Fixture Test cricket 2030 - who will be playing it?

[Blue1980]

I think this deserves its own thread as it seems a topic circled on a bit in other threads.

Who will still be playing tests in 2030 and how will it be structured?

My guess is Aus, England and India series are safe and will continue to be profitable 5 test series. As for the others, its trickier to predict. Most likely to continue playing tests are New Zealand and Pakistan. Next most likely are South Africa, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Then I’d put the windies after that.

I see franchise cricket further dominating, and the stranglehold the big 3 have to grow, and the world test championship to be killed off after the next cycle.

I also think bilateral one day and T20 series will become a thing of the past. 50 over World Cup will survive, with 10-12 sides (probably some qualifying for associates).

Now there are ideas to prevent this from coming to pass, but is there the will to do so?

 

[Marcel Proust]

Reckon it'd be much the same. Assume the Bangers take another leap or two forward.

Afgan and Ireland worth keeping an eye on

 

[Falconista]

Dirk Nannes during the Perth Test made a great suggestion I thought during the Perth Test. His proposal is all the contracted Test players are paid the same irrespective of country. The ICC would become their employers and be responsible for their pay out of a specific kitty that nations like India and Australia would heavily subsidise. The model was about raising the floor and not lowering the ceiling as popular players could still earn big dollars elsewhere doing their KFC/Pepsi etc ads.

It makes sense as it would slow the loss of promising 20 year olds to the T20 circuit in the poorer nations. Without some kind of pay increase (which most boards cannot financially manage), we are now in grave danger of losing competitiveness of a bunch of nations- Sri Lanka and the West Indies may head that list.

It almost certainly won't happen until Tests are on their knees but a good suggestion, nonetheless.

 

[11kgm]

Dirk Nannes during the Perth Test made a great suggestion I thought during the Perth Test. His proposal is all the contracted Test players are paid the same irrespective of country. The ICC would become their employers and be responsible for their pay out of a specific kitty that nations like India and Australia would heavily subsidise. The model was about raising the floor and not lowering the ceiling as popular players could still earn big dollars elsewhere doing their KFC/Pepsi etc ads.

It makes sense as it would slow the loss of promising 20 year olds to the T20 circuit in the poorer nations. Without some kind of pay increase (which most boards cannot financially manage), we are now in grave danger of losing competitiveness of a bunch of nations- Sri Lanka and the West Indies may head that list.

It almost certainly won't happen until Tests are on their knees but a good suggestion, nonetheless.

Love that suggestion, otherwise they will go make bank on the T20 circuit

 

[Blue1980]

Dirk Nannes during the Perth Test made a great suggestion I thought during the Perth Test. His proposal is all the contracted Test players are paid the same irrespective of country. The ICC would become their employers and be responsible for their pay out of a specific kitty that nations like India and Australia would heavily subsidise. The model was about raising the floor and not lowering the ceiling as popular players could still earn big dollars elsewhere doing their KFC/Pepsi etc ads.

It makes sense as it would slow the loss of promising 20 year olds to the T20 circuit in the poorer nations. Without some kind of pay increase (which most boards cannot financially manage), we are now in grave danger of losing competitiveness of a bunch of nations- Sri Lanka and the West Indies may head that list.

It almost certainly won't happen until Tests are on their knees but a good suggestion, nonetheless.

I like the idea, and want test cricket to survive and thrive. I am not sure the big 3 give a crap about growing the game worldwide though, so would need vision and some financial muscle to come from some who have the vision to grow the game worldwide.

 

[t_94]

Dirk Nannes during the Perth Test made a great suggestion I thought during the Perth Test. His proposal is all the contracted Test players are paid the same irrespective of country. The ICC would become their employers and be responsible for their pay out of a specific kitty that nations like India and Australia would heavily subsidise. The model was about raising the floor and not lowering the ceiling as popular players could still earn big dollars elsewhere doing their KFC/Pepsi etc ads.

It makes sense as it would slow the loss of promising 20 year olds to the T20 circuit in the poorer nations. Without some kind of pay increase (which most boards cannot financially manage), we are now in grave danger of losing competitiveness of a bunch of nations- Sri Lanka and the West Indies may head that list.

