Oh shit......test cricket is f*cked

But that would hopefully be countered by better pitches. Currently, most matches last for 420 to 430 overs on flat pitches. Let's say we get 400 to 420 overs over four days with more sporting pitches - a better quality of cricket may be possible. Not that I would like 4 day Tests, I just think it is achievable if it's done correctly.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:But that would hopefully be countered by better pitches. Currently, most matches last for 420 to 430 overs on flat pitches. Let's say we get 400 to 420 overs over four days with more sporting pitches - a better quality of cricket may be possible. Not that I would like 4 day Tests, I just think it is achievable if it's done correctly.

Yeah, possibly, though then you're relying on individual groundsmen and individual governing bodies to play along. Unless sanctions are brought in by the ICC. Which will be tough to adhere to.

Test Match pitches, in order to make them competitive, would probably require neutral groundsman. The problem there would be the loss of individuality. The problem, as you say, will always be enforcement of quality. There's little chance of turning up on the sub-continent and finding anything other than a road that will turn come days four and five. West Indian pitches are now terribly flat too.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Test Match pitches, in order to make them competitive, would probably require neutral groundsman. The problem there would be the loss of individuality. The problem, as you say, will always be enforcement of quality. There's little chance of turning up on the sub-continent and finding anything other than a road that will turn come days four and five. West Indian pitches are now terribly flat too.

It's doubtful that there could ever be neutral groundsmen, especially in this country. Though, by and large, I feel that our pitches need less work than most. The only way to enforce a better quality of pitch would be very harsh fines from an ICC employee's subjective opinion - unless there's a panel, but I expect that would take too long.

Anyway, it's incredibly doubtful that India(one of the worst offenders) would get on board for that. That means the world wouldn't.

The BCCI 'globalising' our pitches was the worst thing they did in the last 20 years, and that is saying something. They gave in to the foreign sooking. Our pitches were pretty good before that, except for perhaps a few instances. They had support for the pacers and spinners at different points of time in the match, and were pretty good for batsmen as well except for the 5th day. So they didn't bounce as much, big ****** deal.

Also, these ideal scenarios in support of 4 day matches are as necessary in 5 day matches. And they are as likely to be enforced in 4 day matches as they are now.

doremi wrote:The BCCI 'globalising' our pitches was the worst thing they did in the last 20 years, and that is saying something. They gave in to the foreign sooking. Our pitches were pretty good before that, except for perhaps a few instances. They had support for the pacers and spinners at different points of time in the match, and were pretty good for batsmen as well except for the 5th day. So they didn't bounce as much, big ****** deal.

Also, these ideal scenarios in support of 4 day matches are as necessary in 5 day matches. And they are as likely to be enforced in 4 day matches as they are now.

Spot on Dozza, I'm in agreement.

I don't have a problem with day night tests but why make tests 4 days? I would almost go the other direction and make it longer so that it is harder for teams to play for a draw. But 5 days are fine. Someone who is not going to watch test cricket because its 5 days aren't going to start to watching it if it is 4 days.

Can I be the cynical one and suggest that 4 day tests allow more room in the calendar for IPL/T20?

Therefore, banindia

doremi wrote:The BCCI 'globalising' our pitches was the worst thing they did in the last 20 years, and that is saying something. They gave in to the foreign sooking. Our pitches were pretty good before that, except for perhaps a few instances. They had support for the pacers and spinners at different points of time in the match, and were pretty good for batsmen as well except for the 5th day. So they didn't bounce as much, big ****** deal.

Not so sure about that: I reckon England in 1976/77 were the first side to be succesful in India with fast bowlers (Willis, Lever, Old) Before that, the seamer's duty was to take the shine off for the spinners. Your pitches after (say) 1980 offered a better balance between spin and seam - entirely due to the emergence of Kapil Dev.

The only problem with them now - like most other pitches around the world is that they are too damn slow - designed to make games last into the fifth day to maximise revenue at the ground.

Agree.

The best cricket is usually on pitches with decent bounce - it allows batsmen to make runs and aids both seamers and spinners alike.

this is such carp turning the buetiful game of test cricket into a 4 day domestic sort of game

sean wrote:this is such carp turning the buetiful game of test cricket into a 4 day domestic sort of game

It could be argued that playing four day tests against Bangladesh, for example, would work as it saves a wasted day more often than not.

This thread is a bit anal by the sound of it.

I was going to say get rid of the ropes but a quicl look at the stats says tonkers have been tonkers since tests began.

