Hockley and 3 Test Series

[The Fonz]

CA chief Hockley advocates minimum three-Test series | cricket.com.au

Cricket Australia boss believes the proliferation of two-Test series on the schedule needs to be…

www.cricket.com.au

Hockley comes out and says Cricket Australia wants test series to be a minimum of 3 matches and that what South Africa did was a wake up call
If it's a wake up call, dude, you're the one who's asleep at the wheel because the writing has been on the wall for years.

Furthermore, you actually are putting it out there that you're going to play 3 test series against Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland? How about you start with one??

Nick Hockley, if you're on BigFooty let me explain it to you as you're clearly clueless.
TV funds the sport.
TV pays big bucks for T20 series around the world
This is turn means the T20 competitions pay big bucks for players (Except the BBL )
So the players around the world, especially on the fringes, will be attracted by getting paid more for less. Who wouldn't?
This has a massive impact on the test teams of West Indies, South Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Less so on New Zealand.
As for Bangladesh and Sri Lanka they're basically non entities.
Minimal on Australia, England and India.

So what's going to happen is that Australia, England and India will just keep playing each other in Test cricket which is want the Big 3 wanted anyway.

 

[010203]

Every test series containing at least 3 tests is a lovely idea but the BCCI, CA & the ECB have to be willing to play their part in ensuring that it's practical for everybody and not just the big 3.

 

[eltrain]

I’m not sure the feasibility of all series being at least 3 matches (particularly involving anyone outside the top 5), but the idea of an India v South Africa test series only being two matches is very sad.

 

[cricketnut14]

our next 3 away test series are all 2 tests - new zealand, sri lanka and west indies.

the next 2 home summers consist of india and england and is 5 tests, so not a problem there.

we will wait and see what the home summer of 26/27 looks like:

26/27 home summer is programed with afghanistan (1) new zealand (3) bangladesh (2) staggered from july to march.
it has recently been rumoured it may look like this bangladesh (2) new zealand (4) england (1) - 150th year of test cricket celebrations.

maybe it's time for a test championship tri-series with australia england and india home & away in 5 test series over a 2 year period (eg. we host england one year and tour india and the next year tour england and host india).
the host country can then play or organise a 1 or 2 test series against anyone else as a warm up to those series for those countries who don't care for test cricket anymore and still maintain a 6-7 test summer.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Does the "IPL window" have to be flipped the other way?

Three or four "test cricket windows" throughout the year where test series are played and can't be encroached upon by other competitions

 

[cricketnut14]

Does the "IPL window" have to be flipped the other way?

Three or four "test cricket windows" throughout the year where test series are played and can't be encroached upon by other competitions

the IPL is where it is, as traditionally no test cricket is played at that time of year.
you may find the minnows playing tests at that time from time to time or pakistan playing them as they don't participate in the IPL.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

the IPL is where it is, as traditionally no test cricket is played at that time of year.
you may find the minnows playing tests at that time from time to time or pakistan playing them as they don't participate in the IPL.

Sorry, I mean the concept of an IPL window

Not that actual period of the year

 

[The Fonz]

Now Mike Baird has chimed in

Baird declares: Rich nations must share wealth to keep Test cricket healthy

Australia, India and England must be prepared to share more of their wealth with other nations to keep the best cricketers playing Test matches, Cricket Australia chair Mike Baird says.

www.smh.com.au

This is a joke.
They've been fiddling while cricket's been burning for years and now because Steve Waugh commented on it, they're virtue signalling.

Australia and England may regard themselves as the moral custodians of the game but England with its Hundred doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Then you have Australia's record of not wanting to play against the smaller countries when it should have been building them up.

If people don't get it, the point of no return has been passed.
Even if the ICC somehow found the backbone to call India out, India would simply secede and play IPL. This hurts world cricket far more than it hurts India.

So we have to accept that not only will things not get better, they will most likely get far worse.

 

[PhatBoy]

Does the "IPL window" have to be flipped the other way?

Three or four "test cricket windows" throughout the year where test series are played and can't be encroached upon by other competitions

This is not the worst idea - most nations’ test cricket seasons coincide with those of at least a few other nations so it isn’t unworkable

 

[PhatBoy]

Now Mike Baird has chimed in

Baird declares: Rich nations must share wealth to keep Test cricket healthy

Australia, India and England must be prepared to share more of their wealth with other nations to keep the best cricketers playing Test matches, Cricket Australia chair Mike Baird says.

www.smh.com.au

This is a joke.
They've been fiddling while cricket's been burning for years and now because Steve Waugh commented on it, they're virtue signalling.

