of a final fontier then the series win that makes you No 1.

That would be entirely true under the current regime based on home-and-away victories. But what I'm putting on the table is the World Championship (and thusly world champions) only being recognised as such when the current winners lose at home. This changeover happened after WSC and in 1994/95, and both victorious sides were informally anointed world champs. Seems only fair that it be formally recognised.

I do take your point though. If India had been world Test champions at any stage since 1968, then Australia wouldn't have been legitimate world champions until 2004 - considering how they fared in 1998 and 2001.

 

[pietersenrocks]

India have taken Tests off Australia in Australia, and South Africa have been unlucky not to.

How can you say "South Africa is unlucky", eh?? They have played sum **** cricket against Australia in the recent times...Have they even won a single Test in the last 15 games played between the two???

 

[LongHopCassidy]

How can you say "South Africa is unlucky", eh?? They have played sum **** cricket against Australia in the recent times...Have they even won a single Test in the last 15 games played between the two???

The last Test they won was the dead-rubber in South Africa in 2001/02. But they pushed Australia very hard in 1993/94 and 97/98, and the latter series was promoted as every inch a world championship.