Why are five-day Tests with red balls and covered wickets sacrosanct?

[Junaids]

I am struggling to understand why world cricket is so reluctant to revitalise the premier form of the game when it is struggling so badly in Asia.

Test cricket now is not the game I grew up watching 40 years ago. In some ways it is better - better fielding and quicker scoring.

But scores are enormous and bowlers are slaves. I remember when a century was like taking 10 wickets in a Test - now it is like taking 3 wickets in an innings. I remember the rare instances of two batsmen scoring a century in an innings, whereas now it is commonplace.

I am not knocking modern players. But the modern formula does not work for viewers and spectators who have to go to school or work, and yet if we used the Packer SuperTest template from the 1970's we would have a much better product.

My main complaint is about the 5 day duration. People argue that it is needed to keep spinners in the game. But why? We had uncovered pitches for more than half of the lifetime of cricket, and spinners like Derek Underwood were lethal - more lethal - because of it.

Consider Pakistan's current 2 Test tour to New Zealand, as follows:

Arrival: Saturday 5 November
First Test: Thursday 17 to Monday 22 November
Second Test: Friday 25 to Tuesday 30 November
Departure: Wednesday 1 December

This could be so much more viewer-friendly!

How about:
Arrival: Thursday 2 November
Warm-up match: Friday 3 to Monday 6 November
First Day/Night Test: Thursday 10 to Sunday 14 November (4 days)
Second Day/Night Test: Thursday 17 to Sunday 21 November (4 days)
Third Day/Night Test: Thursday 24 to Sunday 28 November (4 days)
Departure: Monday 29 November

You get three Tests into the same length of tour, with 6 weekend days and 6 weekday evenings of cricket compared with the current model of 4 weekend days and 6 weekdays of cricket.

 

[Big Mac]

My main complaint is about the 5 day duration. People argue that it is needed to keep spinners in the game. But why? We had uncovered pitches for more than half of the lifetime of cricket, and spinners like Derek Underwood were lethal - more lethal - because of it.

Yeah, because drying pitches grip and turn miles so a medium pacer like Deadly becomes well, deadly.

You suggesting we should go back to uncovered pitches now?

 

[Junaids]

Yeah, because drying pitches grip and turn miles so a medium pacer like Deadly becomes well, deadly.

You suggesting we should go back to uncovered pitches now?

I'm suggesting that we do everything possible to ensure that games can be played over a weekend and the two evenings preceding it, and that we ensure the best chance of a result.

I think that the combination of covered pitches, huge bats and Kookaburra balls has horribly skewed the game towards the batsmen. I recall when Mike Atherton was considered to have had a very good Test career - in which he averaged 37.69 - while Gus Logie was a stalwart batsman of an ATG side and averaged 35.79, while his predecessor Larry Gomes averaged 39.

Above all, we have to stop hiding Test cricket in the middle of working days. It's a ludicrous thing to do.

 

[Hasan123]

Loool of course you will use Pakistan as an example but competley ignore your beloved England is arriving for a 5 match test series a week before the series starts.

 

[Big Mac]

I'm suggesting that we do everything possible to ensure that games can be played over a weekend and the two evenings preceding it, and that we ensure the best chance of a result.

I think that the combination of covered pitches, huge bats and Kookaburra balls has horribly skewed the game towards the batsmen. I recall when Mike Atherton was considered to have had a very good Test career - in which he averaged 37.69 - while Gus Logie was a stalwart batsman of an ATG side and averaged 35.79, while his predecessor Larry Gomes averaged 39.

Above all, we have to stop hiding Test cricket in the middle of working days. It's a ludicrous thing to do.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[shaz619]

Yeah, because drying pitches grip and turn miles so a medium pacer like Deadly becomes well, deadly.

You suggesting we should go back to uncovered pitches now?

Why are you guys so hostile towards Junaids, leave him alone! His threads and posts are the most thought provoking on PP

 

[anuk]

how many overs a day do you propose in a 4 day test [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]?

 

[Big Mac]

Why are you guys so hostile towards Junaids, leave him alone! His threads and posts are the most thought provoking on PP

That's not hostile, just examining his logic. It's like a maths test, you have to show your working to get full marks.

