Improving Test cricket - a simple fix

[beatnik]

The obvious way to ‘improve’ the standard of Test cricket is to pay players more money to actually play it.

The major problem is that it’s really only commercially viable for 3-4 nations to pay players at a level that prevents their best talent from choosing to become full-time T20 guns-for-hire.

A simple fix would be for all the T20 competitions across the cricket-playing world to send 50% of the ‘salary’ they pay to international players back to their home country’s association in charge of Test cricket.

The catch is that this money can’t be used on anything except match payments for players playing Test cricket.

With Test match players being paid out of these funds (I.e. essentially subsidising Test cricket), home Boards would be incentivised to host more Test series as they’d become profitable again. They’d also be incentivised to invest in developing both Test and T20 as they’d received income streams from both, even from those who choose not to play for their country.

Potential Test players in poorer countries would no longer have to choose between playing for their country and earning a decent living. The standard goes up and so does the interest.

It also ties future Test cricket wages to T20 pay levels so that as the latter sky rockets, so does the money coming back into the long form.

Are there any downsides to this model? Can you improve on it?

Edit: I changed the title to ‘improving’ to help those who get triggered by the word ‘saving’

 

[Gethelred]

It. Does. Not. Need. Saving.

Test cricket is fine. We've barely had a shit test - a genuine plodder of a thing - in ****ing years. The doomerism around the neverending demise of test cricket is irritating as hell.

I mean, we've had upsets, we've had records broken, we've had opponents winning where they've never won before. We've had partnerships that defy convention; young guns and old stagers succeeding and failing as we always have.

South Africa just beat Australia in the WTC. NZ won an overseas tour of India. India beat us here, twice in a row, after failing to do so ever before; that we pinched the BGT back is only due to the injury of an all time great fast bowler rendering their attack pedestrian.

What is it about the Australian cricket fan that sees Australia winning overseas and thinks the sky is falling in?

 

[beatnik]

It. Does. Not. Need. Saving.

Test cricket is fine. We've barely had a shit test - a genuine plodder of a thing - in ****ing years. The doomerism around the neverending demise of test cricket is irritating as hell.

I mean, we've had upsets, we've had records broken, we've had opponents winning where they've never won before. We've had partnerships that defy convention; young guns and old stagers succeeding and failing as we always have.

South Africa just beat Australia in the WTC. NZ won an overseas tour of India. India beat us here, twice in a row, after failing to do so ever before; that we pinched the BGT back is only due to the injury of an all time great fast bowler rendering their attack pedestrian.

What is it about the Australian cricket fan that sees Australia winning overseas and thinks the sky is falling in?

Did. You. Read. The. Post?

Why not respond to the substance of the post rather than to one single word that triggered you about previous frustrating conversations you’ve had?

Swap ‘saving’ for ‘improving’ and try again

Edit: I changed it for you, hope you’re ok

 

[Gethelred]

Did. You. Read. The. Post?

Why not respond to the substance of the post rather than to one single word that triggered you about previous frustrating conversations you’ve had?

Because the premise that test cricket needs to be 'saved' was and remains a faulty one, which is what I objected to.

I also object somewhat to the idea that it needs to be improved as well, even if I would like your policies implemented whilst also acknowledging that it's never gonna happen.

How on EARTH do you think the ACA and ECB would even dream of bringing the BCCI to heel on this, much less the PCL, the CSL or the IPL?

Swap ‘saving’ for ‘improving’ and try again

Edit: I changed it for you, hope you’re ok

Better, but you opened the door with imprecise language. If you don't like people interpreting the words you use in adverse ways (or, the way the dictionary would suggest) perhaps ensure that you say what you meant the first time around instead of blaming people for taking you at face value.

 

[nick1408]

The obvious way to ‘improve’ the standard of Test cricket is to pay players more money to actually play it.

The major problem is that it’s really only commercially viable for 3-4 nations to pay players at a level that prevents their best talent from choosing to become full-time T20 guns-for-hire.

A simple fix would be for all the T20 competitions across the cricket-playing world to send 50% of the ‘salary’ they pay to international players back to their home country’s association in charge of Test cricket.

The catch is that this money can’t be used on anything except match payments for players playing Test cricket.

With Test match players being paid out of these funds (I.e. essentially subsidising Test cricket), home Boards would be incentivised to host more Test series as they’d become profitable again. They’d also be incentivised to invest in developing both Test and T20 as they’d received income streams from both, even from those who choose not to play for their country.

