Problem with International Cricket

[Alberton_Magpie]

It has been bugging me for a long time now about the obvious flaws international cricket has:

1) Majority of matches are just glorified friendlies (excluding World Cup)

2) You can count the amount of good teams on one hand (England, Australia, South Africa, India)

3) Home pitch advantages in test cricket is ridiculous (Sub-continent spin, Australia flat tracks)

How can we fix it:
I think they need to start doing some sort of league which is more like a club based competition. Only have test matches and 20/20 competitions, have it similar to a World Cup with group stages and then knockout stages and invite more countries (from that region) to participate to gain further experience. Teams that are travelling can have a host city/country similar to what they do in world cups in soccer.

Northern League (hosts: England, Ireland, Netherlands, West Indies)
Central League (hosts: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka)
Southern League (hosts: South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe)

Example:
Southern League: December - February (guest countries Kenya, Hong Kong, PNG, Namibia)
Rest Month: March
Northern League: April - June (guest countries Bermuda, USA, Scotland, Canada)
Rest Month: July
Central League: August - October (guest countries UAE, Oman, Afghanistan, Nepal)
Rest Month: November

2017 Summer League
Group A
Australia (MCG)
Pakistan (Westpac Stadium)
Sri Lanka (Queen Elizabeth II Park)
PNG (Owen Delany Park)

Group B
India (SCG)
New Zealand (Eden Park)
Bangladesh (Gabba)
Kenya (SuperSport Park)

Group C
England (Adelaide Oval)
Zimbabwe (Harare)
Ireland (McLean Park)
Namibia (St George's Park)

Group D
South Africa (Wanderers)
West Indies (Buffalo Park)
Netherlands (Chevrolet Park)
Hong Kong (Manuka Oval)

 

[Marklar_33]

 

[STFU Donnie]

 

[Hellgood]

2) You can count the amount of good teams on one hand (England, Australia, South Africa, India)

3-0

 

[t_94]

Problem is its so hard to win away. Teams pack in games and tours to appease money hungry boards.

In my opinion to adjust to test cricket overseas and perform to a high level there should be at least two competitive four day games prior to the 1st test. I'm talking proper fc sides not CA u/18s. 12 tests per team per year is plenty.

 

[DuckToaster]

The problem is the ICC. They are not interested in fixing the mess they created and are only interested in tv rights money.

 

[JG22]

Home ground advantage is ridiculous in test cricket.

Problem is teams get thrashed and want revenge when they go back home.

And no one is courageous enough to sacrifice their own home matches by adjusting conditions.

 

[JG22]

The toss is also so crucial and shapes how test series play out.

Some recent examples:

Ashes 2013/14. Australia win the first 4 tosses and are able to kill England off. Would of been very close with England batting first.

RSA v Aus 2014. Each test match the team who wins the toss bats first and wins the match easily.

Aus v RSA 2016. South Africa win toss at Perth road and grind Aus out, win at Hobart hooper and win easily with Australian cricket being labelled a rabble, Aus win toss at Adelaide and win it easy. Aus cricket is back! No they just managed to win the toss

To be fair it is 50/50 and should be probably left alone but the obvious idea is away team chooses what to do

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The toss is also so crucial and shapes how test series play out.

Some recent examples:

Ashes 2013/14. Australia win the first 4 tosses and are able to kill England off. Would of been very close with England batting first.

RSA v Aus 2014. Each test match the team who wins the toss bats first and wins the match easily.

Aus v RSA 2016. South Africa win toss at Perth road and grind Aus out, win at Hobart hooper and win easily with Australian cricket being labelled a rabble, Aus win toss at Adelaide and win it easy. Aus cricket is back! No they just managed to win the toss

To be fair it is 50/50 and should be probably left alone but the obvious idea is away team chooses what to do

No the obvious thing is to prepare lively pitches. There is a far greater advantage batting first on a road than there is bowling on a green top. A test pitch should be a green top day one anyway.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The one idea I liked was from Mark Taylor I think.

Have 1 toss and then alternate the result of that toss for the entire series.