 

[Justcrazy]

Uncovered pitches would test the batsmen , it will be fun to see bowlers having a strong case in the matches.

 

[Junaids]

how many overs a day do you propose in a 4 day test [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]?

Here on the East Coast of Australia:

Session 1: 1300-1530: 33 overs
Session 2: 1600-1830: 33 overs
Session 3: 1900-2140: 34 overs

By playing Thursday, Friday, Saturday Sunday you ensure that the only 2 sessions of the match without a big crowd are Thursday and Friday Session 1.

Test cricket is my favourite format, but we can't keep on protecting a format hidden when nobody can watch.

It's so, so important to get the game played when people are free to watch it.

 

[Junaids]

Yeah, because drying pitches grip and turn miles so a medium pacer like Deadly becomes well, deadly.

You suggesting we should go back to uncovered pitches now?

I would cover pitches until the Test starts. I would then leave it completely uncovered for the 4 days of the Test match.

I'm actually hoping that with uncovered wickets we can reduce Tests into 3 day matches, over Friday, Saturday and Sunday. And that we can then introduce minimum 4 match Test series, which would be 12 days of cricket.

We would ask each country to nominate 3 icon series to be of 5 match duration, and play all other series as a minimum of 4 matches. All of them 3 day Tests on uncovered wickets.

Even a 5 Test series would be completed inside 31 days.

 

[Big Mac]

I would cover pitches until the Test starts. I would then leave it completely uncovered for the 4 days of the Test match.

I'm actually hoping that with uncovered wickets we can reduce Tests into 3 day matches, over Friday, Saturday and Sunday. And that we can then introduce minimum 4 match Test series, which would be 12 days of cricket.

We would ask each country to nominate 3 icon series to be of 5 match duration, and play all other series as a minimum of 4 matches. All of them 3 day Tests on uncovered wickets.

Even a 5 Test series would be completed inside 31 days.

Forget the scheduling, you're focussing on a minor issue when you're calling for 3 day tests with uncovered pitches. You plan to save test cricket by increasing the number of drawn games?

 

[Junaids]

Forget the scheduling, you're focussing on a minor issue when you're calling for 3 day tests with uncovered pitches. You plan to save test cricket by increasing the number of drawn games?

Why would I have more Drawn games? I am initially arguing for 4 Day Tests on uncovered pitches, which could LATER be reduced to 3 days if the number of draws is low enough.

Currently Test matches are scheduled for 450 overs, of which only 180 are when people can actually watch.

My proposal above was to play for 400 overs, of which 334 are when people can actually watch.

Kerry Packer was a much more intuitive cricket boss than the current lot. He just scheduled SuperTests for nighttime, threw the players a white ball and gave them 4 nights to play over.

 

[Big Mac]

Why would I have more Drawn games? I am initially arguing for 4 Day Tests on uncovered pitches, which could LATER be reduced to 3 days if the number of draws is low enough.

Currently Test matches are scheduled for 450 overs, of which only 180 are when people can actually watch.

My proposal above was to play for 400 overs, of which 334 are when people can actually watch.

Kerry Packer was a much more intuitive cricket boss than the current lot. He just scheduled SuperTests for nighttime, threw the players a white ball and gave them 4 nights to play over.

Allowing pitches to be covered until the start of the test means that they're going to be prepared the same way they currently are. By taking the fifth day out of proceedings you've eliminated the most difficult time to bat before the game even begins, making a draw more likely in a four day game.

Secondly, if the pitches are only going to be 'uncovered' once the game starts then when (not if) it rains in places like England and New Zealand we will have longer rain delays because it will take longer for the bowler's landing spots to dry and become playable.

So we're going to have the current flat tracks, with no tricky day five batting conditions and more time lost to rain.

Of course we're going to have a lot more drawn tests.

You've thrown out a bunch of disparate ideas that sound good on their own without stepping back to think how they work in conjunction with each other.

