The next step for Test cricket

[QuickCrick]

A lot of talk about how flawed the ranking system is and I agree.

Test cricket is the only sport which you can confidently call the winner before the game starts. There’s the odd upset and a few competitive sessions but by in large the home team wins.

The idea I have is to remove the advantage and have a Test Championship that is competitive and the winner deserving of there crown and number 1 ranking.

This concept may need tweaks but here goes....

The main idea is to have teams touring all over and playing each other in different conditions.

I would first split it into two groups which would have 2 subcontinent teams and 2 non.

Group A

SC
SC
Non SC
Non SC

Group B

SC
SC
Non SC
Non SC

Each team will play the other teams in the group twice at different venues over the space of 2 years and accumulate points on through wins and draws.


Example of venues -

First Round of games played in Australia/New Zealand from Jan - Feb
Second Round of games played in England from July - August
Third Round played in Sub Continant Oct - November
Fourth Round in West Indies April-May
Fifth Round played Sub Continant September - October
Sixth round in South Africa -December to January


The top team from each group will then have a 3 test series both home and away to win the championship.


One of the challenges is the cricketing commitments that countries have like the Ashes and ICC tourneys but they could always run this every 4 years like the World Cup which would give a 2 year break to fit everything else in.

Thoughts?

 

[Varun]

Interesting on paper, but how will the broadcast guys like this plan?

 

[USofA]

@OP,

The suggestion sounds interesting. But impractical and not based on reality.

You are suggesting a whole lot of test matches be played. A format that has dwindling to no fan support in almost all countries. Broadcasters and advertisers looking the other way (other formats) to make $$ and push products. The ICC does not want to touch it with a ten foot pole. The test championship being the case in point, where they only want to run the finals. The boards barring the Big3 have moved to two test series. Even that they play reluctantly.

So, not sure much can be done is there to do.

 

[QuickCrick]

There will be challenges but each team can give there home broadcasters rights to show there games. I don’t know if it would work everywhere but on SkySports you can choose which game you want to watch via the red button so maybe something similar.

This will also be way to generate revenue for every host country through ticket sales so it’s a win win for the individual boards.

 

[USofA]

There will be challenges but each team can give there home broadcasters rights to show there games. I don’t know if it would work everywhere but on SkySports you can choose which game you want to watch via the red button so maybe something similar.

This will also be way to generate revenue for every host country through ticket sales so it’s a win win for the individual boards.

Even if the home broadcasters show the games, I do not see the demand from fans to watch. So either the broadcaster or the advertisers will lose $$.

The ticket sales will barely pay the utility bill for the ground/stadiums. So there is not much $$ to generate there. The real money is made on tv deals, which is based on demand. So not sure how much tv $$ will come in.

 

[QuickCrick]

Even if the home broadcasters show the games, I do not see the demand from fans to watch. So either the broadcaster or the advertisers will lose $$.

The ticket sales will barely pay the utility bill for the ground/stadiums. So there is not much $$ to generate there. The real money is made on tv deals, which is based on demand. So not sure how much tv $$ will come in.

I understand what you mean but I didn’t really think of this idea think of the broadcasters, advertisers and money.

I am more interested in competitive test cricket and I think this concept with adjustments could give us that. If it’s competitive I think it will bring an audience and demand. Marketed right this could be the forward steps test cricket needs.

 

[USofA]

I understand what you mean but I didn’t really think of this idea think of the broadcasters, advertisers and money.

I am more interested in competitive test cricket and I think this concept with adjustments could give us that. If it’s competitive I think it will bring an audience and demand. Marketed right this could be the forward steps test cricket needs.

Though competitive cricket is a component, the major issue that test cricket has is length. No one has the time or the attention span to watch 6-7 hours a day for 5 days. People lose interest when something goes on for that long. Test cricket is an ancient format not suited for the current world.

 

[the_outsider]

It's a flawed idea, mate, sorry.

Tickets for test matches are barely selling at home venues. Once you move most of them to neutral venues, you have killed test cricket already.


Secondly, your premise for this new system is false. There is nothing wrong with the current ranking system and with the Test Championship coming up, things will be even more proper.


ICC overseas bilateral itineraries such that the ratio of home and away games would be similar for most teams in a 4 year cycle.