Australia and England may regard themselves as the moral custodians of the game but England with its Hundred doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Then you have Australia's record of not wanting to play against the smaller countries when it should have been building them up.

If people don't get it, the point of no return has been passed.
Even if the ICC somehow found the backbone to call India out, India would simply secede and play IPL. This hurts world cricket far more than it hurts India.

So we have to accept that not only will things not get better, they will most likely get far worse.

People like Steve Waugh himself have been more or less doing or saying nothing about it as well. I get that it is a subject close to his heart but if he had been paying as much attention as a man of his standing should be, he could have been having an impact with his words by now

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Now Mike Baird has chimed in

Baird declares: Rich nations must share wealth to keep Test cricket healthy

Australia, India and England must be prepared to share more of their wealth with other nations to keep the best cricketers playing Test matches, Cricket Australia chair Mike Baird says.

www.smh.com.au

This is a joke.
They've been fiddling while cricket's been burning for years and now because Steve Waugh commented on it, they're virtue signalling.

Australia and England may regard themselves as the moral custodians of the game but England with its Hundred doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Then you have Australia's record of not wanting to play against the smaller countries when it should have been building them up.

If people don't get it, the point of no return has been passed.
Even if the ICC somehow found the backbone to call India out, India would simply secede and play IPL. This hurts world cricket far more than it hurts India.

So we have to accept that not only will things not get better, they will most likely get far worse.

As much as I hate it, it is true. Cricket boards have deliberately killed off everything that has been cricket and created their own sport as a repalcement.

 

[The Passenger]

It really does feel like having windows is the best way to make this all fit in together.

IPL has its own 2 month window.

International cricket will probably have 3 6-week windows in a calendar year. Stretch the occassion 7 weeker for the ashes.

The rest will be various T20 franchise comps.

Feel fairly inevitable and in all honesty if test series's keep trying to go toe-to-toe with T20 comps, they'll just get obliterated. Eng/Ind/Aus series will be fine but outside of that you'll struggle to get much traction. But the above feels like a way you can keep something going outside the big three.

 

[melanChronic]

ICC needs to take full control of the WTC.

All WTC series to be minimum 3 test series. To balance out the financial burden on some boards, I would look at allowing 4 day tests as an option.

Set four 4 week windows throughout the year, with all teams in WTC to play two home and two away series a year. This allows all teams to play all others in the 2 year cycle. The India-Pakistan issue is resolved because the series is an ICC sanctioned event, and for the time being would need to be played at a neutral venue.

The points system is simplified, as each series is to be played for three "rubbers". If individual boards want to play 4 or 5 match series that is fine, but the fourth and fifth matches from a WTC perspective are played to take back "rubbers" from the opposition (or defend them if you have an unassailable lead). For example, if the Ashes is 2-1 to Australia heading into Boxing Day, an English win will shift the rubber tally to 1-1 heading into Sydney (with a rubber now up for grabs), whilst an Australian win will shift the tally to 2-0, also with a rubber up for grabs in the last test. In this way, longer series are essentially "translated" into 3 match series scorelines:

5-0 => 3-0 (this is the only scenario where the last test would be a "dead rubber", but with the whitewash to play for it will still be of interest outside of WTC calculations)
4-0 => 3-0
4-1 =>3-0
3-1 => 2-0
3-2 => 2-1
2-2 => 1-1

(any more draws and the scoreline translates directly).

This will remove the annoying and obtuse percentage based table they have at present and mean that all teams have the same amount of rubbers up for grabs. But unlike the initial system that weighted individual tests differently based on series length, this means that each individual test still has a clearly equal value in terms of a "rubber".

 

[cricketnut14]

ICC needs to take full control of the WTC.

All WTC series to be minimum 3 test series. To balance out the financial burden on some boards, I would look at allowing 4 day tests as an option.

Set four 4 week windows throughout the year, with all teams in WTC to play two home and two away series a year. This allows all teams to play all others in the 2 year cycle. The India-Pakistan issue is resolved because the series is an ICC sanctioned event, and for the time being would need to be played at a neutral venue.