 

[PhatBoy]

F*** me since the game began, teams have generally performed well at home and found it tougher away. If it was easy there'd be more than just the odd dynastic side like the West Indies or Australia, or to a lesser extent the SA side from 08-15.

Deal with it

 

[greatwhiteshark]

F*** me since the game began, teams have generally performed well at home and found it tougher away. If it was easy there'd be more than just the odd dynastic side like the West Indies or Australia, or to a lesser extent the SA side from 08-15.

Deal with it

could not agree more, just prepare better pitches and no issue.

 

[frankrizzo]

The poor quality of the teams is the biggest issue right now not the home pitches or having a coin toss, SA recently lost i think just one away series in 8 years because they had high quality disciplined test cricketers who were willing to work on weaknesses and change their games when the conditions didn't suit their natural games.

It can be done but it is very very hard and it is meant to be.

 

[PhatBoy]

The poor quality of the teams is the biggest issue right now not the home pitches or having a coin toss, SA recently lost i think just one away series in 8 years because they had high quality disciplined test cricketers who were willing to work on weaknesses and change their games when the conditions didn't suit their natural games.

It can be done but it is very very hard and it is meant to be.

0 away series losses between end of 07 and end of 15

 

[Sammo360]

The one idea I liked was from Mark Taylor I think.

Have 1 toss and then alternate the result of that toss for the entire series.

But wouldn't that mean Test series would have to consist of either 2, 4 or 6 Tests for fairness? Could have

2 v Bangladesh/Zimbabwe/West Indies
4 v India/Sri Lanka/South Africa/Pakistan
6 v England

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But wouldn't that mean Test series would have to consist of either 2, 4 or 6 Tests for fairness?

A team getting 2 out of 3 tosses isn't awful

The other one I don't mind is the AWAY side chooses regardless would stop home nations rolling out highways

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I've followed Test cricket for 50 years and loved the fact we see different conditions in different countries. It gives players a chance to try themselves in all sorts of conditions. This is why it is called TEST cricket. The last thing I want to see in Test cricket is to be like basketball where playing conditions are the same the world over, same size playing arena, basket the same height, surfaces the same, etc.

Part of what I really enjoy about Tests is going to another country and beating them on their own dung heap. I recall 1969-70 going to India and beating them 3-1, it was one of Australia's great results beating India on turning decks against a team with the best spinners in the world. That is what it's about. This is why coming to Australia and winning here is such a big deal for other countries.

Now, I honestly feel the reason away records are so poor these days is we no longer have tours like we used to. Far too many 3 Test series where a country arrives from overseas and virtually straight into Tests. This is why Australia's record in Brisbane is astounding. Australia have not lost a Test in Brisbane since 1988-89 against the West Indies. Since then they have won 21 and drawn 7. This is far and away the best home record for Australia than any other venue.

Why? Simply because other countries get here, play one crappy warm up game and are straight into the Brisbane Test. We really need to get back to solid 5 month, 5 Test series. You can throw in as many truncated games as you like in that time, but allow countries to acclimatise, spread the Test matches out, and you will see better away performances.

 

[PhatBoy]

I've followed Test cricket for 50 years and loved the fact we see different conditions in different countries. It gives players a chance to try themselves in all sorts of conditions. This is why it is called TEST cricket. The last thing I want to see in Test cricket is to be like basketball where playing conditions are the same the world over, same size playing arena, basket the same height, surfaces the same, etc.

Part of what I really enjoy about Tests is going to another country and beating them on their own dung heap. I recall 1969-70 going to India and beating them 3-1, it was one of Australia's great results beating India on turning decks against a team with the best spinners in the world. That is what it's about. This is why coming to Australia and winning here is such a big deal for other countries.

Now, I honestly feel the reason away records are so poor these days is we no longer have tours like we used to. Far too many 3 Test series where a country arrives from overseas and virtually straight into Tests. This is why Australia's record in Brisbane is astounding. Australia have not lost a Test in Brisbane since 1988-89 against the West Indies. Since then they have won 21 and drawn 7. This is far and away the best home record for Australia than any other venue.

Why? Simply because other countries get here, play one crappy warm up game and are straight into the Brisbane Test. We really need to get back to solid 5 month, 5 Test series. You can throw in as many truncated games as you like in that time, but allow countries to acclimatise, spread the Test matches out, and you will see better away performances.

