ICC Chairman - "Test cricket is dying"

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2016
Posts
16,149
Likes
16,654
AFL Club
Geelong
those tests in Australia are pretty old now. The previous series in NZ, Australia pretty much flogged them.
That’s kind of my point. The team they bought here was vastly inferior to the one they have now, and australia’s was stronger than the one they’ve got now, and NZ still competed evenly over here.
By the way, the series they lost in NZ was immediately after the last one they played over here (buffered by a couple of matches against SL)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kram

I'll brik u
Joined
May 2, 2007
Posts
53,159
Likes
66,582
Location
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Chicago Bears, de Boer, Arsenal
Guptill
Latham
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Santner
Watling
Craig
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

v

Raval
Latham
Williamson
Taylor
Nicholls
Watling
de Grandhomme
Southee
Wagner
Patel
Boult

Might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that the later is vastly superior to the team last in Australia?
 

to1994

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
1,397
Likes
1,152
AFL Club
Essendon
The main issue is NZ's bowling line-up hasn't really changed since then (aside from getting rid of Craig) and all we'd have to do is prepare flat, dull wickets like we did last time and they'd struggle to take the 20 wickets they need if they want to win any games. If we prepare wickets like in Adelaide/Perth this summer or the wickets we gave South Africa a couple of years ago then it's game on, but on really flat wickets I don't think NZ can win here.

Not saying I don't rate Southee/Boult, they're quality, especially Boult but I just don't think they're threatening on the sort of wickets they got last time.
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,365
Likes
10,793
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
If I had to pick one I'd rather we win the Ashes in England which we haven't done since 2001. The World Cup is good spectacle and all but a 5 Test series is a far better showcase of who is the better team compared to a One Day tournament where it basically all comes down to how the team goes in literally 2-3 50 over games. It doesn't hold much weight for me and with how they've trimmed it down it's really just another Champions Trophy with a bigger name behind it.

I'm of the opinion we don't need to rush Warner/Smith back for the event, let them re-enter the set up through Aus A/County Cricket so they have solid game time before The Ashes. Let them join the limited overs teams after the Ashes as if Cricket Australia wanted them to be a part of our World Cup squad they shouldn't have made the short sighted decision of banning them for 12 months.

That being said I wouldn't mind us rejigging the schedule as we shouldn't be playing Ashes series in the same year as a World Cup as it leads to this issue where we're lacking in preparation one way or the other.
Ashes is every 18-24 months, not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, IMO.

A World Cup, on the other hand, is every four years, and you've basically gotta beat everyone to win it.

Give me the World Cup over the Ashes any day.
 

to1994

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
1,397
Likes
1,152
AFL Club
Essendon
Ashes is every 18-24 months, not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, IMO.

A World Cup, on the other hand, is every four years, and you've basically gotta beat everyone to win it.

Give me the World Cup over the Ashes any day.
Sure, but aside from a hick up for us in 10/11 the Ashes to win right now is the one away from home which is every 4 years as well. Winning it at home is a bit of a formality and actually losing it will almost always result in a huge review for the damage it might do to the game commercially here, as we saw with the Argus Review.

The World Cup is every 4 years but we have to deal with years of pointless bilateral series leading in to it and I don't think the reward is worth it (although I think they're trying to change that which is a positive).

I just don't think Cricket Australia really care about it either, they were happy to put ODIs behind a pay wall, the OD comp is an even bigger joke then the Shield at the moment while they've put all their eggs in the Big Bash basket, it wouldn't surprise me if they expect world t20 events to be a bigger thing or even become the new WC which is why they've gone down that path.

I just think with us being a pretty small chance in the World Cup, I'd rather not rush back guys like Warner/Smith when this Ashes could be their last away while they're at their peaks.
 

StingBitten

Premiership Player
Joined
May 31, 2012
Posts
4,820
Likes
6,885
Location
Bayswater
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Saffa's
You don’t rate the World Cup as an important tournament to try to win?
Personally? The Ashes trumps the World Cup, a tournament we've won several times vs something we haven't done since the world trade centres were still standing.

