Test Proposal to split test cricket into two divisions

[Gibbke]

• Get rid of ODIs. Sorry, but too many formats, stick to one short form format, and although I prefer 1-day over T20, the numbers have spoken.
• No T20 internationals.
• All T20 to be "club" cricket - with an international club competition based on the existing suite of country-based competitions (IPL, BBL etc).
• If you want to represent your country, you need to play test cricket.
• Exception - once per 4 years there is an international short form World Cup (T20 probably).

The games which attract the least interest in any forms of cricket are games between local teams from different countries. Unlike soccer, with comps like UEFA, there have been many international series between the domestic champs or otherwise in all three formats and they've all failed. If the IPL couldn't keep theirs, it's a clear sign the concept isn't a winner - how many followed the recent series in the Windies? In Australia, our day to day mindset is structured around the states...we take more pride in being a Victorian than being a Star or a Renegade, and as a northern Tasmanian myself, I'm prepared to drop the reluctance to back anything called "Hobart" and go all in hoping the Hurricanes representing Tasmania smash mainland f###heads, as they gloriously did last summer (the Jackjumpers totally got it right and never refer to themselves as what they obviously are - Hobart - and as a result we're all suddenly basketball fans down there!). Several years back the Canes dominated a season only to be bundled out in straight sets, and I recall not giving a rat's about the comp after that...didn't bother checking the result of the final and discovered it days later...the T20 franchise product lasts as long as any $9 t-shirt made in Bangladesh that you bought from K-Mart...

Getting rid of ODI's...time for you to go to the top of a mountain with your most sacred spiritual possessions, or alternatively a carton of the best stuff, and contemplate the meaning of cricket. You said you prefer 50 overs to 20 - why? Is it because the game still remains the core of cricket, which is the contest between bat and ball, something lost in T20's? If that's the case (it's definitely mine), then to be making a statement like that I'm hoping you're just a fair and majority minded young bloke arguing a case for rationalisation, not a grizzly bastard like myself who can't wait to finish the front porch facing anyone who walks past the house complete with rocking chair, fridge and shotgun, and who also says "f### everyone else, you're all wrong, bring back the WSC!"...seriously, I'd be thinking there's no need for axing a game that draws huge crowds to the biggest events when the rationalisation probably only needs to be amongst matches that aren't the big ones...I've already suggested that above. If it doesn't count in the big picture, then don't play it, but make everyone from the top to the bottom work over years to make the final. And then, most importantly, both me and you still get to see it. Going to a WC Final was on my bucket list, and I achieved it in 2015 (the first member of my family in space judging by the height of that MCG grandstand!), and came very close to getting a seat in 2019 at Lord's...a T20 WC Final has nothing like the same attraction, although I do admit it would have been nice to be at Bellerive last summer...!

What do you think would win out within 100 years if we did get rid of international limited overs cricket? Would we still be playing tests between nations with the necessary first class comps supporting them and a ton of franchising, or would we see tests themselves become franchises...? If we were going to dig out the odd world cup, how do the nations prepare? Even though there have always been the odd players who were tagged as one or the other, Australia probably started the formal notion of separate limited over and test squads after they lost the final in 1996 and axed Healy from ODI's for Gilchrist while still selecting him as the test keeper...you'd be abandoning all of that, turning it into a structure that looks more like the 1877 method of selecting the first test team...!

 

[Bletch]

The games which attract the least interest in any forms of cricket are games between local teams from different countries. Unlike soccer, with comps like UEFA, there have been many international series between the domestic champs or otherwise in all three formats and they've all failed. If the IPL couldn't keep theirs, it's a clear sign the concept isn't a winner - how many followed the recent series in the Windies? In Australia, our day to day mindset is structured around the states...we take more pride in being a Victorian than being a Star or a Renegade, and as a northern Tasmanian myself, I'm prepared to drop the reluctance to back anything called "Hobart" and go all in hoping the Hurricanes representing Tasmania smash mainland f###heads, as they gloriously did last summer (the Jackjumpers totally got it right and never refer to themselves as what they obviously are - Hobart - and as a result we're all suddenly basketball fans down there!). Several years back the Canes dominated a season only to be bundled out in straight sets, and I recall not giving a rat's about the comp after that...didn't bother checking the result of the final and discovered it days later...the T20 franchise product lasts as long as any $9 t-shirt made in Bangladesh that you bought from K-Mart...