And that is usually what happens. I'll list the ratio of home/away matches for teams in the last 4 years.

England - 1.33
India - 0.91
SA - 1.22
Aus - 0.95
SL - 0.95


As you can see, the ratio is pretty even across the board.

You're trying to fix something that is not broken.


If there is anything that needs to be fixed, it's the toss. Do away with the toss. Allow the visiting team to choose to bat/bowl first and you will see that away games have all of a sudden because more competitive.

 

[QuickCrick]

It's a flawed idea, mate, sorry.

Tickets for test matches are barely selling at home venues. Once you move most of them to neutral venues, you have killed test cricket already.


Secondly, your premise for this new system is false. There is nothing wrong with the current ranking system and with the Test Championship coming up, things will be even more proper.


ICC overseas bilateral itineraries such that the ratio of home and away games would be similar for most teams in a 4 year cycle.

And that is usually what happens. I'll list the ratio of home/away matches for teams in the last 4 years.

England - 1.33
India - 0.91
SA - 1.22
Aus - 0.95
SL - 0.95


As you can see, the ratio is pretty even across the board.

You're trying to fix something that is not broken.


If there is anything that needs to be fixed, it's the toss. Do away with the toss. Allow the visiting team to choose to bat/bowl first and you will see that away games have all of a sudden because more competitive.

I get your points but I do think it needs to evolve and a format like this could be the answer.

Your concerns about tickets is not 100% true, I appreciate not every game will be a sell out but there will be some games that will attract big crowds, it will need to marketed properly but you won’t get empty stands especially in England with how diverse it is. I see the problem in Asia but everywhere else there will be interest from cricket fans.

I’m not concerned about the ranking system, it rewards consistency which is fine. I’m more about how predictable the results are and something needs to be done to change that. Toss and Duke Balls will be a good start..

More than anything I’d like to see how Aus/Eng fare against eachother in the SC and how Pak/India would do in English conditions.

 

[the_outsider]

I get your points but I do think it needs to evolve and a format like this could be the answer.

Your concerns about tickets is not 100% true, I appreciate not every game will be a sell out but there will be some games that will attract big crowds, it will need to marketed properly but you won’t get empty stands especially in England with how diverse it is. I see the problem in Asia but everywhere else there will be interest from cricket fans.

I’m not concerned about the ranking system, it rewards consistency which is fine. I’m more about how predictable the results are and something needs to be done to change that. Toss and Duke Balls will be a good start..

More than anything I’d like to see how Aus/Eng fare against eachother in the SC and how Pak/India would do in English conditions.

I still think attendance in neutral venues is a hurdle that simple cannot be overcome in this era.

But you've got something there with the toss and the ball. Doing away with the toss will eliminate a lot of the advantage home teams get with pitches. And a Duke ball, will help both spinners and pacers and will aid reverse swing, thus creating a more even playing field across teams with different strengths.

But I agree with you in that there definitely needs to be some evolution in test cricket. It can't go on like this.

 

[MMHS]

It's fine as it is now - 5 day, 450 overs & make up time

Two things I'll suggest are -

1. BE SADIST against slow over rate - these guys are taking time wasting at new level that now 6.5 hours producing 85-86 overs, when just about 35 years back they used to bowl 96 in 6 hours, and there were fast bowlers in 80s as well. In 1988 & 1989 County seasons, average over rate was 17/hour and most of worlds fastest bowlers used to play in Counties those days. I'll go up to some blood shed, if it's required.

2. Take DRS out of players' hand - give it to umpires.

 

[the_outsider]

It's fine as it is now - 5 day, 450 overs & make up time

Two things I'll suggest are -

1. BE SADIST against slow over rate - these guys are taking time wasting at new level that now 6.5 hours producing 85-86 overs, when just about 35 years back they used to bowl 96 in 6 hours, and there were fast bowlers in 80s as well. In 1988 & 1989 County seasons, average over rate was 17/hour and most of worlds fastest bowlers used to play in Counties those days. I'll go up to some blood shed, if it's required.

2.Take DRS out of players' hand - give it to umpires.

How do you mean?

 

[MMHS]

How do you mean?