 

[MMHS]

Reduction of number of Days in Test will only make situation worse. I don't think, on an under prepared track, shorten matches will bring result, rather it'll increase more boredom. Here is my explanation -

First, nowhere in Asia, more than 7 hours of playing light is possible, in most places, at best 6.5 hours. Now days, teams hardly bowls 90 overs in 6 hours, therefore in a 4 day match, in Asia at least, I don't see more than 350 overs. May be in English summer, we can get 110 overs/day, but that will be physically extremely demanding - after all, modern players are human. They are not Cyborgs of 1920s, 30s, 40s & 50s - when the likes of Larwood, Voce, Truman, Tyson or Lindwal could bowl at 150KM speed, even on 5th spell, for sometimes a 35 overs workload in a day (In 1930s, average Test day had around 120 overs).

Second major problem is, whenever a side is in trouble, in a shorten game, they'll go for defensive cricket & at worst will go for time wasting. I can give a classic example of Tests in PAK during winter (one can check the recent FC scores as well) - at best 5.5 hours are possible in northern part & countless times, I have seen matches ending in draws for over losses to poor light - every time, whenever a team (mostly tourists) were in trouble, they went for 11 overs/hour until Umpires offered light. In a shorten Test, I see this happening more & more - the shorter the game, less time for making a come back, hence the side with disadvantage will go for safety first game from day 1. And, I am not even considering time loss for weather here.

But, more important issue is the thought process that shortening the game will encourage attacking cricket - NO, IT WON'T; even on rank turners or green tops. Reason is, on bowling friendly wickets, for a longer game, teams know that there is no way out, better go for positive game & try to win it. Recent Dhaka Test, BD batted at 5/over & I mentioned that several times - on that track, Test won't go to Day 5, better try to score runs until you get an unplayable one - England went exactly same way. Make it a 350 overs game, I am sure both teams would have gone for safety first game - even BD, it's better to lose 0-1 than 0-2.

What happens in FC games is that, there is point associated - no one is winner, if it's a draw. Standard point scoring system in Shefield shield was (not sure now) - win 6 points; lose 0 points; draw 2 points for the side with 1st innings lead; if both sides declare on 1st innings - 1 point each, regardless of the volume of 1st innings. In Counties, there was 16 bonus points for taking 9 or more wickets or scoring 300+ runs in 100 overs in first innings & 8 points for a direct win - no point for a draw.



In that context, often teams used to declare/forfeit innings for a direct result, in most matches. There are score cards like 302/6dec.; 243/4dec., 201/4dec - to set up a target of 260 in 70 overs - whoever wins, gets the winners points. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T COST MUCH FOR LOSING A GAME. In Test cricket, THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. For, that in Counties, we have seen jokes like 25 ball hundreds, teams bowling waste high full tosses with a feet over stepping to set a target, even forfeiting 2 innings for a result. In a shorten Test, that will never happen - we'll mostly see Captains setting 400 in 80 overs on Day 4; because it's not a FC match that loss doesn't matter.

Take this WACA Test - do we believe that, had it been 360 overs game, after 242 & 244; SAF would have gone crazy to put 450 in 100 overs to set 450 for Aussies to chase in last 125 - or even if so, Aussies would have obliged to go for all-out win or accept loss? I tell what would have happend if it was a 360 Overs Test - SAF would have batted at same tempo, first to make sure that they don't lose; then they would have declared at may be 400, setting 400 in 110 overs (or even less overs); Aussies would have batted first 50 overs to reach a total like 170/1, so that they can bat out next 60 in case of couple of quick wickets; may be if had they reached 303/3 in 90 overs, then they would have gone for the attack - but, then we would have seen the other ugly side, SAF bowling with 7 men on line & 1 foot outside off.

I have studied lots of Test score cards in different conditions for entire history - based on that, I can reconfirm that, best way to make Test matches more aggressive & entertaining is by increasing overs - take the draw out of equation; for limitation of overs, so that teams don't play survival game. Till 1940s, Test matches in AUS/SAF/WI were played till result (timeless Test), whereas in ENG, it was 3/4 days (360 to 480 overs) - one can check, the scoring rate in AUS was better simply because teams knew that slowing down won't save them from a defeat, but in ENG some of the most boring draws took place, when half a day is washed out. In 50s, they started to limit days in Test everywhere - Cricket was most boring in 50s & 60s - teams batted at 1.70 rate for 2 days to avoid defeat & play out overs; Captains set 9 men on line once batting side posted something like 450/3 - the simple reason is, they have done too well for us to win it from here, next best option is to play out time for a draw. One can check in CricInfo - several 5/6 Test series ended 1-0, 0-0, 1-0; even after 550 overs/Test between 1948 to 1975.