That's my view, however is it really too much to ask a test team to be adequately prepared for the biggest away tour for Australia? The best preparation isn't just your current side getting exposure, but the opportunity for others to apply pressure on those whom already have their sports.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2016
Posts
16,149
Likes
16,654
AFL Club
Geelong
Guptill
Latham
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Santner
Watling
Craig
Bracewell
Southee
Boult

v

Raval
Latham
Williamson
Taylor
Nicholls
Watling
de Grandhomme
Southee
Wagner
Patel
Boult

Might be a bit of a stretch to suggest that the later is vastly superior to the team last in Australia?
I know full well the personnel hasn’t changed much but you’d be hard pressed to argue that any member of the current side hasn’t improved significantly on their output 4-5 years ago bar maybe Williamson and Taylor
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,365
Likes
10,793
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
Personally? The Ashes trumps the World Cup, a tournament we've won several times vs something we haven't done since the world trade centres were still standing.

That's my view, however is it really too much to ask a test team to be adequately prepared for the biggest away tour for Australia? The best preparation isn't just your current side getting exposure, but the opportunity for others to apply pressure on those whom already have their sports.
We have been conditioned to believe that only Australia vs England *really* matters. It's just another series. As it stands, it will be 4th vs 5th on the world rankings - really, big ******* deal.
 

archibald

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Posts
1,365
Likes
2,198
AFL Club
Richmond
We have been conditioned to believe that only Australia vs England *really* matters. It's just another series. As it stands, it will be 4th vs 5th on the world rankings - really, big ******* deal.
It’s not only what “really” matters, but considering the historical context and the esteem with which players are placed if they perform well, it is and most likely forever will be a big deal for Australian and English supporters.

When Australia won the World Cup in 2007 I’d hazard a guess that Sri Lanka were not ranked number 1 or 2 in the world. So based on your logic, not a big ******* deal
 

Howard Littlejohn

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
13,358
Likes
6,753
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Ashes is every 18-24 months, not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, IMO.

A World Cup, on the other hand, is every four years, and you've basically gotta beat everyone to win it.

Give me the World Cup over the Ashes any day.
Give me any Test series over the World Cup any day.
 

big_e

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
4,365
Likes
10,793
Location
Your Wi-Fi
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wycombe Wanderers, 76ers
It’s not only what “really” matters, but considering the historical context and the esteem with which players are placed if they perform well, it is and most likely forever will be a big deal for Australian and English supporters.

When Australia won the World Cup in 2007 I’d hazard a guess that Sri Lanka were not ranked number 1 or 2 in the world. So based on your logic, not a big ******* deal
Way to miss the point.

Take your 2007 example. It was the final of a world championship event, at that stage the only world championship event the sport had. There were 16 teams, with 11 of those qualifying automatically, and another 86 taking part in qualifying tournaments. The winner had every right to call themselves the best 50-over team in the world. There wasn't another CWC for another four years. A World Cup is, by definition, a big deal.

A bilateral test series? Well, yes, the Ashes has history, it has context, it has esteem. But in this calendar year, we play for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, the Warne-Muralitharan Trophy, the Ashes, a home series against Pakistan (The Khawaja Cup???), then the Trans-Tasman Trophy. As soon as one is finished we move on, and to what end? Does it really matter?

But here's the rub: our focus on the Ashes is bad for the game. A test against Ireland would have done wonders for the sport in that country, but instead we schedule Australia A vs Australia B because The Ashes! We don't host Bangladesh because Kerry Packer lost money 15 years ago, despite the fact that playing them here will help them become a better test-playing nation. We host Sri Lanka, give them a half-arsed warm-up in Hobart and end up by sending them to Canberra. But instead of giving cricket fans a proper opportunity to see the best players, from all countries, we get England every four years.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kram

I'll brik u
Joined
May 2, 2007
Posts
53,159
Likes
66,582
Location
WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Chicago Bears, de Boer, Arsenal
Nobody gave an extra care about the Ashes for many years until 2005.

I definitely prefer Test cricket as a format but the World Cup is far, far more important compared to a series against one opponent no matter how long the history is.
 

archibald

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Posts
1,365
Likes
2,198
AFL Club
Richmond
Way to miss the point.

Take your 2007 example. It was the final of a world championship event, at that stage the only world championship event the sport had. There were 16 teams, with 11 of those qualifying automatically, and another 86 taking part in qualifying tournaments. The winner had every right to call themselves the best 50-over team in the world. There wasn't another CWC for another four years. A World Cup is, by definition, a big deal.

A bilateral test series? Well, yes, the Ashes has history, it has context, it has esteem. But in this calendar year, we play for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, the Warne-Muralitharan Trophy, the Ashes, a home series against Pakistan (The Khawaja Cup???), then the Trans-Tasman Trophy. As soon as one is finished we move on, and to what end? Does it really matter?