Potential Test players in poorer countries would no longer have to choose between playing for their country and earning a decent living. The standard goes up and so does the interest.

It also ties future Test cricket wages to T20 pay levels so that as the latter sky rockets, so does the money coming back into the long form.

Are there any downsides to this model? Can you improve on it?

Edit: I changed the title to ‘improving’ to help those who get triggered by the word ‘saving’

My initial question is how will you get the private T20/T10 etc. to donate the money? For the most part the ICC does not have control of the competitions to actually implement this. My feeling is that if they did have the control they would already be doing it somewhat (once India/Australia/England take their slice).

I think you've identified what a lot of people have and that is that it isn't financially viable for a lot of players to play test cricket. The issue is how to get more money available that isn't being swallowed up by private competitions.

 

[PhatBoy]

It. Does. Not. Need. Saving.

Test cricket is fine. We've barely had a shit test - a genuine plodder of a thing - in ****ing years. The doomerism around the neverending demise of test cricket is irritating as hell.

I mean, we've had upsets, we've had records broken, we've had opponents winning where they've never won before. We've had partnerships that defy convention; young guns and old stagers succeeding and failing as we always have.

South Africa just beat Australia in the WTC. NZ won an overseas tour of India. India beat us here, twice in a row, after failing to do so ever before; that we pinched the BGT back is only due to the injury of an all time great fast bowler rendering their attack pedestrian.

What is it about the Australian cricket fan that sees Australia winning overseas and thinks the sky is falling in?

For the most part I agree.

There are a few things that need some tinkering, though.

The game doesn’t need India, Australia and England playing each other all the time, five times at a time.

And it’s ok for you. Your team at any given time has all its players knowing that playing basically any franchise cricket they choose is viable, AND they can represent their country at test level and be extremely well compensated for both.

The players within the confines of the side I support don’t really have that luxury and it is always going to have SOME impact. I think it is having a lower impact now than it has previously but it is still causing issues. I’m not talking about issues with techniques and so forth. Just with players not being able to commit fully to one thing or another for any length of time. It’s going to happen again with the most talented teenager in the west indies soon enough I’m certain of it.

 

[Kappa]

It. Does. Not. Need. Saving.

Test cricket is fine. We've barely had a shit test - a genuine plodder of a thing - in ****ing years. The doomerism around the neverending demise of test cricket is irritating as hell.

I mean, we've had upsets, we've had records broken, we've had opponents winning where they've never won before. We've had partnerships that defy convention; young guns and old stagers succeeding and failing as we always have.

South Africa just beat Australia in the WTC. NZ won an overseas tour of India. India beat us here, twice in a row, after failing to do so ever before; that we pinched the BGT back is only due to the injury of an all time great fast bowler rendering their attack pedestrian.

What is it about the Australian cricket fan that sees Australia winning overseas and thinks the sky is falling in?

This is such a crazy take when you look at test cricket crowds in NZ/SA/WI ect ect and there's barely a few hundred people in at periods.

If that isn't extremely concerning for you then your heads at in the sand. Young kids are simply not watching test cricket like they use to

 

[PhatBoy]

This is such a crazy take when you look at test cricket crowds in NZ/SA/WI ect ect and there's barely a few hundred people in at periods.

If that isn't extremely concerning for you then your heads at in the sand. Young kids are simply not watching test cricket like they use to

When wasn’t that the case, aside from the Caribbean?
I remember when Allan border broke the run scoring world record 32 years ago.

It was done in front of a handful of supporters and a dog or two in New Zealand. Crowds over there are actually better now than they were.

SA have always had flighty crowds that largely depend on the opposition and the time of year ie. public holidays.

 

[Gethelred]

This is such a crazy take when you look at test cricket crowds in NZ/SA/WI ect ect and there's barely a few hundred people in at periods.

If that isn't extremely concerning for you then your heads at in the sand. Young kids are simply not watching test cricket like they use to

Dude, participation in cricket is growing in Australia, England and South Africa whilst still being the primary, unshakable king of the sporting landscape in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Cricket has exploded in popularity in Afghanistan. Crowds have always been a problem for test cricket, as most people have - you know - ****ing jobs and exist barely above subsistence for most of cricket's history.

Far from ensuring the death of cricket, the IPL adding funding to the game has all but ensured test cricket's survival because there will always be interest in more cricket in India.

I'm also going to point out that telling someone else they have their head in the sand is an ad hominem attack rather than a valid criticism of a point of view. I have better things to do with my time, Kappa, than get into something that stupid with you so I'd ask you to reconsider your tack, please.

