Players who opt out of Test cricket, should they be picked for other formats?

[MenInG]

Should retiring from the Test format of the game preclude a player from playing other formats of the game.

Of course this is based upon Amir's decision where he has chosen other formats to play in based on his own convenience - but should PCB or other boards make it clear that retiring from Tests to play in more lucrative formats is not on? Or its completely a player's own business to play in a format he likes?

 

[Hasan123]

If a player retires from tests and is good enough for LO of course he should be selected. Not everyone can play all formats.

 

[MenInG]

Think the team management should decide where a player is needed most - especially given the investment made in a players career by the PCB etc.

 

[AamirWarraich]

Ideally they shouldn't be picked. But to be pragmatic, if a player is in form and suited to ODIs and T20s, then it would be dumb to not pick him ahead of inferior options in those formats.

 

[Rayyman]

Smh

This controlling mindset needs to stop

Let a grown man make his own decisions

 

[hashimafzal]

Problem is while Test cricket is the most prestigious format, it isn't the cash cow like limited overs cricket.

Why would anyone want to exert themselves physically to such a degree when they can play limited overs cricket and make more money whilst prolonging their own playing career?

The only way the PCB can retain players in the format is through financial incentive, and they need to come up with a method that will give more benefit to those that play test cricket as opposed to those that don't.

 

[blackanhyellow]

Lets say a player like Amir only wants to play ODIs and t20s.


Instead of retiring from tests, he can just purposefully put in less effort in tests so that he is dropped, therefore gets to only play ODIs and t20s.


Isnt it better we let players pick the format they want to play in?

For every Amir there will be a yasir shah, mohammad abbas, etc... who are test only players.

So its okay imo, if some players only want to play LOIs.

 

[blackanhyellow]

Think the team management should decide where a player is needed most - especially given the investment made in a players career by the PCB etc.

I hope PCB doesnt go down this route.

We will start losing players, just like WICB.

Lets say I am a civil engineer and my passion is to design bridges, but the company I work for instead puts my in highway design, wont I want to go to a different company that will offer me the opportunity to work in the field I have a passion for?

PCB should instead look for players that have a passion for playing tests, maybe our team will improve if we get players that actually enjoy playing that longer format, and not those who are forced against their wishes.

 

[MenInG]

I hope PCB doesnt go down this route.

We will start losing players, just like WICB.

Lets say I am a civil engineer and my passion is to design bridges, but the company I work for instead puts my in highway design, wont I want to go to a different company that will offer me the opportunity to work in the field I have a passion for?

PCB should instead look for players that have a passion for playing tests, maybe our team will improve if we get players that actually enjoy playing that longer format, and not those who are forced against their wishes.

What if the civil Engineer in question was hired by a firm to do one job and they paid for his education etc?

 

[blackanhyellow]

What if the civil Engineer in question was hired by a firm to do one job and they paid for his education etc?

Then that has to be written in the employment contract, that the engineer should work for X amount of years to repay the investment made into him.

As far as I know, PCB doesnt have such contracts stating a player has to play X amount of tests to repay the investment.

What I am saying though is, if a player only has passion for ODI and t20 cricket, and we make him play tests, he will not give his 100 percent.

Instead, PCB should find players that have a passion for test cricket.

 

[WC-Passion]

In my opinion it would be extremely petty to hurt the team's performance by not picking a player purely because that player has retired from a different format and you're hurt about it.

 

[MenInG]

Then that has to be written in the employment contract, that the engineer should work for X amount of years to repay the investment made into him.

As far as I know, PCB doesnt have such contracts stating a player has to play X amount of tests to repay the investment.

What I am saying though is, if a player only has passion for ODI and t20 cricket, and we make him play tests, he will not give his 100 percent.

Instead, PCB should find players that have a passion for test cricket.

Ok so PCB has no such contract and he is not bound by it but in your opinion, is there a moral argument especially in Amir's case where the PCB, in face of strong criticism from many including current players, to restore him to glory so that he could serve them in Tests as well?

 

[sweep_shot]

Each player's situation is different. Some players are not great at LOI (for example - Alaistar Cook) while some excel in ODI (for example - Rohit Sharma).

At the end of the day, playing XI for any format should be selected based on qualifications.

 

[ads101]

The fact that players are opting out of tests suggest that something's wrong with tests. Tests are longer, more stress on the body, less lucrative, and in most cricketing countries now less popular than LOI.

The whole test format needs to be overhauled. Shouldn't need to just incentivize or punish players in order to force them to play tests.

I would cut down tests to 4, idealy 3 days so it can be held around the weekend. Might even go for just 1 innings each, the vast majority of tests are decided in the first innings, and the 2nd innings gives a bigger advantage for the home team to claw back than the away team. Or you could introduce a limit in overs like 90 overs, when you have these flat pitches where teams pile up the 500 scores it really wrecks the opposition bowlers.