Thank you.

For the last few years I've been reading whinge after whinge that postulates 'teams only win at home because they all doctor the wickets to suit themselves.'

It's simply bullshit.
India and SL pitches have always turned and stayed low. England pitches have always seamed, NZ pitches have done likewise with less pace, Australian pitches have always bounced and carried but not offered much sideways movement.

The only ones that have changed are West Indies pitches and even that doesn't seem deliberate, it's simply a consequence of not having to juice them up for a production line of freak fast bowlers.


Instead I tend to agree that no countries give themselves a proper chance to acclimatise. It may also explain in part one of the reasons SA were so good away from home - historically they've played a bit less cricket than other sides so they've had more time to prepare for various tours.

 

[strewthcobber]

Last 5 years:-
Australia win the toss 17-5
Australia lose the toss 12-14

Everyone else win the toss 78-71
Everyone else lose the toss 64-81

 

[The Passenger]

The facts say it's getting harder and harder to win away from home

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rby=win_loss_ratio;template=results;type=team

Lets exclude the 1870's as there was only 3 tests. 3 of the 4 decades with the highest win/loss ratio to the home team are the 1990's, 2000's, 2010's.

And look at the decades from 1930's to 1980's. Each decade progressively had a better W/L record to home teams.

You can hide behind the it's always been hard to win away line all you want. Whilst it is true, it is not healthy that it has become to the extent it is now. In 2013 only 2 tests out of 41 were won by the away team. And they were both tests Zimbabwe lost at home (once to Pakistan, once to Bangladesh). Fortunately it has pegged back a bit but home teams are still dominating to an extent that hasn't been seen before in the game - not over any sort of extended period anyway.

There is so much that goes into causing this that it's impossible to point the finger of blame at one particular factor. Test cricket got rid of home umpires due to (perceived and real) bias, but now we are faced with an even more lopsided win/loss ratio. Why? The international schedule means teams don't tour like they used to so aren't getting acclamitised to the country they are in.... countries are developing players tailor made for their own conditions...It's not just home teams preparing pitches suited to them (though it is also one of the most many factors).

Either way I don't think the current trent is healthy for the game. Yes the home side has the advantage and the touring side has the challenge ahead of them. That is how it has always been and how it should be.... But just as batsmen having become domineering over bowlers and that needs to be pegged back a fraction, so to does the advantage home sides are weidling over their guests. Test cricket has always thrived on the balance of a contest.

 

[JG22]

Last 5 years:-
Australia win the toss 17-5
Australia lose the toss 12-14

Everyone else win the toss 78-71
Everyone else lose the toss 64-81

**** oath
The toss is so key

 

[The Passenger]

But the biggest problem facing international cricket is meaningless bilateral series. These series need to start having some sort of context. I'm not sure how it would work but the world test championships needs to start taking shape. This old chestnut was trialled in the 1910's and been in the pipeline ever since.

Currently we have South Africa playing Sri Lanka and Bangaldesh playing New Zealand. Watched bits off both and they have been entertaining. No doubt there's been some great cricket played and who would've expected Bangladesh to bat so well.... But who really gives a **** outside of the players, some fans from both countries and a handful of die-hard fans around the world? Pretty much no one. The crowds for test cricket are dire. The interest is virtually non-existent. There are more people interested in who the Brentford Bee's are playing this weekend in the English Championship then both those series combined. The way test cricket is contested needs to evolve.

As a traditionalist that hurts me. I love test cricket. The ebbs and flows of a days play, a test and a series as a whole are a wonderous joy to watch. But it needs to evolve. The threat isn't right here and now but in 10 years time it very much will be.

The death of test cricket has been called for 50 years is the cry of those saying it can't change and that it will always survive any threat. I wish they were right. Test cricket won't die, but if it keeps going the way it is it'll be drastically reduced. It'll become a sideshow - which ironically, might increase how special each test match and test series become.... T20 has opened up doors previously not thought possible - particularly for players from the poorer nations. In the modern professional world every sport is competing against each other for a share of the pie, and whilst the pie is getting bigger there is only so much to go around. No sport (or form of a sport, in this case) can be called healthy when most days the attendance is less than 5,000. 5,000 is probably being generous. I reckon most test cricket I watch outside of Australia and England now is lucky to see 2,000 people in the crowd.