It almost certainly won't happen until Tests are on their knees but a good suggestion, nonetheless.

Fantastic suggestion, unfortunately the people in positions of influence don’t care.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Dirk has many good calls imo.

Great understanding of the game

 

[Bob Neil]

Australia, England and India need to demonstrate enlightened self interest to understand that test cricket won’t have a future if it’s just the three of them playing it in a meaningful and competitive way…which is almost where we’re at now.
It’s critical for those three boards and the ICC to create incentives for both the boards and players of other countries to continue to invest in and aspire to play great test cricket as the pinnacle of the game.

I think Nannes’ idea of a centralised and cross-subsidised player payment model has some merit along with perhaps a two-tier (6 teams each) division structure with promotion and relegation over a (say) three year cycle that includes a Barbarians / Rest of the World team in the top division (scheduling would be a challenge to overcome).

Second tier countries would have the incentive to get into the top tier for the guaranteed share of TV rights and touring revenue, the best players in second tier countries (like Rashid Khan) would have a real opportunity to play test cricket in a competitive team and we as discerning cricket lovers would get to see them play here. Top tier countries would help ensure a more vibrant and diverse test cricket ecosystem.

Current Tier 1
Australia
India
South Africa
Sri Lanka
England
Barbarians

Current Tier 2
West Indies
Pakistan
New Zealand
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Ireland

Example Barbarians Side
1. Tom Latham
2. Imam Ul Haq
3. Babar Azam
4. Kane Williamson
5. Daryl Mitchell
6. Shakib Al Hasan
7. Litton Das
8. Jason Holder
9. Rashid Khan
10. Shaheed Shah Afridi
11. Trent Boult

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Ireland are dead keen. Expect they will be popular tourists when they turn up.

 

[eth-dog]

I'm hoping that we continue to get a new team every cycle. Feel like Scotland and the Dutch aren't far off again, and even nations like Namibia could get there soon.

 

[burge13]

Like Nannes suggestion. During the adelaide test i said to mates the big countries have to start paying WI and the like test players better or they'll be lost to franchise nonsense. Test cricket dies if we only play India, England, NZ on rotation...

Tests need to make some updates too. Use rain delays as the lunch breaks rather than doing both and losing overs as one example.

The worry with us all assuming (and likely being correct) that franchise stuff will take over, is majority seem to be over it. Its saturated as is. Where does cricket fall if tests go and people are tired of t20. Administrators are about to earn their money for a change and CA are morons so interesting times ahead...

 

[cricketnut14]

well if the other countries are keen, they must start playing at least a 3 test series and make it happen.

outside tests that involve aust, eng, india they are all 2 test series at best.

 

[Some Idiot]

Ireland are dead keen. Expect they will be popular tourists when they turn up.

How's the young talent in Ireland? Feels like when I see them, they often still have players who have been around since the 2007 World Cup

 

[nick1408]

Australia, England and India need to demonstrate enlightened self interest to understand that test cricket won’t have a future if it’s just the three of them playing it in a meaningful and competitive way…which is almost where we’re at now.
It’s critical for those three boards and the ICC to create incentives for both the boards and players of other countries to continue to invest in and aspire to play great test cricket as the pinnacle of the game.

I think Nannes’ idea of a centralised and cross-subsidised player payment model has some merit along with perhaps a two-tier (6 teams each) division structure with promotion and relegation over a (say) three year cycle that includes a Barbarians / Rest of the World team in the top division (scheduling would be a challenge to overcome).

Second tier countries would have the incentive to get into the top tier for the guaranteed share of TV rights and touring revenue, the best players in second tier countries (like Rashid Khan) would have a real opportunity to play test cricket in a competitive team and we as discerning cricket lovers would get to see them play here. Top tier countries would help ensure a more vibrant and diverse test cricket ecosystem.

Current Tier 1
Australia
India
South Africa
Sri Lanka
England
Barbarians

Current Tier 2
West Indies
Pakistan
New Zealand
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Ireland

Example Barbarians Side
1. Tom Latham
2. Imam Ul Haq
3. Babar Azam
4. Kane Williamson
5. Daryl Mitchell
6. Shakib Al Hasan
7. Litton Das
8. Jason Holder
9. Rashid Khan
10. Shaheed Shah Afridi
11. Trent Boult

Notwithstanding issues I see with putting a Rest of the World team into world cricket why would a player who plays in the second division stay and fight for his team to play division one when he can get the big dollars and all the same off-field benefits by playing T20 around the world? I used to think this was the way forward but I've changed my opinion. I think the only thing a split system would do is further dilute talent and widen the gap between the have's and the have not's.