You're making an assumption here (and quite a reasonable one given my post was completely lacking in detail) that I was proposing a comp with say a few teams from Aus, India, Eng etc. forming some sort of super-BBL comp. I agree with you that it would be difficult for such a competition to gain traction. If say, there were just 3 Aus teams, one each from Syd, Mel, Bris, would the rest of the country give that much of a hoot about them? Probably not, and I take your Hobart example as a case in point. I'm from Melbourne, and after what, more than a dozen years of BBL, I still don't have a preferred side. I favour the Melbourne teams, but don't have a real preference between the two, and care factor is very low. I'd imagine that would be amplified if there were only a few sides from Australia to choose from.

I think there might be another way to go about it though. Rather than fixing to a particular location, have a comp where teams have multiple "home" bases, and the competition itself moves from region to region over the course of the year. e.g. a single franchise might be the Tigers, and play out of Hobart when the comp is in the South Pacific; Kandy when it's in Asia; Manchester when in Europe; Kingston when in Americas; Durban when in Africa. The franchise might have a core of 7 or 8 players contracted for the full year and then top up with local players for each region sub-comp. Would that have a better chance of success?

Maybe it'd never work, I don't know. But without some over-arching top-level comp like this, we're going to get increasing competition between the various country-based leagues, and ever smaller windows for other forms of the game.

Getting rid of ODI's...time for you to go to the top of a mountain with your most sacred spiritual possessions, or alternatively a carton of the best stuff, and contemplate the meaning of cricket. You said you prefer 50 overs to 20 - why? Is it because the game still remains the core of cricket, which is the contest between bat and ball, something lost in T20's? If that's the case (it's definitely mine), then to be making a statement like that I'm hoping you're just a fair and majority minded young bloke arguing a case for rationalisation, not a grizzly bastard like myself who can't wait to finish the front porch facing anyone who walks past the house complete with rocking chair, fridge and shotgun, and who also says "f### everyone else, you're all wrong, bring back the WSC!"...seriously, I'd be thinking there's no need for axing a game that draws huge crowds to the biggest events when the rationalisation probably only needs to be amongst matches that aren't the big ones...I've already suggested that above. If it doesn't count in the big picture, then don't play it, but make everyone from the top to the bottom work over years to make the final. And then, most importantly, both me and you still get to see it. Going to a WC Final was on my bucket list, and I achieved it in 2015 (the first member of my family in space judging by the height of that MCG grandstand!), and came very close to getting a seat in 2019 at Lord's...a T20 WC Final has nothing like the same attraction, although I do admit it would have been nice to be at Bellerive last summer...!

Lol. No, I'm old enough to still call ODIs "pajama cricket", and my preference for ODI over T20 is similar to yours. And likewise, my preference for Test over ODI follows the same reasoning. But I can have those views and still see a case for rationalisation. Above all, I want to save Test cricket. And if something has to give, and I think it does, then it's time for ODI to go the way of Kodak and Blockbuster Video. I'd love to put the T20 genie back in the bottle, but that's not gonna happen. Too much money in it.

And outside of the WC, do ODIs still draw the crowds? I'd suggest that the large majority of Australians would be completely unaware that we've already played an ODI series v India, and a T20 series v NZ this summer.

What do you think would win out within 100 years if we did get rid of international limited overs cricket? Would we still be playing tests between nations with the necessary first class comps supporting them and a ton of franchising, or would we see tests themselves become franchises...? If we were going to dig out the odd world cup, how do the nations prepare? Even though there have always been the odd players who were tagged as one or the other, Australia probably started the formal notion of separate limited over and test squads after they lost the final in 1996 and axed Healy from ODI's for Gilchrist while still selecting him as the test keeper...you'd be abandoning all of that, turning it into a structure that looks more like the 1877 method of selecting the first test team...!

