Is the standard of cricket declining?

[Joseph Gomes]

Sri Lanka, West Indies and Pakistan are in terminal decline. Nowadays if you don't play well against SAF, Aus, Ind, NZ or Eng then victories could be considered minnow bashing. Zimbabwe is not even counted anymore and is likely weaker than Afghanistan and Ireland. Bangladesh is an exception since they're showing signs of improvement which was long due.

With so many nations in decline, is standard of cricket free falling? If so, why?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Cricket is a dying sport.

The class product is not mass product.

The mass product is not class product.

 

[Rayyman]

Defensive cricket is dying. Attacking cricket is growing.

 

[MMHS]

Defensive cricket is dying. Attacking cricket is growing.

Slogging is not cricket.

Make standard size grounds & keep something for the bowlers in wicket, your see how a pair of basketballs become marbles ..............

 

[Rayyman]

Slogging is not cricket.

Make standard size grounds & keep something for the bowlers in wicket, your see how a pair of basketballs become marbles ..............

I doubt that Don Bradman or Martin Crowe could reverse-scoop for six.

 

[MMHS]

I doubt that Don Bradman or Martin Crowe could reverse-scoop for six.

That's innovation in every generation - before Ranji no one played leg glance, before Javed, no one reverse swept, before Dilshan no one dil-scooped ......

It's not about what shot you play - it's about the % risk factor of a shot - the lower it is, the more innovative & attacking you are.

 

[Rayyman]

That's innovation in every generation - before Ranji no one played leg glance, before Javed, no one reverse swept, before Dilshan no one dil-scooped ......

It's not about what shot you play - it's about the % risk factor of a shot - the lower it is, the more innovative & attacking you are.

Yeah and scoop shot is much more risky than leg glance. Those oldies played like a bunch of scared-y cats. They don't have the bravery of the #YoungstaBeauties these days.

 

[HateKiller]

It is just a temporary phase. Standard is bound to come up. We are already seeing pockets of excellence every now and then. When that becomes consistent, then the standard will rise.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

It is just a temporary phase. Standard is bound to come up. We are already seeing pockets of excellence every now and then. When that becomes consistent, then the standard will rise.

I would accept the temporary phase, except that WICB is completely broke with key players opting out to play t20 leagues. Sri Lanka and Pakistan haven't produced world class talent in nearly a decade which is evident in their W/L ratio. Zimbabwe's best player (Brendan Taylor) has retired because of poor salary.

All this talk about restructure of formats, new rules and schedule is kind of worrying for the future of the sport.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Cricket is a dying sport.

The class product is not mass product.

The mass product is not class product.

It has failed to globalize and now paying the price. Cricket's popularity has in fact shrunk in England (which is one of the big 3). T20 was supposed to make the game more popular, but the way it has been bashed by older players that many people now think T20 is a substandard tripe and waste of time. Now all three formats are in peril

 

[hafizexpress]

It has failed to globalize and now paying the price. Cricket's popularity has in fact shrunk in England (which is one of the big 3). T20 was supposed to make the game more popular, but the way it has been bashed by older players that many people now think T20 is a substandard tripe and waste of time. Now all three formats are in peril

The oldies are just jealous that t20s weren't played in their time and so they think that it isn't real cricket. Also because they didn't get to bat at such a batting dominated game of today. They should stop whining and except the most entertaining form of cricket today, even if it isn't the best format.

 

[moghul]

No decline in India, SA and NZL,
Some decline in Australia and England

Significant decline in Pakistan, SL and WI.

Overall , declining.

 

[Junaids]

Defensive cricket is dying. Attacking cricket is growing.

That is precisely why the standard of cricket is so low currently.

Modern so-called "batsmen" have massive bats, grassless wickets and Kookaburra balls which go soft after 20 overs. And in ODI and T20 cricket the bowlers are required to bowl the ball in the slot where the batsman is expecting it.

So we have a generation of batsmen who can't defend their wickets and whose so-called "sixes" would actually be caught 15 metres from the bat if proper bats were being used.

Kane Williamson is probably the ultimate example of a modern batsman whose Test average would have been in the twenties in an earlier era. Hard hands, reckless outside off-stump. I'm watching him play an ODI currently on a Hamilton wicket the colour of straw.