By the way, I don't agree with OP that in Olden/Golden days every wicket was a mine field. What Junaids is missing is to glorify the Sobers, Pollocks, Herveys or Comptons - he is taking out the credit of the bowlers. If all the wickets were mine field, then Truman, Laker, Benaud, Lindwal..... must have been dud ........ There were plenty, plenty of high scoring matches, in fact much more than now. Some of the best batsmen's batting record in 50s & 60s in "result" Test would be embarrassment for them - they maintained high career average through making money on high scoring draws.

Making under prepared tracks & shortening the game is not the solution - it'll make the game even more boring. On turners, team losing the toss, will start with 5 men on line, to make sure that batting first side doesn't score fast & goes for slogging to post a fast enough big score; then they'll bat to buy out time. Exactly the opposite on green tops - side being put into will try to buy out as much time as possible on 3rd innings (& waste time on 2nd innings, while bowling). Cricket, by trait is a game where bowlers will work hard to get 40 wickets, while batsmen will bat in a positive intent to dominate. If I were in charge, I would have made 2 changes in the game - 1st, 6.5 hours & 96 overs/day - at the end of the day, the number of overs short multiply with 5 & add as extra (penalty runs). Biggest enemy for Test cricket these days are decelerate time wasting & UAE type wickets - number of people in stands means nothing; it's not 1936 that one needs to go to stadium to follow a match or watch Bradman batting.

This thread started on a wrong note - in UK, 90% of the crowd in stands are pensioners; in Asia 90% young men follow Test cricket via net, wireless devices or TV. Only way we can keep the interest is playing the game in right spirit, on good wickets - duration is just a mental aspect - no one questions the duration of a movie, if the screenplay is engaging & the performance of the actors are great.

 

[USofA]

The problem with 5 day tests is the duration. That issue is still not fixed with changing it to 4 days. It will still be tough to hold people's attention for that amount days and that amount of hours during each day.

People have several choices/options to turn their attention away. An individuals attentions span is greatly reduced these days. It's the instant gratification world that we live in. Test cricket just cannot compete with that.

All of this does not bode well for advertisers. Which in turn affects the inflow of $$ into the game. Which is why you see the ICC and the boards meeting, discussing, press statements etc. on a Test championship for the past 5 years or so. But never actually doing anything. They have crunched the numbers and they just don't add up.

When the numbers add up, things get done in an instant. Case in point the T20 world cup and the revival of the Champions Trophy. But the test championship is still under "discussion".

So changing 5 days to 4 may change some things, it still will not bring sustained viewership over a period of time. We live in a different world now. Test cricket was invented in different era when people had a very different lifestyle.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] Good thread and must say I love reading your posts even though I generally do not agree with your opinion!!. I hope my responses add constructively to your thread.

about Un-Covered Pitches :

This concept was abandoned by the cricket administrators after they realized the lottery aspect of it when it rained. The pitches became unplayable for the unfortunate batting teams that found themselves batting after a rain break. It only took 100+ yrs for Cricket administrators to realize this ludicrous playing condition that was anything but fair. BTW this highlights everything I DONT like about cricket from the bygone era's. How can the powers that be ... be so oblivious to NOT realize how it changes the contest dramatically ? Just smacks of extreme amateur thought process for me.

The trick that you expect from using uncovered pitches is already done by DRS and fielding!! ( and as I type Warner has just been run out by some sensational fielding .. this would have been not out back in the 70s and 80s )

And I will use what Derek Underwood himself said on this topic:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/730237.html

Q: Out of those 297 wickets, there were 24 lbws. How do you think your stats would have changed with DRS?
DU: Oh, when I see some of the decisions that go in favour of the bowlers compared to our days - it really had to be knocking over middle halfway up. You see how Swanny's got so many left-handers' wickets with the one that's just held up.

Q: Is it swings and roundabouts, though, because Swanny wouldn't have bowled on uncovered pitches?
DU: This thing about uncovered pitches was a fallacy in lots of ways. We might get on one or two during the course of a season, maximum. There were wet summers, but you couldn't get on the bloody pitch at all then!

