ICC Chairman - "Test cricket is dying"

[Zevon]

I like to think of this generation (2000 and beyond) as the fingertip generation; everything we have is accessible at the tap of a phone or click of a button. Last year my daughter was 3 and could use an I phone to watch ABC Kids (not the worst app you can have). To put that in perspective when I was 3 in 1988;
There was no internet
Mobile phones were probably pretty new
Melbourne made a GF!
Ted Bundy was still alive
House prices were a fraction of the price
The Berlin Wall still stood
You rented videos
Not everyone has a VHS player

That’s perspective. Sport like everything has gone the way of commercialisation and to be exciting & popular. The market demands instantaneous fixes because that’s what life is about. There’s no patience. The ICC has recognised this as an opportunity to provide entertainment to a market and to adjust their product accordingly. That’s why you see a BBL game packed out compared to a fifth day test match that goes down to the wire. People want fast, colourful and instantaneous entertainment in record time.

The only way for test cricket to become relevant again is to have improved competition in every nation who plays. If any team could be competitive anywhere, then it would raise the level of entertainment. We have to also cultivate a mindset that test cricket is the greatest level of cricket. If you look at what is exciting about cricket, people will say the big shots, the huge sixes and the big names hitting it out of the stadium.

I believe that we need to see better playing surfaces that go 5 days and still get a result; aka, Perth v India. Let’s bring the bowlers back into it, let’s see the fast West Indians dishing up hostile bowling spells again, make the GABBA and Perth the wickets for pace bowling. Don’t just put out roads all the time. We also need to appreciate the skill levels and characteristics of good test batsman, because they far outweigh what a BBL slogger has up their sleeve.

My son (if he gets into cricket like I did), will be taught that BBL or T20 is just hit and giggle, that Test Cricket is the pinnacle of the game. The best cricketers are guys like Khan, Richards, Holding, Marshall, Ponting, McGrath, Hayden, KP, and Steyn. It’s not some BBL slugger like Lynn.

Let’s put the focus back on the Test cricket.

Well said. I believe the underlying patience of the sporting fan is still there, but I do completely agree with you that technological advancements have conditioned us into wanting everything with immediacy.

Also agree that the product of test cricket is diminished by roads and batsmen dominating. The current series in the West Indies is a fine demonstration of how much better test cricket looks when a) the West Indies are a competitive outfit sending down hostile deliveries and b) pitches are turned out to produce a genuine contest between bat and ball.

 

[footyfan1978]

Part of ICC Chairman Shashank Manohar's comments on the Test championship that is being brought included this rather stark line.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/25944668/test-cricket-dying-shashank-manohar

Is it actually dying though?

I don't think it is. Has it changed? Yes. Is it being compromised in some places (like Australia) by terrible scheduling of first class competitions? Yes.

It's stagnant for sure but not dying. But the level has to rise to maintain interest. If Australia and West Indies can truly rise from the shit shows they been Test cricket can rise again to heights of past. But scheduling needs to be improved plus day night Tests over 4 days embraced more across the board in places that can do it. Two a summer in Australia is about right. If South Africa and India have grounds to do it, should be embraced there too. Four day matches of Thursday night to Sunday night should be the day/night Test schedule. Each days plays should have the two day sessions of two hours each, then long meal break before twilight time and 3.5 hours night session under lights. 80% of Test matches around world still be day matches over 5 days.

I am realistic, we are only ever going to have 3 to 4 Test sides top tier at best and the rest of nations like Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Bangladesh are too small in population to really ever expect to be best in world. But Australia, South Africa, West Indies, England, India and Pakistan should be able to all aim to best in world. If you get 3 or 4 strong Test sides as same time, Test cricket will flourish. Right now only India and South Africa are pulling their weight for mine so we got a pretty poor era at present. Two sides in top tier is all I see. That can change with 2 or 3 years. Pakistan cricket has politics and corruption I would probably never fully be up with but they had top tier sides in past in Imran and Javed era. Hopefully they get their shit together too. Test cricket is a lot better when strong Aussie, Windies and Pakis sides exist. They tend to be the ones to play most attractive cricket. It is not impossible 3 or 4 years down track we out of this trough.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Well said. I believe the underlying patience of the sporting fan is still there, but I do completely agree with you that technological advancements have conditioned us into wanting everything with immediacy.

Also agree that the product of test cricket is diminished by roads and batsmen dominating. The current series in the West Indies is a fine demonstration of how much better test cricket looks when a) the West Indies are a competitive outfit sending down hostile deliveries and b) pitches are turned out to produce a genuine contest between bat and ball.

Agree. You just can’t have a road all the time. Cricket is all about the batsman. It’s refreshing to see the West Indies bowlers bowling searing pace and having a bouncy deck.