Well 100 years ago, we were playing home and away test matches every 4 years (each), and always against England. Although new teams were just on the horizon at that point, the idea of international cricket played all year round would have been some sort of fantasy if you'd introduced the idea to the public of 1925. So 100 years from now? I dunno, maybe we'll be talking about how the low gravity on Mars makes it so much easier to hit sixes.

I'd like to think that Test cricket as we know it continues in perpetuity, but who knows. Maybe cricket then will be just a hitting balls from a bowling machine and you're out when you fail to hit a six. My worry is that the broadcasters hate test cricket. Too hard to schedule around a match that might take 5 days, or it might take 2. Witness all the media reports about the 1st test being a "shambles". Largely driven by Ch7 being pissed off at the early finish.

Thanks for the considered response.

 

[big_e]

You're making an assumption here (and quite a reasonable one given my post was completely lacking in detail) that I was proposing a comp with say a few teams from Aus, India, Eng etc. forming some sort of super-BBL comp. I agree with you that it would be difficult for such a competition to gain traction. If say, there were just 3 Aus teams, one each from Syd, Mel, Bris, would the rest of the country give that much of a hoot about them? Probably not, and I take your Hobart example as a case in point. I'm from Melbourne, and after what, more than a dozen years of BBL, I still don't have a preferred side. I favour the Melbourne teams, but don't have a real preference between the two, and care factor is very low. I'd imagine that would be amplified if there were only a few sides from Australia to choose from.

I think there might be another way to go about it though. Rather than fixing to a particular location, have a comp where teams have multiple "home" bases, and the competition itself moves from region to region over the course of the year. e.g. a single franchise might be the Tigers, and play out of Hobart when the comp is in the South Pacific; Kandy when it's in Asia; Manchester when in Europe; Kingston when in Americas; Durban when in Africa. The franchise might have a core of 7 or 8 players contracted for the full year and then top up with local players for each region sub-comp. Would that have a better chance of success?

Maybe it'd never work, I don't know. But without some over-arching top-level comp like this, we're going to get increasing competition between the various country-based leagues, and ever smaller windows for other forms of the game.



Lol. No, I'm old enough to still call ODIs "pajama cricket", and my preference for ODI over T20 is similar to yours. And likewise, my preference for Test over ODI follows the same reasoning. But I can have those views and still see a case for rationalisation. Above all, I want to save Test cricket. And if something has to give, and I think it does, then it's time for ODI to go the way of Kodak and Blockbuster Video. I'd love to put the T20 genie back in the bottle, but that's not gonna happen. Too much money in it.

And outside of the WC, do ODIs still draw the crowds? I'd suggest that the large majority of Australians would be completely unaware that we've already played an ODI series v India, and a T20 series v NZ this summer.

Well 100 years ago, we were playing home and away test matches every 4 years (each), and always against England. Although new teams were just on the horizon at that point, the idea of international cricket played all year round would have been some sort of fantasy if you'd introduced the idea to the public of 1925. So 100 years from now? I dunno, maybe we'll be talking about how the low gravity on Mars makes it so much easier to hit sixes.

I'd like to think that Test cricket as we know it continues in perpetuity, but who knows. Maybe cricket then will be just a hitting balls from a bowling machine and you're out when you fail to hit a six. My worry is that the broadcasters hate test cricket. Too hard to schedule around a match that might take 5 days, or it might take 2. Witness all the media reports about the 1st test being a "shambles". Largely driven by Ch7 being pissed off at the early finish.

Thanks for the considered response.

You've got the Kodak reference the wrong way around.

Kodak invented the digital camera but didn't do anything with it because they were focused on their film business. And then they got destroyed because they focused on the old thing and not the new thing.

Killing off T20Is because a small number of oldies prefer test cricket leaves test cricket massively vulnerable. Just madness.

Look, if you don't like white ball cricket, don't watch it. But to think that it would magically make test cricket thrive is a nonsense.