I'm not sure whether [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] has read Ed Cowan's interview about how much better the Dukes ball has been in this season's Sheffield Shield than the Kookaburra.

I hold our real hope that if the Dukes ball can be adopted and 4 Day(/Night) Test cricket can replace the 5 day form, we could see a return to lively tracks, proper balls and a balance between bat and ball.

I've watched cricket for over 40 years. And the quality of batting is at an all-time low. We have reached a point where I have to "translate" scores in ODI's and most Tests by removing 33%. So 360 in an ODI equates to 240, and a batting average of 57 is equal to Mike Atherton's 38.

When you do that, it all makes sense.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Defensive cricket is dying. Attacking cricket is growing.

India - Openers are defensive. Murali Vijay leaves more balls than anyone else. Rahul plays normal cricket. India had at least 1 attacking opener everytime. No 3 is also a defensive batsman. No 4 is same. No 5 and 6 are similar to what they used to be.

Pakistan - Not very difficult to realize that current crop is more defensive than what they used to be in 2000s.

Eng - I don't see them to be more attacking. KP, Strauss and co were more attacking.

WI - Look similar to me

SL - Haven't become more attacking.

Bang - They are just better batting unit now.

SA - No change from past, I guess.

Aus - Team was always attacking.

 

[Swanny]

Don't know whether it is declining or not but there are huge disparities between the quality of cricketers produced by different countries. This problem will keep getting worse unless there's equal opportunities for players to hone their skills.

The only solution I see is for bigger boards like the BCCI, ECB & CA to allow talented players from other countries to play in their domestic tournaments.

 

[Buffet]

I've watched cricket for over 40 years. And the quality of batting is at an all-time low. We have reached a point where I have to "translate" scores in ODI's and most Tests by removing 33%. So 360 in an ODI equates to 240, and a batting average of 57 is equal to Mike Atherton's 38.

When you do that, it all makes sense.

This 33% reduction in batting average in the test format works starting from year 2015, 2010 or 2005??

In ODI , I already know the inflation point.

 

[AlizeeFan]

That is precisely why the standard of cricket is so low currently.

Modern so-called "batsmen" have massive bats, grassless wickets and Kookaburra balls which go soft after 20 overs. And in ODI and T20 cricket the bowlers are required to bowl the ball in the slot where the batsman is expecting it.

So we have a generation of batsmen who can't defend their wickets and whose so-called "sixes" would actually be caught 15 metres from the bat if proper bats were being used.

Kane Williamson is probably the ultimate example of a modern batsman whose Test average would have been in the twenties in an earlier era. Hard hands, reckless outside off-stump. I'm watching him play an ODI currently on a Hamilton wicket the colour of straw.

I'm not sure whether [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] has read Ed Cowan's interview about how much better the Dukes ball has been in this season's Sheffield Shield than the Kookaburra.

I hold our real hope that if the Dukes ball can be adopted and 4 Day(/Night) Test cricket can replace the 5 day form, we could see a return to lively tracks, proper balls and a balance between bat and ball.

I've watched cricket for over 40 years. And the quality of batting is at an all-time low. We have reached a point where I have to "translate" scores in ODI's and most Tests by removing 33%. So 360 in an ODI equates to 240, and a batting average of 57 is equal to Mike Atherton's 38.

When you do that, it all makes sense.

That's just BS and exagerration by oldies who want to believe that older generation so so good. You really believe Williamson is as good as Ranjan Madugalle, Wettimuny and Dyson

 

[Rayyman]

India - Openers are defensive. Murali Vijay leaves more balls than anyone else. Rahul plays normal cricket. India had at least 1 attacking opener everytime. No 3 is also a defensive batsman. No 4 is same. No 5 and 6 are similar to what they used to be.

Pakistan - Not very difficult to realize that current crop is more defensive than what they used to be in 2000s.

Eng - I don't see them to be more attacking. KP, Strauss and co were more attacking.

WI - Look similar to me

SL - Haven't become more attacking.

Bang - They are just better batting unit now.

SA - No change from past, I guess.

Aus - Team was always attacking.

The annoying part is that every team says they want to play an attacking brand of cricket. If you're not gonna play attacking than don't say u will.

 

[Junaids]

That's just BS and exagerration by oldies who want to believe that older generation so so good. You really believe Williamson is as good as Ranjan Madugalle, Wettimuny and Dyson

I just don't know, because he has such a massive technical fault outside off-stump.