If uncovered pitches are used today then rest assured that the fast bowlers would send a few batsmen to the hospital as they bowl much much faster these days than they did back then.

The issue here is you have a very poor opinion about modern day Test Cricket. You don't rate SRT for crying out loud and yet you think Athers had a decent career !!

Anyhow when I have some time I will explain why IMHO cricket is far better today than it was in the 70s.

 

[jeetu]

[utube]bNV8LJX1Pms[/utube]
Pitches like these are dangerous.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] - an important component of my vision is having a standardised series length and an allocation of points which encourages risk-taking and aggressive declarations.

My suggestion is WON TEST 10 points, DRAWN TEST 2 or 3 points, LOST TEST 0 points.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] - believe me, I rate Sachin much higher than Athers. I just don't think he was as great as Indians think he was.

Part of the problem is this. American sport - which includes the IPL model with salary caps - inherently involves even contests.

But British sports - including international football - are not so equal, and the current Test cricket model condemns most teams to endless away defeats.

My points system for Tests encourages bold declarations - some of which will backfire. It also caps each First Innings at 110 overs, so the game can't fizzle out into a one-sided contest too early.

And the lottery of uncovered wickets further increases the possibility of upsets.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] - believe me, I rate Sachin much higher than Athers. I just don't think he was as great as Indians think he was.

Not just Indians ... he is rated everywhere. Including the most famous one of them all - Bradman.
If Athers had a Very good career avging 37 surely the guy avging 58 in the same time period must be a ATG ... right ? BTW Athers managed ONE measely 100 vs Aus (the best side of that time) compared to 11 by SRT and at a avg difference of more than 25 !!

And the lottery of uncovered wickets further increases the possibility of upsets.

That goes against the basic tenets / requirements of all professional sport - i.e even playing field. Nobody would sign up for that. Why ? Because an important series tied at 2-2 could be decided based upon when it rained rather than cricketing skills. As I said the usage of un-covered pitches only highlights how un-professional cricket was back in the day and how they have managed to spin it as though it was the best thing since sliced bread and that only real men could bat on them and so on and so forth.


BTW 9/10 ICC member countries don't even accept the lottery of traditional umpiring without DRS.

 

[AnasK]

Test cricket should not be tweaked at all.
IMO these steps would be best:

• Standardize the bat size.
• Use Duke's ball.
• No coin tosses. Away team decides what to do.
• Standardize the pitch conditions that does not give full advantage to either bat and ball with allowing curators to give little advantage to the home team.
• No D/N tests.

Fans who love Test cricket would still watch. And I don't think making 4 days would ensure that fans would return. 4 days and we'll see more matches resulting in draw and that's where it frustrate fans. Even contest between bat and ball can give a hope for us to attract the fans back.

Test cricket should remain traditional, ICC should just ensure making even contest between bat and ball.

 

[Tusker]

The reason why I feel Cricket is more watchable than it ever used to be in the 70s is because :

1. Almost double the no.of competitive sides than there were in the 70s and 80s. BD showing very good signs !!
2. Fielding ( Better fitness levels and better athletes playing now than ever before )
3. Higher intensity , faster bowlers , better spinners and positive batting. As a result draw % has reduced significantly.
4. Neutral Umpires + DRS ( Frankly I never thought I would see the day when ICC would even think about letting the players question umpires verdict that too on live TV !!. That is such a huge step forward !! Dave Richardson deserves a lot of credit for his tireless efforts )
5. Internet. Makes it easier for fans to be ever more closely involved with the game than say in the 70s. Back then a newspaper article the next day was the only way to find out what happened in a Test match played in far off countries that did not involve India. So for a match played in WI which is 9 hrs behind Indian timezone the newspaper would have only highlights till lunch or tea. You would have to wait for the following day to find out what happened. Even for matches involving India radio commentary was the only option but impractical considering the TZ difference. Today there is DVR and Cricinfo and other ways to catch up.
6. Overall Professionalism on and off the field. For the first time ever people can consider Cricket as a proper profession from which they can make a living even if they don't get to represent their country. This is huge !!
7. Highly superior quality of TV coverage. Just amazing how you can even get to watch the Seam of the ball and the exact spot where it landed on the pitch and how many degrees of movement. Incredible!