The points system is simplified, as each series is to be played for three "rubbers". If individual boards want to play 4 or 5 match series that is fine, but the fourth and fifth matches from a WTC perspective are played to take back "rubbers" from the opposition (or defend them if you have an unassailable lead). For example, if the Ashes is 2-1 to Australia heading into Boxing Day, an English win will shift the rubber tally to 1-1 heading into Sydney (with a rubber now up for grabs), whilst an Australian win will shift the tally to 2-0, also with a rubber up for grabs in the last test. In this way, longer series are essentially "translated" into 3 match series scorelines:

5-0 => 3-0 (this is the only scenario where the last test would be a "dead rubber", but with the whitewash to play for it will still be of interest outside of WTC calculations)
4-0 => 3-0
4-1 =>3-0
3-1 => 2-0
3-2 => 2-1
2-2 => 1-1

(any more draws and the scoreline translates directly).

This will remove the annoying and obtuse percentage based table they have at present and mean that all teams have the same amount of rubbers up for grabs. But unlike the initial system that weighted individual tests differently based on series length, this means that each individual test still has a clearly equal value in terms of a "rubber".

in theory, the above has merit.

however, many posters on here and the general punter only want to see australia play england and india.

many were saying how boring last summer and this aussie summer was going to be.

imagine the WA peeps up in arms hosting a bangladesh test. imagine the Vics up in arms if they hosted bangladesh on boxing day etc.

not sure the calendar could work if australia hosted an 8 test summer every second year eg eng 5, wi 3.

one thing for sure is that the 2 test series are rubbish.

most would love things to be even, however cricket has its fair share of problems.

i mean last time sri lanka came here for a test series was 5 years ago and they ain't coming in the next 3 summers.

i love the idea of 2 touring teams each summer and 2 winter test tours, with a minimum of 3 tests and a maximum of 4 (with the cricket boards to decide how many - eg. aus/eng/ind would play 4 ). this would mean a 6-7 home test summer for all.

would like to hear everyones thoughts on white ball cricket.

as much as i hate to say it, do we get rid of odi's and T20I's other than the world cups ?

somehow i feel its beyond the point of no return with all this 20/20 cricket and all of us are to blame in one way shape or form , from administrators to TV to the money involved to people putting bums on seats at the game etc.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

in theory, the above has merit.

however, many posters on here and the general punter only want to see australia play england and india.

many were saying how boring last summer and this aussie summer was going to be.

imagine the WA peeps up in arms hosting a bangladesh test. imagine the Vics up in arms if they hosted bangladesh on boxing day etc.

not sure the calendar could work if australia hosted an 8 test summer every second year eg eng 5, wi 3.

one thing for sure is that the 2 test series are rubbish.

most would love things to be even, however cricket has its fair share of problems.

i mean last time sri lanka came here for a test series was 5 years ago and they ain't coming in the next 3 summers.

i love the idea of 2 touring teams each summer and 2 winter test tours, with a minimum of 3 tests and a maximum of 4 (with the cricket boards to decide how many - eg. aus/eng/ind would play 4 ). this would mean a 6-7 home test summer for all.

would like to hear everyones thoughts on white ball cricket.

as much as i hate to say it, do we get rid of odi's and T20I's other than the world cups ?

somehow i feel its beyond the point of no return with all this 20/20 cricket and all of us are to blame in one way shape or form , from administrators to TV to the money involved to people putting bums on seats at the game etc.

One thing that could be done with the WTC is have points last multiple rounds, allowing for a fairer fixture. If, for example points last six years, with a final based on points as of 1 January (as the obvious date, but that could be moved) the year of the final, that would allow everyone to play each other home and away over the extended cycle.
If nations want to play series outside that, they could then replace that corresponding series. It would also almost eliminate "dead rubber series". Nations might be out of the running for the next final, but points would count towards qualifying for the one after.
That makes the fixturing much more even over the longer term, allows all twelve Test nations.

The downside is points from six years earlier are often going to have been won and lost by a very different set of players.


All that said, what I actually expect 2025 or 2027 to be the last set of WTC and Tests to be relegated to Ashes only not long after. Even India don't need Tests. They can afford them, but make far more money through T20, and with cash over-ruling sport at every point (not just in cricket) the BCCI would be happy to never play them again.