If the question is "do you think he could adapt his game to play on seaming wickets with balls with bigger seams which don't go soft" the answer is "maybe".

But to me Williamson is nowhere near as defensively sound as Sidath Wettimuny from your list.

I'd compare him to Graeme Hick, Carl Hooper and Mansoor Akhtar. He's a huge talent whose Test game has been spoilt by playing too many 20 and 50 over games which have given him a technique which works in Tests on grassless wickets against the Kookaburra ball.

But Williamson averages:

21.16 in South Africa (equivalent to 14 in old currency)
30.87 in England (equivalent to 20 in old currency)
35.46 in India (equivalent to 23 in old currency)

So we have an extravagantly gifted young batsman whose technique has been ruined by too much batting in favourable conditions.

And his average of 50 really equates to around 33 - which makes perfect sense. Because John Wright was definitely a sounder batsman than he is.

 

[cr7great]

cricket is boring game for younger generation(except t20)

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Don't know whether it is declining or not but there are huge disparities between the quality of cricketers produced by different countries. This problem will keep getting worse unless there's equal opportunities for players to hone their skills.

The only solution I see is for bigger boards like the BCCI, ECB & CA to allow talented players from other countries to play in their domestic tournaments.

It's declining alright. The previous top 8 has been reduced to top 5 now (Pak, SL and WI becoming minnows) and only Bangladesh improving (that too only on home soil). The top teams are playing against each other more than ever before, and the match distributions are skewed to the extreme. The senior cricketers are constantly trashing T20 which was supposed to be future of cricket (IPL is losing popularity every passing year). The future of the sport is worrying to say the least.

 

[saeed5646]

It's declining alright. The previous top 8 has been reduced to top 5 now (Pak, SL and WI becoming minnows) and only Bangladesh improving (that too only on home soil). The top teams are playing against each other more than ever before, and the match distributions are skewed to the extreme. The senior cricketers are constantly trashing T20 which was supposed to be future of cricket (IPL is losing popularity every passing year). The future of the sport is worrying to say the least.

Not sure how you come to conclusion about pakistan is minnow team .if you are talking about odis than it is fine in test and t20s pakistan are still good so your logic is wrong about pakistan

 

[Ellipsism]

cricket is boring game for younger generation(except t20)

The popularity of the game is increasing amidst the younger generation.

This entire cricket is dying thing is nothing more than a mere fallacy.

Yes, the crowds may not be as large but that is more to do with the busy lives people have rather than the lack of interest to attend a game.

That's exactly reason why the Day/Night format was made; to allow people busy people to accomodate watching a cricket game live into a jam-packed schedule. Take for example the Day/Night game Pak played against AU the crowds were absolutely brilliant with 20,000+ on each day except the last day-(largely due to forecasted rain on the day).

 

[Syed1]

Test cricket will die out soon enough. Nobody has the patience to spend six hours at the ground for five days in sweltering Dubai heat to watch Azhar Ali hit a 250 ball 100.

 

[Junaids]

It's declining alright. The previous top 8 has been reduced to top 5 now (Pak, SL and WI becoming minnows) and only Bangladesh improving (that too only on home soil). The top teams are playing against each other more than ever before, and the match distributions are skewed to the extreme. The senior cricketers are constantly trashing T20 which was supposed to be future of cricket (IPL is losing popularity every passing year). The future of the sport is worrying to say the least.

Where on earth did that come from?

The Top Six in Test cricket have never been closer. Ever.

India, Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and England are swapping places constantly in the rankings, with only a run of home fixtures tending to elevate any one of them to the top for a while.

In terms of cricketing strength, we have never had the top six so closely clustered together.

 

[Junaids]

Test cricket will die out soon enough. Nobody has the patience to spend six hours at the ground for five days in sweltering Dubai heat to watch Azhar Ali hit a 250 ball 100.

That makes no sense.

In the last 12 months I have been to at least 3 days of the Test matches at

1. Wellington (NZ v Australia)
2. Adelaide (Australia v South Africa)
3. Brisbane (Australia v Pakistan)
4. Sydney (Australia v Pakistan)

Every fixture - every single one - broke the record attendance figure for a Test between the two countries at that ground.

