Is test cricket's time up?

Since I've been a fan of cricket, from a boy and i am 41 now, i've had test matches several shelves above the 50 over stuff and certainly a storey or three over the 20 over sprint. But the stories i'm hearing of test cricket dying without big changes make sense to me finally. Firstly any sport lasting the thick end of a week needs a winner. We get far too many draws still and the ridiculous suggestion of 4 day games will ensure even more no-goal snores, so to speak. In football, rugby U and L, American football, they play in the rain. Not only do cricketers head for the stands when it rains but even the first bit of poor light and they're off. What the actual chuff is that all about? Put the lights on ferchrisake. They are there for a reason so use them. People are paying good money to watch test cricket and to stop play when the lights are there is pathetic beyond belief. We live in an age where a shopping hatchback can turn a midnight country lane into virtual daylight so why wouldn't 200 or however many modern arena lights enable play to go on? For the first time ever i now get more satisfaction watching a 20 or 50 over game and friends at work who follow and play the game thought this way long before i did. If test matches die off in a big way it'll be the authorities to blame. Get more playing time, via more overs per day, let's have a new ball every 70 overs and let's get 90% of tests ending with a winner. Start at 10 not 11 and finish at 7 if need be. 100 overs per day minimum. Fines in runs for overs not bowled unless the match official deemed exceptional circumstances (15 wickets falling in a day, on-field injury, etc.) Liven this bloody game up and do it now. Ban sledging altogether. In a world where you can be jailed for mentioning someone's sexuality in the wrong way it can't be right saying the things that get said currently on the field of play. Rant over, well almost. I know there are some feisty and long-serving cricket nuts here and many will disagree with me but that's fine, 50 people will generally produce 20 or so slightly different views on these things so hey ho. Happy Easter Monday, Durham has gloomy and wet bank holiday skies today..

There’s not many draws anyway these days. Draws aren’t the problem, if anything it’s the lack of potential for a draw that’s ruining the game - as I said elsewhere, most are over as a contest by end of day 2.

Aa for how you ban sledging, unless you enforce silence on the field every “sledge” has to be judged on its own merits. Obviously anything racist etc. should lead to a long ban. If players get excessively personal, they should be prepared for a bit of pushing and shoving or the bowling of a beamer etc. in response. It’s up to the umpires/match referees to step in before we get baseball-style brawls. Standards should be similar to football, with red and yellow cards issued.

no

What Lardy wrote. In 9 Oz matches this summer here and Boerville there has been one draw. Admittedly no close results but both series have been satisfing, with some grat bowling and batting. I enjoy watching good quicks ply their trade and good batsmen finding a way to score.

If they play Tests like SA are doing now- going on and on despite being so far ahead in the game, yeah sure time's going to be up pretty rapidly.

Well for my sins i see the shorter forms getting the crowds and money more and more. Test cricket has to modernise or die for me. The England team so desperate for a win these days needed to get the full overs yesterday and yet the they left the field rather than turn the effing lights on. Sorry but that's crazy when people pay a lot of dosh to see action. Have lights will use.

Wot a croc.

Point proven. Bore draw for England almost a certainty as i write, when simple and sensible changes would have ensured that the better team during the game won. Put the lights on, they are there for a reason. Why stop play? Further, 4 days would have meant this game was as good as drawn after 2 days' play. Tests are a dying thing (as agreed by many former top players by the way) and people need to realise it.

Bradman wrote:Wot a  croc.

So you agree with the lights going on but players coming off, maybe during an exciting and tense match? Each to their own but nobody in the crowds i have sat with agree with you, not a single one of them.
As far as sledging is concerned, it should be banned totally. Batting is effectively an individual sport and there is no difference between putting a batsman off when facing a delivery than gabbing as a snooker player lines up a long black or a darts player steps forward to take our double 18. it is unsportsmanlike and it is wrong. The fielders should keep their mouths firmly shut when a player is facing. Other sports would ban players who deliberately put off a player so cricket should be no different.

whitburn wrote:Point proven. Bore draw for England almost a certainty as i write, when simple and sensible changes would have ensured that the better team during the game won.  Put the lights on, they are there for a reason. Why stop play? Further, 4 days would have meant this game was as good as drawn after 2 days' play. Tests are a dying thing (as agreed by many former top players by the way) and people need to realise it.

Some valid points but this is scarcely a bore draw.

Good morning Mr T, ok it ended up tense-ish but my point i suppose is that we need to do far more to get the overs in, would you agree? We lose far too many overs, some we can't avoid as is the nature of the game (snow/heavy rain) but we could get many more in by starting early every day, using the lights they paid a fortune to get installed and insisting teams bowl the required amount or be docked runs for time wasting, which it is, effectively. Footballers are booked for time wasting and we need to do whatever it takes to get 100 or at least 95 overs bowled per day for the paying fan.

Bore draw? Troll alert.

I'm prepared to wear the lights. But you name me one short form match that was memorable outside of a world ccup.

Bradman wrote:I'm prepared to wear the lights.  But you name me one short form match that was memorable outside of a world ccup.

438 game. Wanderers

Just proves how much of a batsman's game it has become.

Going to the funeral taips?

Bradman wrote:Just proves how much of a batsman's game it has become.  

Going  to the funeral taips?

Unfortunately work precludes that.

Hehehe u

Anyway, I can enjoy the shorter formats in moderation, but most of it outside the global tournaments is meaningless. And I’ve got absolutely no interest in the franchise T20 stuff. Probably will take a passing interest in the forthcoming English version, but only because the teams will represent cities fairly local to me.

If top level cricket only consisted of the shorter formats I don’t think it would rank in my top 5 sports to watch/follow.

T20 is shit, end of story.

It produces no memorable performances and reduces bowling to a chore, bowlers to the servants of swaggering six sluggers.

Agree with the above, despite the poster.

Agree - T20 is crass.

For me, however, where it has improved the overall game, has been in greatly improving the fielding.
There's nowt more exhilarating than watching some of the 'almost certain' sixes being turned into spectacular catches.

Merlin wrote:Agree  - T20 is crass.

For me, however, where it has improved the overall game, has been in greatly improving the fielding.
There's nowt more exhilarating than watching some of the 'almost certain' sixes being turned into spectacular catches.

What are sixes?

The English dictionary - definition of sixes.

1. The cardinal number equal to 5 + 1.
2. The sixth in a set or a sequence.
3. Something having six parts, units, or members.
4. In cricket, the number of runs scored with a strike off a bat that lands fully over the boundary rope.
5. Sometimes (hideously) referred to as "the maximum".

Points 4 and 5 were my contributions.

Merlin wrote:The English dictionary - definition of sixes.

1. The cardinal number equal to 5 + 1.
2. The sixth in a set or a sequence.
3. Something having six parts, units, or members.
4. In cricket, the number of runs scored with a strike off a bat that lands fully over the boundary rope.
5. Sometimes (hideously) referred to as "the maximum".

Points 4 and 5 were my contributions.

Oh, you mean a maximum.

BTW 4 is incorrect.