I also thought you could potentially do a rolling test fixture, like the World Cup. Every nation plays one another in a test series over a 12-18 month period. You then have a top 4 based off results and it’s a 1v4 and 2v3 set up for a test GF position. So technically if 4 wins you’ve got them ranked no.1. It makes it a real time contest. Then it reverts back and starts again. ODI and BBL can be made to work in around that.

I don’t know, just a thought.

 

[to1994]

Yeah bang on point. Love this call mate. Like you say, the West Indies? I used to love watching us play them. It was to me, the greatest test, way better than England.

A meaningless two test series against SL just was a waste of time. It should’ve been a 3 test series at minimum, or a 3 test series v NZ. The politics involved in Indian cricket for example is disgraceful, as you say, if India don’t want to play Pakistan they lose points.

There’s no reason not to play everyone on a frequent rolling 3-4 year basis.

I agree that two Test series are stupid but they unfortunately aren't' going anywhere with Cricket Australia trying to change our summer to 5 Tests instead of 6.

If that's the road they want to go down then the boards need to at least try and find a way to get the most out of the two Tests. A single three day, low intensity tour game just isn't enough for teams to get used to conditions and what ends up happening is Tests become glorified tour games. The opposition has no idea (in Sri Lanka's case barely any of their players had played Tests here before so it was to be expected) and basically have to learn on the job. What's the point in even having the Tests if the already weak opposition are just sent in to fail?

 

[flamethrower]

Test cricket is dying? IMO test cricket is the ONLY cricket worth watching.

 

[james brayshaw]

While Kohli holds Test cricket up as the highest form of the game, and his team back that up by holding their own overseas, it'll be ok.

Hopefully by the time he retires, D/N Test cricket has established itself worldwide and the Windies are back to being a consistently good team.

CA getting their shit together re scheduling would be nice too.

Still a long way to go before we get Day night tests in India

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Liking the upcoming Test Championship and that meaningless dead rubbers will now have meaning, looking through the schedule of who plays who and in how many test matches and my early call for the final is one or both of New Zealand or South Africa will make the final.

New Zealand have four 2 test series, ( ind and pak at home and Bang and SL away ) good chance to cash in on the max 120 points for the series.
South Africa also have four 2 test series ( Aust and SL at home and Pak and WI away ) good chance to cash in on the 120 points for the series.

Might bring back some fight from teams who otherwise might wave the white flag in games and fight to salvage a draw, could also have home countries doctoring their pitches something fierce to get maximum home wins.

 

[SterlingArcher]

"Dying" = hard to make money from.

I feel tests are still very popular.

I agree tests are popular but your first comment, which is seemingly tongue in cheek, doesn't make sense.

Of course it needs to be profitable. Why wouldn't it? If it's not profitable, salaries cannot go up (not just on an executive level - I mean coaches, players, development teams budgets etc). If it doesn't make a profit in countries where it is established, then why would they bother to try take it to new countries.

Seems silly to be so flippant about it.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Test cricket is dying? IMO test cricket is the ONLY cricket worth watching.

Administrators have the unfortunate habit of only considering $$$$$$$$$$ on the bottom of a spread sheet. The health of the game doesn't factor into it. Your typical CEO these days (like politicians) are only interested in short term solutions whose benefits can be gauged whilst they are in office, not beyond. They seem to feel quality players will continue to fall from trees.

A typical kneejerk reaction was several years ago when CA came up with the ridiculous notion that we scrap the Sheffield Shield because it wasn't making any money. No thought of where tomorrow's international representatives were going to come from, it's just the money they saved from not having a Sheffield Shield competition would look good on the income statement and justify their incomes. Similar scenario to the government privatisation of utilities such as water, energy, etc.

The bottom line is cricket cannot allow Test cricket to die. Should that happen, then it won't be long for all other formats of the game to fade away. The popularity of 50 over cricket, and later on T20 cricket is simply based on the fact they are truncated versions of Test cricket. In order for them to gain popularity, they needed something to be shorter than.

T20 needs Test cricket just as much as Test cricket needs the revenue derived from T20. Any administrators who really think T20 could survive on its own are kidding themselves.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I'm not sure I would enjoy aggressive monetization of Test cricket, and I think it could actually be counterproductive, destroying the mystique of Test cricket, if the sponsorships are too prominent (i.e. "And he's out for a Red Rooster LBW") or something.

Could prove necessary though, as mystique doesn't pay bills.

Haha. I'm going to start calling LBWs "Red Roosters" from now on. There is something quite ridiculous about that that appeals to me.

 

[monty1104]

I am realistic, we are only ever going to have 3 to 4 Test sides top tier at best and the rest of nations like Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Bangladesh are too small in population to really ever expect to be best in world.

Ummmmm, you know Bangladesh has the 8th highest population in the world, right? Of cricketing nations, only India and Pakistan have more. And Sri Lanka’s population is only about 4mil less than Australia.