Perhaps more worryingly, the crowd and ticket revenue for the Australia v Pakistan Test at the SCG was significantly greater than for the ODI between the same sides.

So it seems as if we are watching a number of different phenomena at once:

1. In Australia and New Zealand, Test cricket's popularity is at record levels, bolstered by the Day/Night game.

2. In Australia, spectators are showing a strong preference for Day/Night Tests over Day/Night ODI's.

3. In England cricket is struggling because international and domestic cricket from England is hidden on expensive subscription channels only.

4. In Asia, crowds are developing a preference for the 20 and 50 over forms of the game.

I suggest that different working and living conditions are partly driving this. Fewer than 10% of Australians work more than 40 hours per week, and well over 90% of the audience can watch at least half of every day's play in a Day/Night Test.

In contrast Asian people tend to work longer hours, enjoy inferior public transport options and have fewer and less predictable days off work.

Unfortunately, the Pakistani population in the UAE "enjoys" primitive working conditions, Victorian hours of employment (Queen Victoria, not Melbourne) and hasn't got transport to get to the grounds.

 

[JattMaula]

For some romantic people, yes.

In reality cricket is becoming more professional and skillful.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Test cricket is becoming big followed TV sport rather than dying.

 

[jeetu]

I disagree, the only thing i am missing is a fairer contest between and ball.

 

[Markhor]

Power hitting, fitness, running between the wickets and fielding is arguably better than ever.

The game has become more scientific and data-driven.

However the balance of the sport has tilted so far in favour of batsmen. We've got many modern batsmen who look majestic when they can hit through the line of the ball, but when there's a hint of swing, seam or turn they're all at sea.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Batsmen are still comparable but except Steyn, there has not been a single ATG bowler in the last decade. Fast bowling standard is an all time low right now. Imagine if someone like Hafeez had to face the likes of Ambrose and Donald in their prime, he would not have averaged even in 10s.

 

[R0H1T]

Depends on what you define as a (fair) standard. The balance between bat/bowl has forever changed in batsmen's favor. That the boards don't want 2 or 3 day tests is also a big problem, except in rare cases. The spectators also prefer LO these days, tests are slowly becoming a 5 day version of ODI (some 20 years back) or in extreme cases a T20 with or without the mindless slogging.

Restricting bat sizes would be a good start, pushing ropes back would also be a welcome change. Having said that the younger generation likes the aggro gen Y cricketer, a traditional test match is considered boring for most except true connoisseurs of the game. Test cricket is about grinding your way through the most difficult phases of the day/session & much like real life people prefer shortcuts these days.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No it is a phase. Growth is uneven across countries. During 90s England was a ****** side. Look how far they have come. NZ was pretty weak too outside NZ . SA is a great touring side. Srilanka is a small country relying on school cricket structure. So rate at which they produce good players is low compared to others. West Indies problem is not players. It is the board, leadership, guidance. They still have good players. Sadly not motivated enough to excel in the longest format. Last year out of 45 matches 40 produced results.

 

[Red Devil]

It's declining alright. The previous top 8 has been reduced to top 5 now (Pak, SL and WI becoming minnows) and only Bangladesh improving (that too only on home soil). The top teams are playing against each other more than ever before, and the match distributions are skewed to the extreme. The senior cricketers are constantly trashing T20 which was supposed to be future of cricket (IPL is losing popularity every passing year). The future of the sport is worrying to say the least.

Yeah, minnows who were the #1 team in the world just a couple of months ago.

 

[Liverpool_Faizan]

Cricket has been dying since 2007.

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

Every generation feels their generation had the best cricketers. Talking to current generation in India, for them Dhoni and Kohli are the greatest cricketers and they will hear nothing against them. Talking about youngsters who are genuine cricket fans.

Thats how it goes. Sports evolves over time and the new generation is always a step ahead of previous generation. The discontent with modern cricket is because of our own attachment to memories or because a particular player/team we admired did well earlier ndisnt as much of a force now.

 

[JaDed]

Every generation feels their generation had the best cricketers. Talking to current generation in India, for them Dhoni and Kohli are the greatest cricketers and they will hear nothing against them. Talking about youngsters who are genuine cricket fans.

Thats how it goes. Sports evolves over time and the new generation is always a step ahead of previous generation. The discontent with modern cricket is because of our own attachment to memories or because a particular player/team we admired did well earlier ndisnt as much of a force now.