On the white ball stuff, is there a need for 50 over cricket at all for Test nations? The 50 over game was the cash making game, that has been supplanted by T20.
A T20I World Cup with qualifying tournaments, not bilateral series, may well be the only international cricket in as little as 10-15 years (I'm not expecting that to be quite so quick, but would not be surprised at all either). I'm glad I should be as dead as the sport of cricket by then.

 

[PhatBoy]

ICC needs to take full control of the WTC.

All WTC series to be minimum 3 test series. To balance out the financial burden on some boards, I would look at allowing 4 day tests as an option.

Set four 4 week windows throughout the year, with all teams in WTC to play two home and two away series a year. This allows all teams to play all others in the 2 year cycle. The India-Pakistan issue is resolved because the series is an ICC sanctioned event, and for the time being would need to be played at a neutral venue.

The points system is simplified, as each series is to be played for three "rubbers". If individual boards want to play 4 or 5 match series that is fine, but the fourth and fifth matches from a WTC perspective are played to take back "rubbers" from the opposition (or defend them if you have an unassailable lead). For example, if the Ashes is 2-1 to Australia heading into Boxing Day, an English win will shift the rubber tally to 1-1 heading into Sydney (with a rubber now up for grabs), whilst an Australian win will shift the tally to 2-0, also with a rubber up for grabs in the last test. In this way, longer series are essentially "translated" into 3 match series scorelines:

5-0 => 3-0 (this is the only scenario where the last test would be a "dead rubber", but with the whitewash to play for it will still be of interest outside of WTC calculations)
4-0 => 3-0
4-1 =>3-0
3-1 => 2-0
3-2 => 2-1
2-2 => 1-1

(any more draws and the scoreline translates directly).

This will remove the annoying and obtuse percentage based table they have at present and mean that all teams have the same amount of rubbers up for grabs. But unlike the initial system that weighted individual tests differently based on series length, this means that each individual test still has a clearly equal value in terms of a "rubber".

Noticed this morning that Aidan Markram who last night played what is, under one ‘difficulty’ ratings system, the greatest century made in the history of the sport, has played test cricket in 6 overseas countries.

2 tests in all of them. SA since he has been part of their touring teams have not played a 3 test series as far as I am can find aside from the one in Australia last summer. What a ridiculous scenario

 

[melanChronic]

The alternative would be to go the other way, and accept that proper test series are dead for most test playing nations-- 18/27 of the series in the current WTC are 2 match series. In that case, why not have the WTC be based on standalone test matches?

Instead of 2 tests in one country, have one test be played in each country. Proper home and away match ups over the WTC cycle, more like the Bledisloe Cup. Any test series that are still financially viable (i.e. those between the big 3) can still exist outside the WTC.

The ICC could mandate international windows, and the women's cricket model could be applied to fit within them-- 1 WTC match, a 3 match ODI series (with direct WC qualification consequences) and a 3 match T20 series (again, with some context for the T20 WC).

 

[cricketnut14]

The alternative would be to go the other way, and accept that proper test series are dead for most test playing nations-- 18/27 of the series in the current WTC are 2 match series. In that case, why not have the WTC be based on standalone test matches?

Instead of 2 tests in one country, have one test be played in each country. Proper home and away match ups over the WTC cycle, more like the Bledisloe Cup. Any test series that are still financially viable (i.e. those between the big 3) can still exist outside the WTC.

The ICC could mandate international windows, and the women's cricket model could be applied to fit within them-- 1 WTC match, a 3 match ODI series (with direct WC qualification consequences) and a 3 match T20 series (again, with some context for the T20 WC).

again, another good idea.

only thing is there, i highly doubt the likes of england and australia would settle for a 2 test summer (if 2 countries toured for a home summer). the other thing may mean australia travelling to the likes of south africa and/or new zealand during aussie traditional home summer.

 

[melanChronic]

again, another good idea.

only thing is there, i highly doubt the likes of england and australia would settle for a 2 test summer (if 2 countries toured for a home summer). the other thing may mean australia travelling to the likes of south africa and/or new zealand during aussie traditional home summer.

It would be three countries per summer (and one of them could stick around for a series as well). They could also get creative and use northern grounds again for dry season cricket.