The Ashes is the only bilateral series that should be set in stone IMO. The current big four of Aus/Eng/Ind/SA should play bileteral series, and only when both teams are strong enough to justify one (The Ashes aside).

Outside of that, everything needs to be in the context of the aforementioned world test championship. I don't have the answer for how that works. Unfortunately Australia, England and India have such a stranglehold on things off the field they'd never relinquish playing each if one of those countries performances dropped off. At the moment they're never far from the top nations, and if either of those three do drop out of the top four they are usually back in pretty quick. But there will come a time when one of A/E/I stumble and what then? Can that cash cow keep being milked?

IMO something needs to change. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[strewthcobber]

Auatralia Last 5 years away:-
Win toss 5-5-3 draws
Lost toss 5-9-0 draws

 

[PhatBoy]

But the biggest problem facing international cricket is meaningless bilateral series. These series need to start having some sort of context. I'm not sure how it would work but the world test championships needs to start taking shape. This old chestnut was trialled in the 1910's and been in the pipeline ever since.

Currently we have South Africa playing Sri Lanka and Bangaldesh playing New Zealand. Watched bits off both and they have been entertaining. No doubt there's been some great cricket played and who would've expected Bangladesh to bat so well.... But who really gives a **** outside of the players, some fans from both countries and a handful of die-hard fans around the world? Pretty much no one. The crowds for test cricket are dire. The interest is virtually non-existent. There are more people interested in who the Brentford Bee's are playing this weekend in the English Championship then both those series combined. The way test cricket is contested needs to evolve.

As a traditionalist that hurts me. I love test cricket. The ebbs and flows of a days play, a test and a series as a whole are a wonderous joy to watch. But it needs to evolve. The threat isn't right here and now but in 10 years time it very much will be.

The death of test cricket has been called for 50 years is the cry of those saying it can't change and that it will always survive any threat. I wish they were right. Test cricket won't die, but if it keeps going the way it is it'll be drastically reduced. It'll become a sideshow - which ironically, might increase how special each test match and test series become.... T20 has opened up doors previously not thought possible - particularly for players from the poorer nations. In the modern professional world every sport is competing against each other for a share of the pie, and whilst the pie is getting bigger there is only so much to go around. No sport (or form of a sport, in this case) can be called healthy when most days the attendance is less than 5,000. 5,000 is probably being generous. I reckon most test cricket I watch outside of Australia and England now is lucky to see 2,000 people in the crowd.

The Ashes is the only bilateral series that should be set in stone IMO. The current big four of Aus/Eng/Ind/SA should play bileteral series, and only when both teams are strong enough to justify one (The Ashes aside).

Outside of that, everything needs to be in the context of the aforementioned world test championship. I don't have the answer for how that works. Unfortunately Australia, England and India have such a stranglehold on things off the field they'd never relinquish playing each if one of those countries performances dropped off. At the moment they're never far from the top nations, and if either of those three do drop out of the top four they are usually back in pretty quick. But there will come a time when one of A/E/I stumble and what then? Can that cash cow keep being milked?

IMO something needs to change. I hope I'm wrong.

Can't say I agree with this.
Every series means something.

If it didn't, Australia would have only played the West Indies between 1960 and 2003, only would haven been playing India for the last 20 years etc. the ashes, Pakistan-India and maybe SA-England are the only series with any real historical context yet for years everyone has been playing everyone.

 

[Kram]

I don't know why people always go on about the poor Test crowds.

A game that goes for up to 5 days with 3 (or more) played during work days is always going to usually have very poor attendance at the actual ground. Especially with competition from 2 more formats now. Doesn't mean that there still isn't a lot of interest or following in the game being played even if people don't go to the ground.

Of course this is also this is why night Test cricket is so, so important now in making the game more accessible.

edit - not sure about elsewhere but ticket prices at the WACA for Tests and ODIs are generally pretty ridiculous when the ground is often mostly empty.