 

[Pacman Carney]

Still a long way to go before we get Day night tests in India

The dew in India will make night test difficult

 

[footyfan1978]

Ummmmm, you know Bangladesh has the 8th highest population in the world, right?

Revisit in 40 years time. for now they not relevant for top tier Test cricket context regardless of population. India have much more and only got their shit together for Test cricket after many many decades of being Test irrelevant except at home, of course.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Stop scheduling bloody two match series then, and stop overindulging the "Big 3" rivalries. Australia not playing the West Indies for 8 years (by 2023) is an absolute disgrace. Get back to the simple home and away every four years model, and make the test championship series a minimum of 3 tests.

ICC needs to set strict scheduling rules and enforce them. None of this India refusing to play Pakistan crap. If they don't want to play them, they forfeit the points.

None of this Australia refusing to play Bangers in Aus either.

 

[Belnakor]

I agree tests are popular but your first comment, which is seemingly tongue in cheek, doesn't make sense.

Of course it needs to be profitable. Why wouldn't it? If it's not profitable, salaries cannot go up (not just on an executive level - I mean coaches, players, development teams budgets etc). If it doesn't make a profit in countries where it is established, then why would they bother to try take it to new countries.

Seems silly to be so flippant about it.

This is really up to the players who are the biggest cost.

Would the Australian players be willing to play Zim/Ban but get paid less? I'm not sure. Some probably wouldn't.

 

[Belnakor]

While Kohli holds Test cricket up as the highest form of the game, and his team back that up by holding their own overseas, it'll be ok.

Hopefully by the time he retires, D/N Test cricket has established itself worldwide and the Windies are back to being a consistently good team.

CA getting their shit together re scheduling would be nice too.

as much as i dislike Kohli's antics on the field he is a huge force for Test Cricket in the world and he'll be instilling that onto the next generation. Test cricket has been around since the 1870s with varying levels of popularity. Will players be getting paid $10m a year to play in the future? Maybe not, doesn't mean it will die out.

 

[Belnakor]

Well said. I believe the underlying patience of the sporting fan is still there, but I do completely agree with you that technological advancements have conditioned us into wanting everything with immediacy.

Also agree that the product of test cricket is diminished by roads and batsmen dominating. The current series in the West Indies is a fine demonstration of how much better test cricket looks when a) the West Indies are a competitive outfit sending down hostile deliveries and b) pitches are turned out to produce a genuine contest between bat and ball.

just fyi "batsman dominating the ball" was very much a 90s/00s era problem, which imho combined with a glut of "once in a generation" batsman. Now we actually have the opposite, we have 8 current bowlers with a sub 50 strike rate and there is only 40 in the history of the game, most of whom played on uncovered pitches.

 

[Richard Pryor]

This is really up to the players who are the biggest cost.

Would the Australian players be willing to play Zim/Ban but get paid less? I'm not sure. Some probably wouldn't.

Could go back the the pre-Wars England model where you select a second tier XI of players to play the fledgling Test nations (kind of a joke they get classed as Tests tbh. There's one England Test player whose only FC game is their 'Test' in South Africa from memory).

 

[Park cricketer]

Kohli gets a lot of hate but he will end his career as one of the most influential players in the game and definitely the most influential Indian player to have played simply for making all efforts to salvage the state of the game. Like it or not, India has by far the highest number of eyes that put money into the game and consequently their interests have a lot of say in the game, whether it's right or wrong. Cricket has become a minority sport in England, a young english boy growing up is far more likely to want to play football than cricket. Putting the game behind the paywall did a lot of damage to the popularity of the game in England.

And it looks like it will turn out to be similar in Australia. Atleast test cricket is still FTA in Australia and that's a positive. Cricket plays second fiddle in countries like New Zealand and West Indies anyway. But cricket is still hugely popular in India and other asian countries despite other sports like football, badminton, etc., making headway in the country. And let me tell you, a lot of asian fans absolutely love T20 cricket. The only asian country where test cricket is still reasonably popular among the masses is India but it still has to compete for attention with the IPL and other short form cricket while test cricket is losing steam in countries like Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In the current age of smartphones and instant gratification, the next generation might not be so open to test cricket as the current and past ones. Or even worse, cricket could turn into a year long franchise based league game like in club football with international matches being few and far between.

Thankfully, Kohli has been saying all the right things in interviews.

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/975797

He could have easily been a captain like Dhoni who was passive to test cricket and at times, looked like he didn't really give a damn about test cricket, or atleast as much as he gave about ODIs and ODI tournaments anyway. But Kohli is mad about succeeding in test cricket and becoming a superpower one at that. As long as the Indian captain says all the right things about test cricket, the Indian fanbase will care about test cricket and the game will remain healthy. And hopefully we don't ever see test cricket pushed to the sidelines and franchise cricket dominating ever, because it could easily happen in the current age when every entertainment industry is becoming shorter and "glitzier" and the serene and sedate pace of test cricket might become out of fashion.