Areas for improvement :

1. Standardize Playing conditions including mainly boundary sizes, bat and balls manufacturing.
2. The curators of all Test grounds should fall under ICC.
3. ICC should be in-charge of Cricket broadcast especially the commentary teams. Must develop an elite panel of impartial TV Commentators whose only interest should be for the betterment of the game and keep the fans interested. Cronies like Shastry's and Gavaskars need to be replaced by better skilled commentators.
4. Test Championship ! This is the most important thing
5. Improve the formula for Ranking. Cant believe it doesnt take into account away wins.
6. Allow fringe players from Top Nations to play Test cricket for Associate and other minnow nations.

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] - an important component of my vision is having a standardised series length and an allocation of points which encourages risk-taking and aggressive declarations.

My suggestion is WON TEST 10 points, DRAWN TEST 2 or 3 points, LOST TEST 0 points.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] - believe me, I rate Sachin much higher than Athers. I just don't think he was as great as Indians think he was.

Part of the problem is this. American sport - which includes the IPL model with salary caps - inherently involves even contests.

But British sports - including international football - are not so equal, and the current Test cricket model condemns most teams to endless away defeats.

My points system for Tests encourages bold declarations - some of which will backfire. It also caps each First Innings at 110 overs, so the game can't fizzle out into a one-sided contest too early.

And the lottery of uncovered wickets further increases the possibility of upsets.

Point system won't encourage teams to play positively when odds are against. Teams that has the advantage will always force the issue when they have their nose ahead. But, it's always better to have 1 point for a draw than 0 for a loss. In a 4 Day Test, I can bet- you put 100 points for a win & 1 for a draw; teams facing 352/3 after Day 1; will start 2nd morning with 4 men on line & 12 overs/hour. While, the batting side also won't declare at 423/7 half an hour before lunch on Day 2, just to bring the fielding in the game, so that they play positively. It doesn't work that way boss - whatever point you give, Test match performance will be determined by Win/Loss & teams behind won't make it easy for the dominating side to force the result.

I understand the issue of duration, but Cricket is a game, by it's trait is long. Even T20 is 4 hours long, apart from few Baseball games, no other game is that long. You can't shorten the game, without changing the fundamentals of the game - may be, we can make a type of "Test Cricket" with 4 innings of 20 overs, in a Day - still it's a 8 hours game. The game is beautiful as it is - we can complain regarding the duration, but, unless we make it 5 overs each for 4 innings, it'll not be a 2 hours game like Soccer or Basketball; hence I won't even go that way. Rather, I'll make the game stronger based on the fundamentals of the game - a balanced contest between bat & ball & enough time to write an epic.


Also, you didn't comment anything on the 1st part of my post - do you think, it'll be helpful for the game in Asia, with 4 days of 90 overs each & 90% matches going in to safe mood from Day 2? There is nothing between 4 or 5 days, absolutely nothing. Those who watches/follows for 4 days, I am sure they won't mind an extra day. Those who complains for 5 days, I am sure they will do the same, even for 3 days, as the fundamentals of the game doesn't entice them.

Uncovered wickets NEVER & I repeat NEVER brings uncertainty in the game, in an uneven contest. Let me take you to history - from 1876 to early 1950s, Test matches were played on uncovered wickets - show me a single match, where NZ, SAF, WI or IND had beaten ENG/AUS for the uncertainty. It's not like an underdog had beaten the superior side because of a couple of hours shower. There were great matches between ENG-AUS on uncovered wickets, which are still there in even contest on covered wickets.

The game is perfect as it's played now, as long as we can avoid UAE like tracks. I'll just make 2 changes as I mentioned - 96 overs/day & establish that unless one bowls less than 96 overs in 6.5 hours, they pay in terms of something that cost them the match. These bull sh!t of fine & ban for Over rate doesn't work much. 2nd one is, I'll bring back the 6 Day Test like Olden days, when the Series is active. That's in any series, as long as the last match is going with maximum 1 Test gap (0-0, 1-1, 2-2, 0-1, 1-2, 2-3) - there will be one extra day, so that we have a definite Result in the last Test. This will make sure that, the last Test doesn't become a shambles, with one team trying to play out 5 days.