 

[Teen Wolf]

With that in mind... the actual way to ensure Test cricket's commercial viability, while keeping the format alive in every full member nation at an extremely high standard, would be to restructure the WTC as a franchise competition.

Each team would consist of players from every full member nation including India--cue lucrative broadcast rights for every match.

Here's a dish of cricket utopia I prepared earlier:



Look at that. It's beautiful. Go Crush!

 

[revo333]

Dude, participation in cricket is growing in Australia, England and South Africa whilst still being the primary, unshakable king of the sporting landscape in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Cricket has exploded in popularity in Afghanistan. Crowds have always been a problem for test cricket, as most people have - you know - ****ing jobs and exist barely above subsistence for most of cricket's history.

Because people from other countries are coming over here to live.

My nephew plays for a club in the east of Melbourne and most of the junior teams are filed with Indians and Sri Lankans.

 

[thistimeforsure]

With that in mind... the actual way to ensure Test cricket's commercial viability, while keeping the format alive in every full member nation at an extremely high standard, would be to restructure the WTC as a franchise competition.

Each team would consist of players from every full member nation including India--cue lucrative broadcast rights for every match.

Here's a dish of cricket utopia I prepared earlier:

View attachment 2370578

Look at that. It's beautiful. Go Crush!

Your plan definitely appeals to the secessionist side of my personality ….. change our name to the INDO-PAC REVOLUTION please

 

[Gethelred]

Because people from other countries are coming over here to live.

My nephew plays for a club in the east of Melbourne and most of the junior teams are filed with Indians and Sri Lankans.

... and? Does it matter where our players come from?

 

[Gough]

With that in mind... the actual way to ensure Test cricket's commercial viability, while keeping the format alive in every full member nation at an extremely high standard, would be to restructure the WTC as a franchise competition.

Each team would consist of players from every full member nation including India--cue lucrative broadcast rights for every match.

Here's a dish of cricket utopia I prepared earlier:

View attachment 2370578

Look at that. It's beautiful. Go Crush!

The one lesson we drew from that World XI game all those years ago is that you can call it Test cricket but unless it's nation against nation it's not the same.

 

[sherb]

The one lesson we drew from that World XI game all those years ago is that you can call it Test cricket but unless it's nation against nation it's not the same.

It depends.

I was around for the two RoW series (1970 England and 1971-72 Australia) and they certainly felt like Test cricket to me. High quality, top level cricket between two strong and well matched teams in each case. Although those two series arose in different circumstances to the game you reference - they replaced cancelled South African tours, which gave them far more of a Test "feel".

I'm still of the opinion that those two series should be regarded at Test matches. But that's just me.

There is also the question of quality. You will struggle to convince me that the recent SA-Zimbabwe series I watched recently was Test cricket. And that was nation v nation. I'd much rather have watched, and would have regarded far more highly, (for instance) Australia v RoW XI than that farce.

So it's a bit more nuanced than "nation v nation" in my opinion.

 

[PhatBoy]

It depends.

I was around for the two RoW series (1970 England and 1971-72 Australia) and they certainly felt like Test cricket to me. High quality, top level cricket between two strong and well matched teams in each case. Although those two series arose in different circumstances to the game you reference - they replaced cancelled South African tours, which gave them far more of a Test "feel".

I'm still of the opinion that those two series should be regarded at Test matches. But that's just me.

There is also the question of quality. You will struggle to convince me that the recent SA-Zimbabwe series I watched recently was Test cricket. And that was nation v nation. I'd much rather have watched, and would have regarded far more highly, (for instance) Australia v RoW XI than that farce.

So it's a bit more nuanced than "nation v nation" in my opinion.

And that’s fine, and it’s a very valid point.

That test match was terrible.

But you can cite so many examples of something similar. It’s only a few years since that same SA team came to Australia and this happened:

They were 5-60, and only made 189 because Kyle Verreyne and Marco Jansen put on 100 for the 6th wicket.

Then Australia declared for nearly 600, had SA 4-60 and again it was only because Bavuma dug in and scratched out 65 that the SA side made 200. Lost by an Innings and 182 runs.

Within two and a half years they’ve won 13 of their last 17 tests (yes that includes the two against Zimbabwe) and the four non-wins?

2 of them were the ‘C’ team tour against NZ and one of those tests they actually gave themselves a chance to win, another one was a draw, and another was the two-day test against India on that shitheap at Newlands where Markram hit that stupid hundred.

Good teams can have really, really bad days in test cricket too, as well as the bad teams playing bad test cricket.