 

[sweep_shot]

The fact that players are opting out of tests suggest that something's wrong with tests. Tests are longer, more stress on the body, less lucrative, and in most cricketing countries now less popular than LOI.

The whole test format needs to be overhauled. Shouldn't need to just incentivize or punish players in order to force them to play tests.

I would cut down tests to 4, idealy 3 days so it can be held around the weekend. Might even go for just 1 innings each, the vast majority of tests are decided in the first innings, and the 2nd innings gives a bigger advantage for the home team to claw back than the away team. Or you could introduce a limit in overs like 90 overs, when you have these flat pitches where teams pile up the 500 scores it really wrecks the opposition bowlers.

Making Tests 4 days long seems like a great idea. I would support that.

But, 2 innings should stay intact. That's like the pillar of Test format.

 

[ads101]

Making Tests 4 days long seems like a great idea. I would support that.

But, 2 innings should stay intact. That's like the pillar of Test format.

Might be hard to cut it down to 4 days then. Might increase the draw rate. It's not a fantastic solution cutting down the innings, but it drastically shortens game time. The other option is bowling friendly pitches, but that's hard to enforce and potentially could be dangerous if taken too far, I don't think some of the pitches provided in the older eras would be tolerated today, they would have been considered a safety risk.

The thrill of a 2nd innings fightback is great, but it's just too rare. The most common scenarios from 2nd innings are that a) it's prolongs the game, game has already been decided in 1st innings, b) Game is batted out for a draw than an actual result or c) The home team having slipped up once, gets the chance to rebat denying the away team a win.

In scenario C, if anything this is unfortunate and often prevents away teams from winning. This was the case for example in the England vs Ireland series. With 2 innings gives both the home team advantage and makes it extremely hard for an upset.

There is also the difference in the 3rd and 4th innings. If the game hasn't been decided in the 1st and 2nd innings, the 3rd innings advantage is massive compared to the 4th. Far, far more so than between 1st and 2nd. That's just an advantage decided by a toss. There are reasons to why choosing to bat second is a good idea, but generally when you bat second, you are going with the fact you expect to bowl the team out early and decide the game in the 1st innings, to where your 4th innings hardly matters.

I've always thought having 2 innings each, the whole point was to give the away team a chance to acclimatise to the conditions as it's harder to click in just 1 innings. But that really isn't the case these days. The inclusion of 2 innings each just gives the home team even more advantage than they already have and gives the team batting 1st advantage too. Which isn't ideal.

 

[MenInG]

The fact that players are opting out of tests suggest that something's wrong with tests. Tests are longer, more stress on the body, less lucrative, and in most cricketing countries now less popular than LOI.

The whole test format needs to be overhauled. Shouldn't need to just incentivize or punish players in order to force them to play tests.

I would cut down tests to 4, idealy 3 days so it can be held around the weekend. Might even go for just 1 innings each, the vast majority of tests are decided in the first innings, and the 2nd innings gives a bigger advantage for the home team to claw back than the away team. Or you could introduce a limit in overs like 90 overs, when you have these flat pitches where teams pile up the 500 scores it really wrecks the opposition bowlers.

Simply speaking, pay them more to play Tests - after all one match is equal to 5 ODIs and 10 T20Is in terms of time spent.

 

[pratiktc]

You cannot force players to toe some arbitrary line by mandating they make themselves available for all formats. They are not slave labourers or army conscripts.

Whether it is a pragmatic decision taken basis player's assessment of his own body/fitness or merely a personal choice it is entirely upto player to decide what is in his/her best interests.

From a policy perspective PCB should handle it not by stick treatment but by garnishing the carrot for test cricket. If truly Test cricket is a priority then incentivize it with fees and contracts.

 

[MenInG]

You cannot force players to toe some arbitrary line by mandating they make themselves available for all formats. They are not slave labourers or army conscripts.

Whether it is a pragmatic decision taken basis player's assessment of his own body/fitness or merely a personal choice it is entirely upto player to decide what is in his/her best interests.

From a policy perspective PCB should handle it not by stick treatment but by garnishing the carrot for test cricket. If truly Test cricket is a priority then incentivize it with fees and contracts.

Players are employees of PCB (atleast those on central contracts) - they should do as they are told.

 

[Phantom Menace]

Even as someone who cares much more about test cricket I tend to feel players should be eligible for whatever format they wish.

Naturally making decisions like Amir has, which work counter to the aims of his employer, runs a risk of being alienated. It is ultimately a case of understanding the power dynamics of the situation. This would include the interpersonal relationships involved, marketability of the player, the skill level of the player and their potential replacement as well as the other options available to the player.

The PCB should not cut its nose to spite its face but if Amir finds his place in question in the shorter formats he has restricted his way to get back in to the fold. This is especially the case if he is dropped for poor form instead of great prospects forcing their way in to the team because then he is less appealing on the various domestic circuits.