True felt the best was 90's but obviously with only South Africa having fielding standards compared to today,and maybe Aus with running between wickets.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Sri Lanka, West Indies and Pakistan are in terminal decline. Nowadays if you don't play well against SAF, Aus, Ind, NZ or Eng then victories could be considered minnow bashing. Zimbabwe is not even counted anymore and is likely weaker than Afghanistan and Ireland. Bangladesh is an exception since they're showing signs of improvement which was long due.

With so many nations in decline, is standard of cricket free falling? If so, why?

What you are talking about is relative strength, not absolute strength.

Difficult for people to realize that everyone in the 1990s was rather mediocre compared to now and cricket has moved on leaps and bounds.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Depends on what you define as a (fair) standard. The balance between bat/bowl has forever changed in batsmen's favor. That the boards don't want 2 or 3 day tests is also a big problem, except in rare cases. The spectators also prefer LO these days, tests are slowly becoming a 5 day version of ODI (some 20 years back) or in extreme cases a T20 with or without the mindless slogging.

Restricting bat sizes would be a good start, pushing ropes back would also be a welcome change. Having said that the younger generation likes the aggro gen Y cricketer, a traditional test match is considered boring for most except true connoisseurs of the game. Test cricket is about grinding your way through the most difficult phases of the day/session & much like real life people prefer shortcuts these days.

You are not a 'true connosieur' just because u like Test cricket. There is nothing better about Test cricket. Just elitist snobs who want to show off withou any reasoning.

Quit making stupid analogies. I can also say T20 is like a single glass of fine wine while Test match is a gigantic keg of stale beer.

 

[Zak_Fan]

Yeah, minnows who were the #1 team in the world just a couple of months ago.

Any team that avoids away tours for 5 years will be #1 by default, doesn't count. In Pakistan's case, the ranking lasted only weeks, so not really as big a deal. All formats combined, Pakistan is actually quite closed to being categorized alongside WI.

 

[Zak_Fan]

I really don't see much wrong with the standard of Cricket. 2015 and 2011 World Cups were played at a far higher level than the World Cups a decade ago. Mitchel Jhonson's 2013-2014 season was probably the highest quality bowling we have seen for decades. Kohli, AB and Amla are batting like a dream. So not much wrong really.

 

[Red Devil]

Any team that avoids away tours for 5 years will be #1 by default, doesn't count. In Pakistan's case, the ranking lasted only weeks, so not really as big a deal. All formats combined, Pakistan is actually quite closed to being categorized alongside WI.

Almost all teams lose away from home these days. India wouldn't have been anywhere near the #1 rank if they had a few away tours in recent times.

 

[MeanAndGreen]

Any team that avoids away tours for 5 years will be #1 by default, doesn't count. In Pakistan's case, the ranking lasted only weeks, so not really as big a deal. All formats combined, Pakistan is actually quite closed to being categorized alongside WI.

So where does that leave England, who couldn't beat Pak home or away? Below Bangladesh?

 

[Zak_Fan]

Almost all teams lose away from home these days. India wouldn't have been anywhere near the #1 rank if they had a few away tours in recent times.

They would be. India held the #1 even rank before their home season started, and only lost it to Pakistan because of rain washing out a couple of Tests.

Besides, India's schedule is such that either we are touring all the time, or we play at home. So it all evens out in the end.

 

[Zak_Fan]

So where does that leave England, who couldn't beat Pak home or away? Below Bangladesh?

I don't know what logic you are using. Yes England couldn't beat Pak home or away, and lost ranking points for the same. But how does that make them worse than Bangladesh?

 

[Red Devil]

They would be. India held the #1 even rank before their home season started, and only lost it to Pakistan because of rain washing out a couple of Tests.

Besides, India's schedule is such that either we are touring all the time, or we play at home. So it all evens out in the end.

Point is, much like Pakistan who achieved the #1 ranking by winning at home, India have also done that by bullying teams on doctored pitches at home. Aside from the recent WI series, when was the last time India won or drew a Test series outside Asia?

 

[Zak_Fan]

Point is, much like Pakistan who achieved the #1 ranking by winning at home, India have also done that by bullying teams on doctored pitches at home. Aside from the recent WI series, when was the last time India won or drew a Test series outside Asia?