I don't think it would be an issue for the big 3, as they could keep their status quo and either designate the last test of any series as the WTC rubber or switch to only playing teams like the WI in one off tests. Australia, India and England would love the excuse for an extra test match or two between each other as well (particularly in an off-Ashes year).

 

[big_e]

ICC needs to take full control of the WTC.

All WTC series to be minimum 3 test series. To balance out the financial burden on some boards, I would look at allowing 4 day tests as an option.

Set four 4 week windows throughout the year, with all teams in WTC to play two home and two away series a year. This allows all teams to play all others in the 2 year cycle. The India-Pakistan issue is resolved because the series is an ICC sanctioned event, and for the time being would need to be played at a neutral venue.

The points system is simplified, as each series is to be played for three "rubbers". If individual boards want to play 4 or 5 match series that is fine, but the fourth and fifth matches from a WTC perspective are played to take back "rubbers" from the opposition (or defend them if you have an unassailable lead). For example, if the Ashes is 2-1 to Australia heading into Boxing Day, an English win will shift the rubber tally to 1-1 heading into Sydney (with a rubber now up for grabs), whilst an Australian win will shift the tally to 2-0, also with a rubber up for grabs in the last test. In this way, longer series are essentially "translated" into 3 match series scorelines:

5-0 => 3-0 (this is the only scenario where the last test would be a "dead rubber", but with the whitewash to play for it will still be of interest outside of WTC calculations)
4-0 => 3-0
4-1 =>3-0
3-1 => 2-0
3-2 => 2-1
2-2 => 1-1

(any more draws and the scoreline translates directly).

This will remove the annoying and obtuse percentage based table they have at present and mean that all teams have the same amount of rubbers up for grabs. But unlike the initial system that weighted individual tests differently based on series length, this means that each individual test still has a clearly equal value in terms of a "rubber".

Gets a bit complicated, IMO.

Simply mandate three-test series for the WTC. Not "minimum" three tests - three tests, no more less. If you want to play more than that (ie 5 tests for the Ashes), you can do that, but only the first three count for the WTC.

 

[melanChronic]

Gets a bit complicated, IMO.

Simply mandate three-test series for the WTC. Not "minimum" three tests - three tests, no more less. If you want to play more than that (ie 5 tests for the Ashes), you can do that, but only the first three count for the WTC.

I would be happy with that as well. But some would complain that later tests in the series don't count for as much. Realistically its only an issue for the Ashes, BGT and Pataudi/AdM so separate to the main issue here.

 

[PhatBoy]

Noticed this morning that Aidan Markram who last night played what is, under one ‘difficulty’ ratings system, the greatest century made in the history of the sport, has played test cricket in 6 overseas countries.

2 tests in all of them. SA since he has been part of their touring teams have not played a 3 test series as far as I am can find aside from the one in Australia last summer. What a ridiculous scenario

I stand corrected I think he was actually dropped during their series in England and it was 4 tests. It’s not quite as dismal as I was making out. It is going to be headed that way though as all their series for this cycle are two tests

 

[Altum Volantes]

The future is 3 Test Australian summers with 5 Test summers for England and India.

Sydney, Melbourne and a rotation of Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth and Hobart.

 

[The Passenger]

Gets a bit complicated, IMO.

Simply mandate three-test series for the WTC. Not "minimum" three tests - three tests, no more less. If you want to play more than that (ie 5 tests for the Ashes), you can do that, but only the first three count for the WTC.

I like this system and have advocated for it before, albeit I'd say last three tests count to the WTC to avoid dead rubbers.

 

[The Passenger]

Also I'd prefer to have full three test series and see teams play each other less often, rather than try and squeeze in more variety of opposition into the time frame but only playing two test series.

I'd still keep the big three playing each other every two years (alternating venues) but they must be willing to continue to revenue argue, and arguably they need to allow a bigger slice of revenue to the other nations.

This would mean we'd only play nations NZ or SA probably every 3-4 years, but in a heavily compromised cricketing world it feels like the best scenario.

ODI's would also get heavily squeezed here but if something has gotta give they're the ones I'd rather sacrifice (they would t be gone completely). It might actually bring relevance back to ODI's and if we were being honest one of the things that drive T20 to the forefront is people getting bored of endless contextless bilateral ODI series.