The lower teams need to tour and play the big nations. We may flog them and make no money from it but their boards do make money via television rights and ultimately that's what it's all about. It wasn't long ago that we would cycle between England and the West Indies and India or Pakistan were the sideshow between the next Ashes or Frank Worrall series. Times have changed but the need for smaller sides to either tour or have big nations tour. This year is probably a bit different with the World Test Championship on but essentially any side that tours England should also have a two test series versus Ireland. Ticks the box, helps out Ireland (who England already do help a lot) and hopefully boosts Irish cricket. Other nations like Afghanistan or Zimbabwe may be a bit harder due to political climates. Currently, Ireland have one test scheduled between now and the end of September. Australia has 10, New Zealand has 5, Zimbabwe has two with another two penciled in against Afghanistan in Afghanistan and Afghanistan has those two tests as previously mentioned but unscheduled.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The outpouring of concern from all you discerning cricket lovers that Tests for the little guys might not be "part of the landscape to any real extent"... it brings a tear to the eye. Dirk's suggestion is absurd and I suspect half the people saying "great idea" would be outraged if the core sentiment was fully carried out.

Nobody can explain how West Indies men are entitled to profit off an Aus v Ind series but Sri Lanka women are not. Thus the suggestion is automatically 2x more expensive before considering the subsidies to players from countries beyond the 24 teams with Test status (it's not fair if they aren't supported too, and isn't fairness the whole point of the suggestion?).

 

[Seedsfan]

The outpouring of concern from all you discerning cricket lovers that Tests for the little guys might not be "part of the landscape to any real extent"... it brings a tear to the eye. Dirk's suggestion is absurd and I suspect half the people saying "great idea" would be outraged if the core sentiment was fully carried out.

Nobody can explain how West Indies men are entitled to profit off an Aus v Ind series but Sri Lanka women are not. Thus the suggestion is automatically 2x more expensive before considering the subsidies to players from countries beyond the 24 teams with Test status (it's not fair if they aren't supported too, and isn't fairness the whole point of the suggestion?).

Well maybe we should stop propping up the women’s team then with profits from the men’s side.

Ultimately we need more competitive test nations. Why should Australia India and England get the most funding from the ICC?

 

[Teen Wolf]

Well maybe we should stop propping up the women’s team then with profits from the men’s side.

Ultimately we need more competitive test nations. Why should Australia India and England get the most funding from the ICC?

What are you talking about. Australia gets a standard revenue share from the ICC (same as what NZ, WI etc get), for a start.

Aus women get 10% of the CA player pay pool. A drop in the ocean in terms of what it would take to enact Dirk's wacky proposal.

But yes, if we want to stop the prop: Women wouldn't get money from the men's game, and men wouldn't have all the premium slots on the calendar (such as the Boxing Day Test) every year.

 

[Seedsfan]

What are you talking about. Australia gets a standard revenue share from the ICC (same as what NZ, WI etc get), for a start.

Aus women get 10% of the CA player pay pool. A drop in the ocean in terms of what it would take to enact Dirk's wacky proposal.

But yes, if we want to stop the prop: Women wouldn't get money from the men's game, and men wouldn't have all the premium slots on the calendar (such as the Boxing Day Test) every year.

Yeah because the women could hope to make more money if they played on Boxing Day. Get a grip, they had to give out free tickets to fill the G for a World Cup final.

• 405m (~51m pa) India
• 139m (~17m pa) England
• 128m (16m pa) Australia, Bangladesh, NZ, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies
• 94m (~12m pa) Zimbabwe
• 40m (~5m pa) Afghanistan & Ireland(became full members 2017 so this may be pro-rata from 2017-23)
• 160m to 93 Associates – this is broken up across two grant systems (tournament & scorecard)

 

[Teen Wolf]

Yeah because the women could hope to make more money if they played on Boxing Day. Get a grip, they had to give out free tickets to fill the G for a World Cup final.