Over rates need to be seriously looked at. I knew they were bad but I checked hayden and Lara's WR scores against Bradmans. Hayden took 437 balls to reach 380 whilst Bradman took 448 to reach 334. But Bradman's took only 383 minutes compared to 622 for Hayden.

Forget fining the skipper, start adding runs for every over they fall behind every hour.

Bowlers' run-ups, if anything seem to be shorter now than they used to be. (Anyone remember Willis, Lillee and Hall in their pomp?) and yet over rates are funereal now when compared with 20 - 30 years ago and they were none too flash then.

Adding runs per over lost in a full day's play is the only way to cure it. Fines and bans won't work.

I blame all the drinks/ad breaks and TV replays.

MB's idea of delaying the session break until the overs are bowled is the best idea I've heard. The fielders would be running between overs to ensure they get the full overs bowled.

Invader Zim wrote:MB's idea of delaying the session break until the overs are bowled is the best idea I've heard. The fielders would be running between overs to ensure they get the full overs bowled.

They run now (or at least trot). The biggest problem is interminable discussions about field placing - often used as a mind-game exrecise rather than for any tactical purpose.

I don't know about that. The skipper's don't give a shit about when they eat lunch. They'll just fark around and throw two part imers in at the end of the day. The West Indies of the Eighties and Nineties could well have lost a few more series if they were docked runs for slow over rates. One in particular comes to mind.

CA is lukewarm on the idea of four day tests but is amenable to day/night proposal.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-sport/sutherland-bats-away-fourday-test-idea-20090701-d54f.html

If they're going to have 2 divisions for tests which has also been mentioned by the ICC, then i'd suggest that it will be those games that are 4 days, and not the top division games.

Bradman wrote:I was going to say get rid of the ropes but a quicl look at the stats says tonkers have been tonkers since tests began.

Over rates need to be seriously looked at. I knew they were bad but I checked hayden and Lara's WR scores against Bradmans. Hayden took 437 balls to reach 380 whilst Bradman took 448 to reach 334. But Bradman's took only 383 minutes compared to 622 for Hayden.

Forget fining the skipper, start adding runs for every over they fall behind every hour.

Runs penalties is the obvious solution. But it needs to be part of a wider plan ie.

* Appoint a neutral ICC-approved timekeeper for each test

* Lift the Required Over Rate to 17 overs per hour with time off for:
- Third Umpire Decisions
- Stoppages initiated by the batting side
- Stoppages prolonged by the batting side
- Injuries that require treatment
- Change of batsman

* Assess the fielding side's total over-rate for the innings after four hours of adjusted time
- Fielding side concedes 10 penalty runs for every over short

* Assess the fielding side's total over-rate for the innings every hour (of adjusted time) after that
- Fielding side concedes 10 penalty runs for every over short

* Umpires may dismiss a batsman for time-wasting or general slow play provided they have already issued that batsman with an official warning

* Umpires may add 10 minutes to the fielding side's time limit provided they have issued the batting side with an official warning for time-wasting or general slow play



The only thing in the above blueprint that needs to be refined is a strict definition of "stoppages". But it would generally apply to things like equipment changes and the like.

Once time off is taken into account 17 overs per hour would probably work out to be 15 overs for every 60 minutes of play - something that is easily doable.

Unless the penalties are harsh and immediate we will continue to see slow play ruining the game.

That's complicated.

Just put up a countdown clock at the ground for the bowler to have started his run up by. If the batsman's not ready then, too bad. If the bowler's late, then one run penalty every delivery he's late. Allow a longer countdown if the batsmen change ends. And perhaps a captain's time out once per over, where an extra 30 seconds can ge given to change field placings.

And Richie Benaud's suggestion that only the bowler is allowed to shine the ball would be worth a try. It'll get the ball back to him faster.

FFS, take the time between the Umpires calling over and apportion the time to the bowlers. Allow so much time for each over to be bowled and fine the bowler 5% of his match fee for each slow over.

That will get the fields set quicker.

Basil wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:MB's idea of delaying the session break until the overs are bowled is the best idea I've heard. The fielders would be running between overs to ensure they get the full overs bowled.

They run now (or at least trot). The biggest problem is interminable discussions about field placing - often used as a mind-game exrecise rather than for any tactical purpose.

So what's wrong with turning the floodlights on to ensure completion of the allocated overs in the day?
Within reason of course!
Most test venues are equipped with them - so why not use them.

Running around between overs in 40 dec C heat and humidity on the sub continent ain't as easy as it sounds.
FFS bowling the overs themselves must be bloody painful in itself.

And what if, elsewhere, like say in England, rain interruptions occur say 3 times between sessions ...

Too many unknown factors to consider ... so floodlights seems the best answer.