But here's the rub: our focus on the Ashes is bad for the game. A test against Ireland would have done wonders for the sport in that country, but instead we schedule Australia A vs Australia B because The Ashes! We don't host Bangladesh because Kerry Packer lost money 15 years ago, despite the fact that playing them here will help them become a better test-playing nation. We host Sri Lanka, give them a half-arsed warm-up in Hobart and end up by sending them to Canberra. But instead of giving cricket fans a proper opportunity to see the best players, from all countries, we get England every four years.
You made a point based on rankings and that somehow devaluing a contest. Was purely pointing that out.

Test cricket has always been unique in that it has never required some grandiose 'best of' competition. Thats not to say i'm not looking forward to a test championship, but to say test series don't matter or are meaningless is lazy as if you are an ardent follower you're aware of the historical context between the countries that are competing.

I agree that the CA and most international boards are more interested in monetising than truely developing the game's best interests though to somehow lay the blame on ashes scheduling is a strange choice of target.
 

StingBitten

Premiership Player
Joined
May 31, 2012
Posts
4,820
Likes
6,885
Location
Bayswater
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Saffa's
Is there anything I'm missing in related to the longer format though? Will any Aussie be playing county cricket? Will this happen before the Ashes?
 

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
25,061
Likes
21,844
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters, Mets
Black Caps achieve history, jumping to second in ICC test rankings for first time

View attachment 625358

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket...to-second-in-icc-test-rankings-for-first-time

It's incredible for a small nation with a miniscule population where cricket isn't even the main sport, how often the Kiwis manage to punch above their weight and produce quality cricketers especially in the last few years. This despite them playing few tests in comparison to the big 4.

This must surely be New Zealand's best ever era and the best team in their history. New Zealand play England and India at home, and visit Australia next year. I can't wait for India's tour of New Zealand tbh, think it would be a very competitive series.
Cricket isn't the main sport in about half those countries, including Australia.
 

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
25,061
Likes
21,844
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters, Mets
We have been conditioned to believe that only Australia vs England *really* matters. It's just another series. As it stands, it will be 4th vs 5th on the world rankings - really, big ******* deal.
It's self-perpetuating (plus relentless nostalgia marketing). Ashes is important so it gets big crowds and TV audience. This makes the other series look lesser. This makes the Ashes look like a big deal because of crowds and TV... and on it goes.

CA and their media partners are trying to India into Ashes 2.0. It's not going to work.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2016
Posts
16,149
Likes
16,654
AFL Club
Geelong
Cricket isn't the main sport in about half those countries, including Australia.
Perhaps not participation wise (soccer is streets ahead at number one) but cricket is the most widely followed sport in Australia and numbers wise sits roughly on par with about 5 other sports.

Comparing the gap between number one in Australia to cricket, and number one in NZ to cricket, is a pretty average comparison tbh.

Every kiwi I’ve ever met is a walking encyclopaedia of rugby knowledge. And plenty of them follow league as well, given the affiliation that the Pacific Islanders have for it. Cricket has its niche but of all the main cricketing nations, in terms of numerical prioritising of the sport, NZ could only be competing with the West Indies for bottom spot.

Even then, in the West Indies despite their waning fortunes at times, it still remains the biggest sport in the region.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 5, 2016
Posts
16,149
Likes
16,654
AFL Club
Geelong
It's self-perpetuating (plus relentless nostalgia marketing). Ashes is important so it gets big crowds and TV audience. This makes the other series look lesser. This makes the Ashes look like a big deal because of crowds and TV... and on it goes.

CA and their media partners are trying to India into Ashes 2.0. It's not going to work.
I agree with the first part. Not the last. It’s already working. India’s taste for beating Australia is only surpassed by beating Pakistan..... who they never play. Australia is the marquee target for India now, home and away. The diaspora means that the crowds will keep turning up here even when Australia are poor. And as a consequence of the abrasive way India likes to play, Australia loves to hate them probably more than England. Not necessarily at the stage of enjoying BEATING them more, but there’s a degree of lesser angst with England than there is with India. Relations have been sour basically since Ganguly took over and have never really improved. And the crowds have fed off it.
 

to1994

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Posts
1,397
Likes
1,152
AFL Club
Essendon
Way to miss the point.

Take your 2007 example. It was the final of a world championship event, at that stage the only world championship event the sport had. There were 16 teams, with 11 of those qualifying automatically, and another 86 taking part in qualifying tournaments. The winner had every right to call themselves the best 50-over team in the world. There wasn't another CWC for another four years. A World Cup is, by definition, a big deal.