 

[Gibbke]

Killing off T20Is because a small number of oldies prefer test cricket leaves test cricket massively vulnerable. Just madness.

Look, if you don't like white ball cricket, don't watch it. But to think that it would magically make test cricket thrive is a nonsense.

CA did the maths way back, and discovered the average cricket fan in Australia was a 45yo male! Clearly not the most sustainable customer base, and England was probably coming to the same conclusions when they invented T20's, much the same as they did in the 1960's with the advent of one-dayers...

So there's no blind adherence to the holy doctrine of first class cricket from either Bletch or myself, as we're certainly able to dig the notion that the newer forms are bringing in the bucks...

But even despite the extravagance of Indian Bollywood actors and American oil billionaires as they buy up zillion dollar franchises and fund All-Star comps in the West Indies, there's something in the rush to make money and take advantage of opportunities (the current set up is paradise for players, as those not good enough to make a national test XI can join the many, many more cricketers touring the world and playing T20's) that causes huge problems for the longevity and quality of all the formats. Right now, it's a disorganised scramble trying to fit all the comps in without treading on toes, and the toes being trod on today belong to places without the financial and political power of the big nations, India's IPL being a prime example of muscling in and telling everyone else what to do. And that leads to the cricket journeyman's dilemma, to slug it out in the hope of traditional cricket's national prestige or to jump on the bandwagon while you're still a young and expendable player and cash in on all the moneyfights...

And at the end of it all, the product ultimately suffers when it's diluted...having all the top players in the top teams disappears when they have so many places to be, and bat v ball disappears as a result of the format, it's just bat to the point you see more big hits than you would in a night at Top Golf...and while no one will miss us older fans when we're gone, we know what we're missing, and we know it was better...

 

[cricketnut14]

with the new FTP (2027-2029) fixtures to be released in the upcoming weeks, there have already been some leaks:

australia will play:

2027/28 - pakistan (H) (3)
2027/28 - sri lanka (H) (2)
2028/29 - india (H) (5)

2027 - england (A) (5)
2 more away series from- NZ, SA, WI, Bang (Zim, Afg, Ire).

 

[010203]

with the new FTP (2027-2029) fixtures to be released in the upcoming weeks, there have already been some leaks:

australia will play:

2027/28 - pakistan (H) (3)
2027/28 - sri lanka (H) (2)
2028/29 - india (H) (5)

2027 - england (A) (5)
2 more away series from- NZ, SA, WI, Bang (Zim, Afg, Ire).

Sri Lanka's first Test tour here for 9 years if it happens.

 

[Cleavy]

Sri Lanka's first Test tour here for 9 years if it happens.

and a late series due to 50-over World Cup in October/November 2027, so Pakistan getting Adelaide/Melbourne/Sydney and Sri Lanka getting 2 of Perth/Brisbane/Hobart/Canberra

 

[cricketnut14]

and a late series due to 50-over World Cup in October/November 2027, so Pakistan getting Adelaide/Melbourne/Sydney and Sri Lanka getting 2 of Perth/Brisbane/Hobart/Canberra

i'd say perth and canberra/hobart. this weeks ashes test may well be the last test to be played at the Gabba.

the series will probably overlap with the BBL or be played early Feb.

 

[Gough]

I hope we get the Sri Lankans here. We haven't had them for a Test since the 90s.

 

[big_e]

It was reported in The West Australian last week that Sri Lanka will be likely hosted by Perth and Brisbane in January 2028.

Also, Brisbane will host the first test after the Olympics at the start of the 2032/3 season.

 

[Cleavy]

I hope we get the Sri Lankans here. We haven't had them for a Test since the 90s.

Since Ponting’s and Law’s debut? (EDIT: apologies I thought you were in Perth for some reason)

 

[big_e]

I hope we get the Sri Lankans here. We haven't had them for a Test since the 90s.

Guessing you mean Adelaide?

Sri Lanka have toured Australia for tests four times this century, most recently in 18/19 - the Kurtis Patterson tests.