The RSA-ZIM four day Test was 98 per day with the follow on at 150. Sheffield Shield cricket is currently 96 per day. So yeah, there's a bit of a loss overs-wise but I think 105 is probably the ideal point if it's viable for teams.
-
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.
The future of Test cricket outside of the big three
- Thread starter James
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Won't need 4 day Tests then. Should all be done in a day and a half.
ParwazHaiJunoon
First Class Debutant
They will play 3ODIs & 3T20Is in Oct 2021 & 2Tests in Nov 2022. #NWO
TheBrand
First Class Debutant
I don't know the inner workings of the ICC but I was talking about this with some friends last night, they should definitely revamp the WTC to 2 pools of 6. Will provide more competitive cricket across the board in my opinion also mean you play everyone in your pool.
Pool 1: (Top Ranked Sides)
Australia
India
England
New Zealand
South Africa
Pakistan (?)
Pool 2:
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Bangladesh
Ireland
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
All of Pool 1 series have to be 3 tests minimum
All of Pool 2 series can be 2 tests series.
At the end of every cycle the winner of the Pool 2 final plays the bottom ranked team of Pool 1 to decide promotion/relegation.
Also means the top 2 teams in Pool 1 could play a 2 test series against the top ranked teams in Pool 2 before playing the 1-off final so in essence its a 3 test series for both.
I think all series would be more evenly matched, guarantees you play more regularly and we just standardise all series to 3 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is with the exception of the Ashes etc.
Pool 1: (Top Ranked Sides)
Australia
India
England
New Zealand
South Africa
Pakistan (?)
Pool 2:
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Bangladesh
Ireland
Zimbabwe
Afghanistan
All of Pool 1 series have to be 3 tests minimum
All of Pool 2 series can be 2 tests series.
At the end of every cycle the winner of the Pool 2 final plays the bottom ranked team of Pool 1 to decide promotion/relegation.
Also means the top 2 teams in Pool 1 could play a 2 test series against the top ranked teams in Pool 2 before playing the 1-off final so in essence its a 3 test series for both.
I think all series would be more evenly matched, guarantees you play more regularly and we just standardise all series to 3 Tests, 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is with the exception of the Ashes etc.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Will never happen in case one of India, Australia, or England might fall into pool 2.
Also India and Pakistan don't play each other.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I like that, but then you'd have a few sides that basically never played against each other. Also could you imagine the player stats discussions? "X player was mostly in Pool 2 so his stats don't count as much"
TheBrand
First Class Debutant
Agreed - but that's already happening now, "NZ never play away from home so their stats are only against minnows". I think either way you are going to widen the gap between the Big 3 and everyone else but at least this way it makes for more competitive cricket across the board.
As for India and Pakistan not playing each other - just make it at a neutral venue if they have to.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
But this is basically the same as two tier Test Cricket.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's exactly what it is
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
The issue with that is you are making it The Big 6 instead of The Big 3. I can see the idea of limiting the WTC to the top 6 teams in the ranking cycle but even that comes with lots of potential issues.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Definitely not perfect. It would be kind of weird to, for example, separate Sri Lanka and Australia in different tiers when Australia literally lost 3-0 on their last tour there.
cnerd123
likes this
I'm a fan of having several tiers/divisions for Tests and ODIs, especially as a means of getting more nations playing. I wouldn't even mind if stats were separated as Tier 1 ODI/Test, Tier 2 ODI/Test, etc. If quality of cricket is the main obstacle towards having all teams play each other an even number of times and/or getting more teams playing, then let's bring in Tiers and have some form of quality control.
But the reality is that none of the decision makers care about quality of cricket. They care about revenue and politics. The Big 3 decide who they want to play in their bilateral series based on potential income and and various political considerations. They only signed on to the concept of the WTC on the basis that this status quo is maintained. Therefore we end up with this weird schedule and points system.
Having Tiers/Divisions would force the Big 3 to play whoever is in their group, and they won't have that. If they would accept that, they would accept a proper WTC where everyone plays each other Home and Away within a certain timeframe.
Also worth considering that most nations, as mentioned in this thread, struggle to cover the costs of Test cricket atm. If NZ had to play each of the 11 teams home and away for the WTC, or if they were in a Tier that did not have India/Eng/Aus in it, they'd probably go bankrupt. So I suspect it is not only the Big 3 who would object to a different system.
But the reality is that none of the decision makers care about quality of cricket. They care about revenue and politics. The Big 3 decide who they want to play in their bilateral series based on potential income and and various political considerations. They only signed on to the concept of the WTC on the basis that this status quo is maintained. Therefore we end up with this weird schedule and points system.
Having Tiers/Divisions would force the Big 3 to play whoever is in their group, and they won't have that. If they would accept that, they would accept a proper WTC where everyone plays each other Home and Away within a certain timeframe.
Also worth considering that most nations, as mentioned in this thread, struggle to cover the costs of Test cricket atm. If NZ had to play each of the 11 teams home and away for the WTC, or if they were in a Tier that did not have India/Eng/Aus in it, they'd probably go bankrupt. So I suspect it is not only the Big 3 who would object to a different system.