On field umpires take the call and if they are not confident enough, they can consult their buddy with screen & replay. Also, if 3rd umpire, who is watching at back drop, may be with multiple screens, can suggest/point a gross mistake by umpire before next ball. After that, whatever comes is part of game.

DRS is to reduce umpiring howlers, which I think these days isn't happening. Today, Liverpool scored a goal which was confirmed by goal line technology, via a device, attached with referee's wrist - something like that. Umpires will be encouraged to take bold decisions as well and must be backed by ICC.

Also, if a batsman is wrongly ruled Out, it takes 2 minutes for next batsman to come - 3rd umpire can watch replay by that time & main umpire can recall the batsman. Only issue is, if a batsman given Not out after a genuine edge or bat pad (there is nothing called genuine in LBW, because it's umpire's judgmental, nothing absolute here) - for that, if main umpire isn't absolute sure, he should consult 3rd umpire on his own, not by player's appeal.

 

[the_outsider]

On field umpires take the call and if they are not confident enough, they can consult their buddy with screen & replay. Also, if 3rd umpire, who is watching at back drop, may be with multiple screens, can suggest/point a gross mistake by umpire before next ball. After that, whatever comes is part of game.

DRS is to reduce umpiring howlers, which I think these days isn't happening. Today, Liverpool scored a goal which was confirmed by goal line technology, via a device, attached with referee's wrist - something like that. Umpires will be encouraged to take bold decisions as well and must be backed by ICC.

Also, if a batsman is wrongly ruled Out, it takes 2 minutes for next batsman to come - 3rd umpire can watch replay by that time & main umpire can recall the batsman. Only issue is, if a batsman given Not out after a genuine edge or bat pad (there is nothing called genuine in LBW, because it's umpire's judgmental, nothing absolute here) - for that, if main umpire isn't absolute sure, he should consult 3rd umpire on his own, not by player's appeal.

Good points. I'm sure at least some of these can be, and should be implemented. I don't think it will run the game any quicker though. But we might end up wasting time on what are sometimes quite pointless reviews.

 

[Last Monetarist]

On field umpires take the call and if they are not confident enough, they can consult their buddy with screen & replay. Also, if 3rd umpire, who is watching at back drop, may be with multiple screens, can suggest/point a gross mistake by umpire before next ball. After that, whatever comes is part of game.

DRS is to reduce umpiring howlers, which I think these days isn't happening. Today, Liverpool scored a goal which was confirmed by goal line technology, via a device, attached with referee's wrist - something like that. Umpires will be encouraged to take bold decisions as well and must be backed by ICC.

Also, if a batsman is wrongly ruled Out, it takes 2 minutes for next batsman to come - 3rd umpire can watch replay by that time & main umpire can recall the batsman. Only issue is, if a batsman given Not out after a genuine edge or bat pad (there is nothing called genuine in LBW, because it's umpire's judgmental, nothing absolute here) - for that, if main umpire isn't absolute sure, he should consult 3rd umpire on his own, not by player's appeal.

I would also take DRS out of the hands of the players and give it to the umpires. It's become a tactical tool now more than anything else. I'd go further and remove the whole element of umpire's call from the game, and award any benefit of the doubt to the batsman. So for example, if a ball is shown to be merely clipping the stumps or borderline pitched outside the line, it should be not out. This would remove all sorts of discrepancies and inconsistencies in decision-making.

 

[MMHS]

I would also take DRS out of the hands of the players and give it to the umpires. It's become a tactical tool now more than anything else. I'd go further and remove the whole element of umpire's call from the game, and award any benefit of the doubt to the batsman. So for example, if a ball is shown to be merely clipping the stumps or borderline pitched outside the line, it should be not out. This would remove all sorts of discrepancies and inconsistencies in decision-making.

That's exactly what I am saying - "Umpire's call" means, some decision has been taken and they are judging if that was correct or not..... and then end up 48% correct or 58% in correct.

If the DRS is with umpires, there is no concern of %. Take today's call of Anjelo - Umpire was confident & gave it out at first sight, or he could have been doubtful about the height, therefore giving BoD to batsman - it should end there.

Another BIG problem is, for any review, they go full cycle - point of impact (line), pitch-map, snick, bat-pad, pad-bat on LBW, close catches ..... but Umpire might be confident in every aspect apart from one. Therefore, giving a batsman for one cause, when umpire might have declined for another one isn't fair.