That's only part true. In Pakistan's case, not touring Eng, Aus and SA for years was the major driving force behind the ranking.

Now that Pakistan have started touring away, for Pakistan to reach #1 again, you will need to whitewash team after team in UAE, win series in Sri Lanka, West Indies and Zimbabwe and draw Tests in Eng/SA/Aus/NZ. Not that easy.

 

[MeanAndGreen]

I don't know what logic you are using. Yes England couldn't beat Pak home or away, and lost ranking points for the same. But how does that make them worse than Bangladesh?

The same logic you used to group Pak and WI the same category despite WI comfortably losing to Pak in all formats recently. Nobody here is saying Pak is No.1 team by any stretch of the imagination, but to say they are on a similar level as WI is ludicrous.

 

[Zak_Fan]

The same logic you used to group Pak and WI the same category despite WI comfortably losing to Pak in all formats recently. Nobody here is saying Pak is No.1 team by any stretch of the imagination, but to say they are on a similar level as WI is ludicrous.

I didn't say they were on similar level today, but it is getting close. I say it because both sides are already quite comparable in ODIs. While Pakistan are very much ahead in Tests, WI are sweeping World T20 trophies.

I personally rate Pakistan higher, but for many modern Cricket fans, WI may be ahead.

 

[R0H1T]

You are not a 'true connosieur' just because u like Test cricket. There is nothing better about Test cricket. Just elitist snobs who want to show off withou any reasoning.

Quit making stupid analogies. I can also say T20 is like a single glass of fine wine while Test match is a gigantic keg of stale beer.

I like tests, ODI & T20I just the same. Just because you find the same style of play, hitting the ball hard, across the 3 formats acceptable doesn't make your opinion more right than mine!

If you think test cricket is all about elitism then clearly you've not been watching cricket close enough, that you need to bring some other stupid analogy to back your argument is just the perfect icing on the cake.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Would disagree with the people that cricket is a dying sport. Many of my friends have started watching Test cricket religiously after being introduced to it through Twenty20 competitions. However, to my dismay, the ICC is playing a very negative role in the popularity of cricket and despite growing, cricket may suffer huge setbacks unless the ICC starts globalizing the sport.

Recently, I was on a trip to an Irish university for a debating competition. The general perception towards cricket was very positive. Although the young lads preferred Football, I saw a good amount of interest in cricket. - Now it is up to ICC to cater to their needs accordingly.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

T20 may live on forever.

Not sure whether the current generation who love tests would enjoy watching only T20s. Maybe future generations can.

The future of test cricket is shaky.

Its day and night tests or bust.

 

[Junaids]

You are not a 'true connosieur' just because u like Test cricket. There is nothing better about Test cricket. Just elitist snobs who want to show off withou any reasoning.

Quit making stupid analogies. I can also say T20 is like a single glass of fine wine while Test match is a gigantic keg of stale beer.

I'm not going to get into that sort of argument with you!

I'd appreciate your advice on one thing though.

I'm arriving at the conclusion that Asian cricket fans generally prefer ODI cricket to Test cricket.

But the clear lesson from Day/Night Tests in Australia - and even Perth Day Tests, which feature a session from 7-9 pm in the eastern states - is that Australian cricket fans only watched ODI's because of the convenience of the timing, but have voted with their feet, wallets and remote controls for Day/Night Tests ahead of ODI's.

Is it just a matter of different tastes for people from different societies?

 

[shortbread]

Don't know whether it is declining or not but there are huge disparities between the quality of cricketers produced by different countries. This problem will keep getting worse unless there's equal opportunities for players to hone their skills.

AGREE 110%

The Top 4 sides can beat the boom 4-5 easily which contributes to dull predictable cricket!

Also the home advantage is heavily skewed now which makes it very difficult for visiting teams.

In terms of the game the top players have simply grown into a different level as athletes. Fitness, power, innovation etc. have seen growth undoubtedly.

Unfortunately the struggling countries still see their players fashioning their cricket on the 90s era.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

I keep hearing test cricket is dying but I am yet to see test cricket actually be affected by T20s. Its been almost 10 years now since International t20s took over and look at the impact it has made on number of tests played.