Does this lead to more competitive cricket - hard to see any of the Tier 1 sides beating India in India and NZ recently beaten comprehensively in Australia, I would be surprised if Australia do not win the next home Ashes, will South Africa be competitive in the very short term going overseas to Tier 1 nations?
I think often the most interesting series are 'Tier 1' sides away at 'Tier 2' nations. I would much prefer watching a New Zealand, South Africa, Australia tour Sri Lanka or a Pakistan/South Africa tour West Indies then South Africa/Australia in India, England/NZ in Australia. We have seen Pakistan beaten quite convincingly away in England and NZ recently. Sri Lanka/relegated Tier 1 nation will still likely dominate Tier 2 too. West Indies would probably dominate home series not against SL/relegated Tier 1 side, Bangladesh dominate at home against everyone but SL. Afghanistan in Ireland and Ireland v Zimbabwe might be interesting but I suspect you wouldn't get many more competitive series in a Tiered series as opposed to now. How many of those advocating for a 2-tier system generally, would watch 2nd Tier games regularly?
Also think there are financial obstacles which have already been stated.
Although sadly wouldn't be surprised if such a system was adopted in the future - 10 home and away series over 4 years still giving the big 3 the power to drive the initiative as tier 2 nations especially would be desperate for the chance to play those 3 - it would also ensure the big three could still play each other as much as they want. In the case of an India/Pakistan clash either hopefully improved relations or probably a system which sees each team gain pts based on their average pts per series against the other 4 teams.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
The correct answer here is innovative broadcasting. Let's face it - the actual $ coming in from the ground is going to be relatively low. In today's world, no one can really afford (the time) to go to 5-day tests that start early morning (at best you could go maybe a day or two), when they're at work.
But plenty of people aren't actually working at work. Besides which - I'm a huge test fan and I've never been to a test match. But I follow as many as possible, even random ones like SL/SA and NZ/Pak recently.
The problem is that I'm watching it on streaming because each series is on different sets of broadcasters, which may or may not be available locally.
Streaming legally globally is the way forward. This would need taking out of the hands of broadcasters.
IPL actually did that right away way back when it first started (at least 2-3 years in max) as I recall. Entire games were streamed legally by the IPL channel on YouTube (outside India). Was never a fan of T20s/IPL but that's the only reason I got into it back then - it was easy and I didn't have to bother looking for streams (and streams weren't very good back then)
That might mean more IPL-style "Bumrah's just picked up a Vodafone wicket!" or something in tests...but it's the only way I see it surviving moving forward.
But plenty of people aren't actually working at work. Besides which - I'm a huge test fan and I've never been to a test match. But I follow as many as possible, even random ones like SL/SA and NZ/Pak recently.
The problem is that I'm watching it on streaming because each series is on different sets of broadcasters, which may or may not be available locally.
Streaming legally globally is the way forward. This would need taking out of the hands of broadcasters.
IPL actually did that right away way back when it first started (at least 2-3 years in max) as I recall. Entire games were streamed legally by the IPL channel on YouTube (outside India). Was never a fan of T20s/IPL but that's the only reason I got into it back then - it was easy and I didn't have to bother looking for streams (and streams weren't very good back then)
That might mean more IPL-style "Bumrah's just picked up a Vodafone wicket!" or something in tests...but it's the only way I see it surviving moving forward.
cnerd123
likes this
I've long advocated for the ICC to develop a Fightpass style streaming service, where you can watch all international cricket live + full match footage and highlights of past games on demand. Charge people a subscription fee for the archive and put big matches behind a PPV.
Problem is that each individual cricket board works out TV deals with their local broadcasters for big $$$, and the broadcasters then own the match footage. So it's not actually lobbying the ICC or individual cricket boards to put their matches legally on the internet, but lobbying the broadcasters to do that.
Some already do, but either it's geoblocked (like Hotstar) or only available to those who have the paid cable subscription to begin with (like Sky if I understand correctly).
The 'smaller' nations are already putting their stuff up on YouTube and FB for free - NZ vs Pak was on YouTube, and most Associate cricket these days can be found on YouTube/FB. So we're already moving in that direction, it's just about getting the big players to buy in. But they probably won't because protecting the future of Test Cricket is not on their agenda. Short term profits is.
Problem is that each individual cricket board works out TV deals with their local broadcasters for big $$$, and the broadcasters then own the match footage. So it's not actually lobbying the ICC or individual cricket boards to put their matches legally on the internet, but lobbying the broadcasters to do that.
Some already do, but either it's geoblocked (like Hotstar) or only available to those who have the paid cable subscription to begin with (like Sky if I understand correctly).
The 'smaller' nations are already putting their stuff up on YouTube and FB for free - NZ vs Pak was on YouTube, and most Associate cricket these days can be found on YouTube/FB. So we're already moving in that direction, it's just about getting the big players to buy in. But they probably won't because protecting the future of Test Cricket is not on their agenda. Short term profits is.