It's all in the name?

[GVGjr]

I see there is a push to reduce Test cricket to a 4 day encounter rather it current 5 days.
There is a real chance this could happen as supporters all around the world prefer shorter format sport

Being a person who appreciates the traditions of sport I would find this a difficult adjustment and I'd have to question if Test cricket as we know it might be better called a Challenge. 5 days are a test, 4 days would be more if a challenge in my opinion.

So would you prefer it to be a 4 day encounter or stick with it as a 5 day match?

[Twodogs]

Re: It's all in the name?

I see there is a push to reduce Test cricket to a 4 day encounter rather it current 5 days.
There is a real chance this could happen as supporters all around the world prefer shorter format sport

Being a person who appreciates the traditions of sport I would find this a difficult adjustment and I'd have to question if Test cricket as we know it might be better called a Challenge. 5 days are a test, 4 days would be more if a challenge in my opinion.

So would you prefer it to be a 4 day encounter or stick with it as a 5 day match?

For what it worth the players they have surveyed are totally against it.


I really don't like the idea. Test cricket is all about applied pressure and you need time to do that.

[jeemak]

Re: It's all in the name?

I think that it's important that in these types of scenarios fans are given a bit of insight and transparency to the true drivers behind the push to make such changes. Unfortunately the transparency never comes and the insights are often opinion driven more so than evidence driven and fans on either side of the debate are left without adequate information.

A couple of days ago I read that a fairly large percentage of tests don't go to five days when a result is achieved, and this is part of the main driver for the change (I assume this means that commercially it all falls apart or at least severely penalises administrators). Working on the assumption that home teams win most of these matches, I propose consideration is given to scrapping the toss and allowing the visiting team to choose whether it bats or fields, with the home team preparing the pitch any way it chooses.

I think this would result in more games going the distance.

[GVGjr]

Re: It's all in the name?

Thanks Jeemak, I did read the same but the likes of boxing matches are scheduled for 10 rounds or more and rarely go the distance but when they do, it's normally a great contest especially for the purist supporter of the sport. Grand Slam Tennis games are scheduled for 5 sets for the men with a minimum of 3 guaranteed. The UFC has title and main event fights scheduled for 5 rounds so it's not like Test cricket is all on it's own for having a contest that is scheduled to go further than what it might actually achieve

I think there are some real challenges with the proposal in that I can see teams going ultra defensive if they don't think they can win plus there might be less reasons to play spin bowlers

Regarding the toss of the coin, I agree there appears to be too much of an advantage to the team that wins it but perhaps a solution might be to allow the team that lost the toss the opportunity to adjust their starting 11.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: It's all in the name?

No. It's all in the hips.

[westdog54]

Re: It's all in the name?

I must confess, when I saw mention of the proposal the first place I came was here.

It is an idea that is purely money driven. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a horrendous idea.

If you want four day cricket, by all means call it something else, perhaps an 'international first class' match, but test cricket is test cricket. It is a test of discipline, stamina, teamwork and tactics, and reducing the length of the game for the sake of saving dollars undermines those principles.

[hujsh]

Re: It's all in the name?

I see there is a push to reduce Test cricket to a 4 day encounter rather it current 5 days.
There is a real chance this could happen as supporters all around the world prefer shorter format sport

Being a person who appreciates the traditions of sport I would find this a difficult adjustment and I'd have to question if Test cricket as we know it might be better called a Challenge. 5 days are a test, 4 days would be more if a challenge in my opinion.

So would you prefer it to be a 4 day encounter or stick with it as a 5 day match?

Shorter as in, "I can watch this after work one night and see the whole match." Four days is still 4 whole days of cricket so I can't see anyone saying, "Well I wasn't interested because I just couldn't commit 5 days to watching the match but 4 is much more manageable."

[Bornadog]

Re: It's all in the name?

Tests are 5 days and should remain 5 days. Why do we need to change tradition?

[Twodogs]

Re: It's all in the name?

Tests are 5 days and should remain 5 days. Why do we need to change tradition?

Yeah I agree with you therte.


I don't see what the difference is between 4 or 5 days. I think that if you are going to put 4 days aside to watch a sporting contest then 5 days isn't going to be a problem. One of the things that concerns me is that test matches will only get results when captain's declare. English captains' already typically are far too conservative when it comes to closing innings and I can see them trying for a 1-0 lead early in a series and then just holding on to the lead by batting for 3 days for the rest of the series.

What I would really despise is some sort of artificial li9it on the amount of overs in an innings. I am worried that test cricket will become a 4 x 100 over innings type of match. That would take the best game in the world and totally ruin it for me.

[hujsh]

Re: It's all in the name?

What I would really despise is some sort of artificial li9it on the amount of overs in an innings. I am worried that test cricket will become a 4 x 100 over innings type of match. That would take the best game in the world and totally ruin it for me.

That's a horrible horrible Horrible idea.

Would you like a job at the AFL?