 

[monty1104]

Revisit in 40 years time. for now they not relevant for top tier Test cricket context regardless of population. India have much more and only got their shit together for Test cricket after many many decades of being Test irrelevant except at home, of course.

Agree with this, but the original point was that Bangladesh’s population was too small to become a top nation. That’s not the case.

 

[PhatBoy]

Revisit in 40 years time. for now they not relevant for top tier Test cricket context regardless of population. India have much more and only got their shit together for Test cricket after many many decades of being Test irrelevant except at home, of course.

The greatest dynasty in the sport’s history - which you allude to every post in the modern batting thread - came from a bunch of tiny specks in the Atlantic Ocean totalling 3 million people. And it showed, as they took roughly 30 years to become a genuinely competitive test side.
Bangladesh are 17 years into their test cricket journey and have now reached the stage where they are a match for anyone at home. Yes it’s a long way from doing that to being strong in foreign conditions but the first major step has been taken. With the demographic resources they have, there’s no reason they can’t take further steps in the future

 

[footyfan1978]

The greatest dynasty in the sport’s history - which you allude to every post in the modern batting thread - came from a bunch of tiny specks in the Atlantic Ocean totalling 3 million people. And it showed, as they took roughly 30 years to become a genuinely competitive test side.
Bangladesh are 17 years into their test cricket journey and have now reached the stage where they are a match for anyone at home. Yes it’s a long way from doing that to being strong in foreign conditions but the first major step has been taken. With the demographic resources they have, there’s no reason they can’t take further steps in the future

Nah, kidding yourself. They are a generation or two from being relevant in test cricket at top level. Even then, have to freak circumstances to be competing with likes of the top few teams at times. One day cricket is really a different kettle of fish. Plenty more nations can become relevant at that sooner like Bangladesh.West Indies been playing cricket as a region as a passion far far longer.

 

[Ishikawa]

Nah, kidding yourself. They are a generation or two from being relevant in test cricket at top level. Even then, have to freak circumstances to be competing with likes of the top few teams at times. One day cricket is really a different kettle of fish. Plenty more nations can become relevant at that sooner like Bangladesh.West Indies been playing cricket as a region as a passion far far longer.

That's rubbish. On home turf they can beat any current test playing nation and have spin stocks far superior to many nations (especially / including Australia). Test Cricket has a very flat hierarchy at the moment and there is no side that is especially convincing and consistent in all conditions.

 

[PhatBoy]

Nah, kidding yourself. They are a generation or two from being relevant in test cricket at top level. Even then, have to freak circumstances to be competing with likes of the top few teams at times. One day cricket is really a different kettle of fish. Plenty more nations can become relevant at that sooner like Bangladesh.West Indies been playing cricket as a region as a passion far far longer.

So beating Australia and England in tests, winning series against West Indies, that doesn’t mark an improvement?

They didn’t need freak circumstances at all to do that. They turned out normal subcontinent wickets.

In terms of years, only Sri Lanka has entered cricket and reached 13 test wins quicker than Bangladesh (and they did so on the back of, statistically, the best spinner in the game’s history). It has taken them 17 years. For a point of comparison, it took:
WI - 25 years
Pak- 24 years
India - 36 years
SA - 43 years
NZ - 51 years.

Hell, NZ had to play 143 matches to win 13 tests (Bangladesh has played 112). India played 109. Pakistan took 79 but had the advantage of hosting matches on matting during their first decade and a half.
Bangladesh have been utterly neglected by the stronger nations. They haven’t toured Australia for nearly 15 years. They last went to England 9 years ago - they had an opener hit back to back centuries there and haven’t been invited for another go.

The fact that they have competed as well as they have despite being treated so poorly is actually fairly amazing. They have also done so in an era where every side plays far more cricket in Asia than in generations past so in theory their home ground advantage is lessened.

What do these figures mean? Well in terms of games, they haven’t achieved anything remarkable in getting to the point they’re at now. In fact they’ve reached that 13 win ‘landmark’ slower than everyone bar NZ of the main nations. But game numbers don’t matter because we are talking about time. And at their current rate, within 5 years there’s no reason they shouldn’t be winning against basically everyone at home. Right at this moment they would take tests off, and probably win series against, SA (absolutely hopeless against spin) England, WI, Australia (borne out by their victories against all 3 in the last two years) Sri Lanka (hopeless) possibly Pakistan. NZ did just win in the UAE so I’d back them to probably win.

 

[Belnakor]

Could go back the the pre-Wars England model where you select a second tier XI of players to play the fledgling Test nations (kind of a joke they get classed as Tests tbh. There's one England Test player whose only FC game is their 'Test' in South Africa from memory).

I believe it was NZ - england actually were fielding two concurrent teams