Again take that Anjelo out - if not sure, Umpire'll call 3rd umpire and ask him to check (or show reply in his palm top) if the ball is too high or not. Similarly, for Mendis, I am sure Umpire ruled it Not out considering ball pitched outside leg - so, if he is not sure, he'll consult regarding the pitch map; or he'll decline the appeal - it ends there. Perera was unfortunate today, being given LBW probably with a faint inside edge, only because they lost their review by a whisker - this is not fair, justice is dependent here on availability of reviews at hand, Making 2, 3 ... X number of reviews don't solve the problem.

Technically, batsman is Out, not because he is Out, rather he is judged Out by Umpire, on the appeal of fielding side, adjudicated based on the cricket rules in good faith & without negligence - therefore, if an Umpire doesn't give plumb LBW, still one can't complain. Umpire should review only those decisions, where he is not sure if he is making a mistake on giving someone out, otherwise BoD should always go to batsman.

 

[ads101]

Take out second innings for teams and you'll see more upsets. The structure of test cricket is flawed. Maybe it worked in the past, but it isn't working now. The second innings not only makes the tests longer, but usually ensures that the stronger team/home team has more chance to correct mistakes if they slip up the first time. Weaker teams/away teams rarely come back second innings, usually the reverse happens. We saw it in the Eng vs India series too. And batting in the 4th innings when you're already down from 1st innings score is extremely difficult.

The ethos of the 2nd innings was to give batsmen a second chance to get acclimatised to the conditions, if it jumped them out the first time. But this is scarcely the case anymore. The 2nd innings is far harder, and more unpredictable.

Either remove the 2nd innings, or we've got to find a way to make it more important/viable. Atm it's propagating all the wrong things for cricket, it's making home advantage bigger, reduces possibility of upsets and allows teams to bat out for draws rather than going for wins. It does make for great viewing, you always get that odd test where 2nd innings is great to watch when it's close. But usually it's either just procedure, the game is mostly decided in the first innings anyway. Or it's a chance for the home team to get out of jail.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Take out second innings for teams and you'll see more upsets. The structure of test cricket is flawed. Maybe it worked in the past, but it isn't working now. The second innings not only makes the tests longer, but usually ensures that the stronger team/home team has more chance to correct mistakes if they slip up the first time. Weaker teams/away teams rarely come back second innings, usually the reverse happens. We saw it in the Eng vs India series too. And batting in the 4th innings when you're already down from 1st innings score is extremely difficult.

The ethos of the 2nd innings was to give batsmen a second chance to get acclimatised to the conditions, if it jumped them out the first time. But this is scarcely the case anymore. The 2nd innings is far harder, and more unpredictable.

Either remove the 2nd innings, or we've got to find a way to make it more important/viable. Atm it's propagating all the wrong things for cricket, it's making home advantage bigger, reduces possibility of upsets and allows teams to bat out for draws rather than going for wins. It does make for great viewing, you always get that odd test where 2nd innings is great to watch when it's close. But usually it's either just procedure, the game is mostly decided in the first innings anyway. Or it's a chance for the home team to get out of jail.

So what you're proposing is essentially a 2-day match with unlimited overs ?

You're advocating for the removal of one of the central tenets of test cricket, a contest over 4 innings, which has contributed massively to the things that make test cricket unique and special, i.e. the attrition, the ability to concentrate over 5 days, optionality (the option to strategize, plan, wait, and seize the initiative), the chance for redemption.

There has never been any dishonour in playing for a draw either, one of the game's biggest problems in this era is that teams don't know how to avoid defeat. A draw can be thrilling too. Just because the teams are mediocre in this era, you don't give up and consign the laws of the game to the scrap heap while proposing a solution wholly lacking in imagination. You have been watching the wrong game if you don't understand this.

 

[the_outsider]

Take out second innings for teams and you'll see more upsets. The structure of test cricket is flawed. Maybe it worked in the past, but it isn't working now. The second innings not only makes the tests longer, but usually ensures that the stronger team/home team has more chance to correct mistakes if they slip up the first time. Weaker teams/away teams rarely come back second innings, usually the reverse happens. We saw it in the Eng vs India series too. And batting in the 4th innings when you're already down from 1st innings score is extremely difficult.