Ok so you still live in 1920 where ticket sales are the primary revenue source.

• 405m (~51m pa) India
• 139m (~17m pa) England
• 128m (16m pa) Australia, Bangladesh, NZ, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies
• 94m (~12m pa) Zimbabwe
• 40m (~5m pa) Afghanistan & Ireland(became full members 2017 so this may be pro-rata from 2017-23)
• 160m to 93 Associates – this is broken up across two grant systems (tournament & scorecard)

Hey thanks for telling me what I already knew. Shame you didn't look that up before talking s**t.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The way things are going, Australia and England being the totality is a very real possibility.

 

[t_94]

The outpouring of concern from all you discerning cricket lovers that Tests for the little guys might not be "part of the landscape to any real extent"... it brings a tear to the eye. Dirk's suggestion is absurd and I suspect half the people saying "great idea" would be outraged if the core sentiment was fully carried out.

Nobody can explain how West Indies men are entitled to profit off an Aus v Ind series but Sri Lanka women are not. Thus the suggestion is automatically 2x more expensive before considering the subsidies to players from countries beyond the 24 teams with Test status (it's not fair if they aren't supported too, and isn't fairness the whole point of the suggestion?).

I’ll bite. As someone who endorses the suggestion, fairness is not the primary consideration from my perspective. The primary consideration was to continue to ensure mens test cricket survives, as this is the form of the game which I am interested in watching.

Women’s cricket doesn’t interest me and is not something I watch. More power to them for playing but truthfully I didn’t even consider women’s cricket when endorsing the suggestion.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I’ll bite. As someone who endorses the suggestion, fairness is not the primary consideration from my perspective. The primary consideration was to continue to ensure mens test cricket survives, as this is the form of the game which I am interested in watching.

Women’s cricket doesn’t interest me and is not something I watch. More power to them for playing but truthfully I didn’t even consider women’s cricket when endorsing the suggestion.

Just know that the suggestion means all 24 teams (12 men's, 12 women's) with Test status would have the same salary cap rules and same funding entitlements. In other words, equal pay for men and women.

Whether you belong to the large portion of people who, upon that realisation, would revoke their support for the suggestion... I don't care, and I'm not requesting these hypocrites reveal themselves.

 

[burge13]

Just know that the suggestion means all 24 teams (12 men's, 12 women's) with Test status would have the same salary cap rules and same funding entitlements. In other words, equal pay for men and women.

Whether you belong to the large portion of people who, upon that realisation, would revoke their support for the suggestion... I don't care, and I'm not requesting these hypocrites reveal themselves.

No it doesnt. You invented that

 

[to1994]

Just know that the suggestion means all 24 teams (12 men's, 12 women's) with Test status would have the same salary cap rules and same funding entitlements. In other words, equal pay for men and women.

Whether you belong to the large portion of people who, upon that realisation, would revoke their support for the suggestion... I don't care, and I'm not requesting these hypocrites reveal themselves.

I'm all for a world where women's cricket is of the same standard of quality and at the same quantity as men's cricket. That said your comment comes across as pushing a political agenda with little interest in actually doing what's best for cricket.

"Equality" for women's cricket doesn't mean immediately making everything exactly the same as men's cricket right now, it has to build slowly (as men's cricket did from the 1800s onwards) - forcing it on people will kill it off as the costs will be too much to keep up with.

 

[Teen Wolf]

No it doesnt.

It clearly does.

Maybe you thought Dirk's suggestion was that Aus men should give 10x more money to Bangladesh men than what they give to Aus women. If so, you were foolish to think that.

"Equality" for women's cricket doesn't mean immediately making everything exactly the same as men's cricket right now, it has to build slowly (as men's cricket did from the 1800s onwards) - forcing it on people will kill it off as the costs will be too much to keep up with.

I'm not the one campaigning for equality. I'm the one who understands why popular Test teams pay their players more than what relatively unpopular Test teams pay their players, and why that can't change.

Stop forcing men's Test cricket on Afghanistan, Ireland, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Just let it build slowly (as women's international cricket did from the 1930s onwards, 50+ years earlier than those teams' first Tests).