10 years before T20 took over

Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies - 100-120 tests
SL, Pak, India, NZ - 80-90 tests

10 years after T20 took over

Eng - 141!! tests
SL, SA, India, Australia - 100 to 120 tests
Pak, WI, NZ - over 90 tests

In fact the trend is going upwards for all the sides, not downwards.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I'm not going to get into that sort of argument with you!

I'd appreciate your advice on one thing though.

I'm arriving at the conclusion that Asian cricket fans generally prefer ODI cricket to Test cricket.

But the clear lesson from Day/Night Tests in Australia - and even Perth Day Tests, which feature a session from 7-9 pm in the eastern states - is that Australian cricket fans only watched ODI's because of the convenience of the timing, but have voted with their feet, wallets and remote controls for Day/Night Tests ahead of ODI's.

Is it just a matter of different tastes for people from different societies?

It could definitely be different tastes. As far as I know, going to a Test Match simply isn't a thing, culturally speaking. As you well know, I actually enjoy watching Tests, but I wouldn't for the life of me go to watch one live. Why would I? One can watch one on TV and it feels pointless if you don't watch the whole thing. I suppose we like value for our money and that's better delivered in a clear context where we know we are watching for a defined period and getting a result. Some people think it's economical, but I personally doubt it; even in the class of pretentious, snobby, elitist Indians who live in posh South Delhi areas or the best parts of Lahore, there are many of us who will claim to be a "connoisseur of Test cricket" (that phrase I made fun of), but when it comes to it, it's T20 or ODI that we would make a dedicated plan to watch.

I will grant though, that the DN Tests have managed to convince me that Test matches are actually viable in Australia (something I didn't actually think was possible) though I still think Big Bash is rivaling it, even though ACB treats it like a joke and keeps hamstringing it.

I continue to believe that demographic changes will have their effect, but for now, you Test loving bunch still have the Australia and England.

 

[Junaids]

It could definitely be different tastes. As far as I know, going to a Test Match simply isn't a thing, culturally speaking. As you well know, I actually enjoy watching Tests, but I wouldn't for the life of me go to watch one live. Why would I? One can watch one on TV and it feels pointless if you don't watch the whole thing. I suppose we like value for our money and that's better delivered in a clear context where we know we are watching for a defined period and getting a result. Some people think it's economical, but I personally doubt it; even in the class of pretentious, snobby, elitist Indians who live in posh South Delhi areas or the best parts of Lahore, there are many of us who will claim to be a "connoisseur of Test cricket" (that phrase I made fun of), but when it comes to it, it's T20 or ODI that we would make a dedicated plan to watch.

I will grant though, that the DN Tests have managed to convince me that Test matches are actually viable in Australia (something I didn't actually think was possible) though I still think Big Bash is rivaling it, even though ACB treats it like a joke and keeps hamstringing it.

I continue to believe that demographic changes will have their effect, but for now, you Test loving bunch still have the Australia and England.

That's actually fascinating.

I went to all four days of the Adelaide Test, but at Brisbane and Sydney I just attended the first three days. It didn't cross my mind to seek to attend the whole match.

I'm used to watching bits of a Test in person, bits on TV, bits on my phone and bits on the radio as I drive. Culturally a Test has never seemed like something to attend every day of.

I only attend every day of the Adelaide Tests. And that's because I love the ground and the feel so much. But even there, I tend to go back to the hotel half an hour before Dinner to change into long pants and then have dinner in the Lounge and get back for the third session.

Your reply makes me realise how much of watching cricket is transmitted culturally from parent to child.

 

[Buffet]

All formats combined, Pakistan is actually quite closed to being categorized alongside WI.

Nah, WI has done fine against Pakistan, Eng, SL etc at home, but they have lost series against SA, Aus, India.....

Pakistan has dominated in UAE, but they have not lost series in UAE. Clearly, there is visible difference between them in the test format. In ODI, they are around the same level, but I think going forward Pakistan should do better. In T-20 WI is clearly better.

 

[Syed1]

Nah, WI has done fine against Pakistan, Eng, SL etc at home, but they have lost series against SA, Aus, India.....

Pakistan has dominated in UAE, but they have not lost series in UAE. Clearly, there is visible difference between them in the test format. In ODI, they are around the same level, but I think going forward Pakistan should do better. In T-20 WI is clearly better.

We recently beat them 3-0 in T20s and none of the matches were even close to being close.