A bilateral test series? Well, yes, the Ashes has history, it has context, it has esteem. But in this calendar year, we play for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, the Warne-Muralitharan Trophy, the Ashes, a home series against Pakistan (The Khawaja Cup???), then the Trans-Tasman Trophy. As soon as one is finished we move on, and to what end? Does it really matter?

But here's the rub: our focus on the Ashes is bad for the game. A test against Ireland would have done wonders for the sport in that country, but instead we schedule Australia A vs Australia B because The Ashes! We don't host Bangladesh because Kerry Packer lost money 15 years ago, despite the fact that playing them here will help them become a better test-playing nation. We host Sri Lanka, give them a half-arsed warm-up in Hobart and end up by sending them to Canberra. But instead of giving cricket fans a proper opportunity to see the best players, from all countries, we get England every four years.
No one cares about any of those trophies besides The Ashes, for the rest of them it's just about the series win.

Ashes are bad for the game? They're a series that still has the general public's interest which is very important and I don't think a 4 year cycle is ruining the game. Considering we're playing India in a home series AGAIN before England is far more puzzling.

I'll tell you what is bad for the game? ODI cricket. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind ODIs and enjoy them more than t20 but the scheduling is what has actually ruined Test tours and stopped teams like Sri Lanka, Pakistan etc. adapting away from home. Because almost every Test tour has 3-5 ODIs and T20I attached to them there's no respite between anything and there's simply no time apart from a 2-3 day tour game which offer teams almost nothing.

When you see countries like New Zealand or Pakistan turn 3 Test into 2 Test series to fit in 3 ODIs it's worrying and that's where the damage is being done.Not to mention you have these pointless series taking guys like Maxwell away from FC cricket, they never get a shot and the longer format is poorer as a result.

I could easily say t20 is bad for the game, but it at least has it's benefits. It seems to be the best way to introduce youth to Cricket, it's incredibly popular and the different tournaments have helped individuals from smaller nations get exposure, Afghanistan guys like Nabi recently talked about how valuable it is passing on the knowledge they learn in these tournaments back to guys who don't really play outside Afghanistan so I'll give t20 some credit there.

But ODIs? Not popular anywhere outside India and I think they'll just watch ANY cricket, it's not about the format itself. The format feels pointless when the only reason they're played is to build for a every 4 year tournament that's starting to cut out minnow nations anyway. I just don't think there's room for the 3 formats to co-exist without all of them suffering in one way or another, it's not going to happen any time soon, but I'd be happy to see the end of ODIs if it can improve the other two formats.
 

Park cricketer

All Australian
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Posts
873
Likes
1,066
AFL Club
Adelaide
Cricket isn't the main sport in about half those countries, including Australia.
I can't prove this but I've always found cricket struggling to get attention in New Zealand in comparison to rugby. You can't say the same about England and Australia which regularly gets very good crowds, despite possibly playing second fiddle to different sports. Only West Indies is probably worse in that regard, rugby is also popular in South Africa but there's still a lot of interest in cricket there.
 

footyfan78

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Posts
18,148
Likes
17,578
Location
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
We have been conditioned to believe that only Australia vs England *really* matters. It's just another series. As it stands, it will be 4th vs 5th on the world rankings - really, big ******* deal.
The Ashes thing is over- hyped. Biggest thrills in my life have been 1995 Test series win in West Indies, 1989 Ashes victory after being shit for about 5 years.
After that first series win in South Africa in my time of watching and then 1987 World cup win. 1999, 2003 and Test series win in India next.

Between World Cups one day cricket pretty meaningless now, simply because we virtually never pick our best team. When I grew up watching cricket they did not rest or rotate the best 11, they picked the best team they could for every one dayer. Used to goto one day matches at MCG all the time until they stopped picking best team. World Cups are only time we are trying to pick best team as we approach finals. ODI's becoming interesting leading up to World Cup as they start to get closer to real sides. But once World Cup is over for next 2 to 3 years almost irrelevant. Test cricket won't be. Each year as important as next.
 

Ishikawa

Team Captain
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Posts
499
Likes
529
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
But ODIs? Not popular anywhere outside India and I think they'll just watch ANY cricket, it's not about the format itself. The format feels pointless when the only reason they're played is to build for a every 4 year tournament that's starting to cut out minnow nations anyway. I just don't think there's room for the 3 formats to co-exist without all of them suffering in one way or another, it's not going to happen any time soon, but I'd be happy to see the end of ODIs if it can improve the other two formats.
That's a pretty ignorant statement.
 
Top Bottom