The ethos of the 2nd innings was to give batsmen a second chance to get acclimatised to the conditions, if it jumped them out the first time. But this is scarcely the case anymore. The 2nd innings is far harder, and more unpredictable.

Either remove the 2nd innings, or we've got to find a way to make it more important/viable. Atm it's propagating all the wrong things for cricket, it's making home advantage bigger, reduces possibility of upsets and allows teams to bat out for draws rather than going for wins. It does make for great viewing, you always get that odd test where 2nd innings is great to watch when it's close. But usually it's either just procedure, the game is mostly decided in the first innings anyway. Or it's a chance for the home team to get out of jail.

There is a solution to this problem and it's a lot simpler than chopping test cricket in half.

Just do away with the toss. Let the visiting team decide whether to bat or bowl first.

That way home teams won't produce extreme wickets either.

Only downside is we might start to see more drawn matches again because teams will tend to produce flatter wickets, trying to ensure they don't lose at home, rather than go for outright wins.

 

[ads101]

So what you're proposing is essentially a 2-day match with unlimited overs ?

You're advocating for the removal of one of the central tenets of test cricket, a contest over 4 innings, which has contributed massively to the things that make test cricket unique and special, i.e. the attrition, the ability to concentrate over 5 days, optionality (the option to strategize, plan, wait, and seize the initiative), the chance for redemption.

There has never been any dishonour in playing for a draw either, one of the game's biggest problems in this era is that teams don't know how to avoid defeat. A draw can be thrilling too. Just because the teams are mediocre in this era, you don't give up and consign the laws of the game to the scrap heap while proposing a solution wholly lacking in imagination. You have been watching the wrong game if you don't understand this.

I don't see realistically tests changing. I'm just pointing out it's the second innings which causes the problems in test cricket people rant about. That's all. Realistically with the current system I see the same trend occurring, home teams are going to dominate again and again. Need to change the ranking system perhaps then, more points for away wins. See it more as a victory just to take games off home test sides.

Getting rid of the second innings you propose a quick fix to a lot of those issues. I don't think you necessarily take away the magic of test cricket either. You provide more emphasis and potentially interest to the first innings, while forsaking the potential exciting outcomes from second innings. It's a compromise. People go on about 5 days cricket and how exciting it is, but very few people watch the entire 5 days. And that's a problem.

Another solution would be to impose limited overs on each innings. Would make more teams go for wins, and stop a team batting a team out of a game so to speak (which often occurs in the 3rd innings). Maybe 90 overs each.

I don't believe that in tests current form it has the ability to compete with other sports or continue to bring in the crowds/numbers. In Australia and to some extent England (though IMO the sports dying as a whole in UK). But not the rest. Part of the problem is length, people don't have the time in the fast paced world to watch all 5 days. If somehow it could be shortened down to even 3 days so it could take place on the weekend, think you'd dramatically improve numbers/interest.

 

[ads101]

There is a solution to this problem and it's a lot simpler than chopping test cricket in half.

Just do away with the toss. Let the visiting team decide whether to bat or bowl first.

That way home teams won't produce extreme wickets either.

Only downside is we might start to see more drawn matches again because teams will tend to produce flatter wickets, trying to ensure they don't lose at home, rather than go for outright wins.

Think winning the toss is a little overrated in terms of importance. I think it's shown that the chances of you winning the match if you won the toss is still around 50:50. Only very slightly skewed towards toss victor. In fact think the probability of you winning is higher if you simply bat first than winning the toss. Which also goes to suggest is that perhaps people make quite a few wrong decisions when they win the toss, or sometimes mistakenly choose to bat second when they should have batted first.

I would mind implementing this idea and see if it works out. I think it's a good idea, the away team needs all the advantage it can get. But don't think it solves the home advantage problem too much, and you're right there is a disadvantage, home teams might produce flatter wickets, hoping the away team to slip up rather than risking finding themselves batting at the worst times in unfavourable conditions. I'm pretty sure getting rid of the second innings would have a far bigger impact on win/loss ratios.

And still doesn't solve the biggest issue. People are not inclined so much anymore to watch or have the time to watch 5 day cricket.