Timeless Tests - the comeback

It would appear that the ICC in its infinite wisdom is considering making the test championship final in 2013 - a timeless test. I think there will be some very knackered bowlers if that comes to pass.

Play ten bowlers.

If the test is played at Lord's, there will be all sorts of tent pitching and flight cancellations.

I think it's all bullshoite. If neither side can force a win in five days, then they don't deserve to win.

Gorblimey. What're they going to bring back next, an XI plays an XV? Single wicket? Lumpy Stevens?

A more serious point: in this day and age what must be taken into consideration, won't it be a marketing and TV-scheduling nightmare? Come and watch the Test, starts on the 18th... finishes, well, we don't know when. From the marketing point of view, I thought they wanted Test cricket to be 'less boring'? Surely if a team can just deadbat for two days to get 500, that's a damned sight worse?

I'd be for it .

They should also make a rule stating that no player is allowed to shave once the test has started until the test is complete. If the test is still deadlocked and travel plans are in danger of being affected, the winning team will be judged by the player with the best beard, with redheads automatically disqualified.

they can do it like the world xi test - 6 days. and instead of making it timeless they should be trying to make sure the pitch is a good one. that takes care of everything

Basil wrote:I think it's all bullshoite. If neither side can force a win in five days, then they don't deserve to win.

What about rain? And also someone has to win the whole thing, if a draw leads to it being awarded to one side then that side will play for a draw.

I suppose there's a few alternatives - a bowl-out or Champagne Super Over, tossing a coin or paper-stone-scissors etc... or an ICC vote that would make sure it was India (even if they weren't actually in the final to begin with).

I think that all is lacking in many Tests is a good cricket wicket, as TO said. Bit of pace and bounce. Something for everyone. Too dead or to a lesser extent too lively a pitch and it gets a bit snooze. Surely too long a game just gets silly?

beamer wrote:

Basil wrote:I think it's all bullshoite. If neither side can force a win in five days, then they don't deserve to win.

What about rain? And also someone has to win the whole thing, if a draw leads to it being awarded to one side then that side will play for a draw.

I suppose there's a few alternatives - a bowl-out or Champagne Super Over, tossing a coin or paper-stone-scissors etc... or an ICC vote that would make sure it was India (even if they weren't actually in the final to begin with).

The rain is easy to sort. Play it indoors.

Or just don't play it in Wales.

You could set seven days aside for the game - the extra two being utilised if weather intervenes.

Basil wrote:You could set seven days aside for the game - the extra two being utilised if weather intervenes.

With scheduling how it is, I don't see how that'll be possible. That means you'd have to plan 3 series Tests two days each further apart. That's nearly a week. A long time in cricketing tour terms.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Basil wrote:You could set seven days aside for the game - the extra two being utilised if weather intervenes.

With scheduling how it is, I don't see how that'll be possible. That means you'd have to plan 3 series Tests two days each further apart. That's nearly a week. A long time in cricketing tour terms.

I was only thinking in terms of the test championship final.

Ah, right. Yeah, the final would definitely have to have a result. A silly idea though, this championship. They're talking about 1 or 2 match 'series'. How many muggings are going to take place by virtue of lack of practice in the conditions. It's evidenced most times India has a home series of that length - bang, bang, see ya.

All Tests played in Australia between the two World Wars were "timeless" and there was not a single drawn match. The last 'timeless' Test played in England was the 5th Test between England and Australia at The Oval in August 1930 which Australia won by an innings and 30 runs. It was played over 6 days although the fifth day was completely lost to rain.

6-day Tests were played in England, also at The Oval, in 1972 (which Australia won by 5 wickets to level the series) and 1975 (which was drawn). The "timeless" Test between the West Indies and England at Sabina Park lasted 9 days from 3-12 April 1930 although the last two days were lost to rain (the England captain, Calthorpe, declined to enforce the follow-on despite having a 563-run first innings lead).

The final Test of the 1938-9 series between South Africa and England at Durban lasted 10 days from 3-14 March 1939 with the 8th day being lost to rain. Both Tests had to be abandoned as draws due to the shipping schedules requiring the England team to return home (at Durban England were 42 runs short of victory with 5 second-innings wickets still standing having been set 696 to win).

Actual playing time in the Durban Test was 43 hours and 16 minutes with 1981 runs having been scored and 35 wickets having fallen. The longest Test to be played to a positive result was the 5th Test between Australia and England at the MCG which was played over 8 days between 8-16 March (1 rest day) 1929 and which Australia won by 5 wickets (their only victory of the series).

vilkrang wrote:I'd be for it .

Me too, we mostly deride the shorter forms of the game so it would be interesting to see them revert to a longer form.

However, by 2013 everyone will be so T20ed they will have no idea how to approach a timeless test and it will be over in 3 days.

And knowing the ICC, they will schedule a TT and produce a raging greentop

excellent idea Petey...we need to bring these matches back to fire up some enthusiasm

PeterCS wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Gorblimey. What're they going to bring back next, an XI plays an XV? Single wicket? Lumpy Stevens?

or ....

What a thing.

I like to think W Barnes (absent hurt) was really just off having a sneaky tab.

Ya gotta wonder if they might start toying with the idea of limited overs test matches. Maybe 225 overs per team over the course of the game. It would be a worry if they did bring something like that in as the option of the draw has provided many of the most exciting moments in test history.

PeterCS wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Gorblimey. What're they going to bring back next, an XI plays an XV? Single wicket? Lumpy Stevens?

or ....

Obviously the Smokers ran out of puff!