Test Cricket Concept

[V23]

Let me preface this post by saying that this proposal is designed predominantly to promote discussion. I'm not saying that this should happen or that it is even close to a fool-proof idea. My idea (again, not full-proof) to possibly revamp test cricket (which closely resembles ODI rules):

• Tests are played over a maximum of four days

• Matches will always end with a result (rain permitting)

• Each team has two innings (four innings total)

• Team A has a full day (90 overs) maximum in their first innings. If Team A is 6/400 at the end of the first day, their innings is finished (this will promote stroke-play towards the end of the innings like in ODIs/T20s)

• Team B bats for the whole second day, Team A the third (their second innings), and Team B the fourth (their second innings)

• If either team is ever bowled out before the end of their day/allotment of overs, the bowling team then gets to bat for the remainder of that time plus their originally allotted day

Thoughts? Criticisms? Am I crazy? Would this crash and burn?



PATENT PENDING

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It would fix some of those snooze fests from the subcontinent where teams pile on the runs in their first innings

 

[DrVanNostrand]

No, no, and no.

Result pitches are the key to good Test cricket, as we've all seen over the last 12 months. Nothing more is needed.

 

[Cap]

as mentioned above, you would need to take out the pitch issues to make it fair.

 

[V23]

as mentioned above, you would need to take out the pitch issues to make it fair.

It would be the same as it is now, whoever wins the toss gets to choose to bat or bowl first.

 

[Blackout]

[*]Team A has a full day (90 overs) maximum in their first innings. If Team A is 6/400 at the end of the first day, their innings is finished (this will promote stroke-play towards the end of the innings like in ODIs/T20s)

This would crash and burn, if you think people say one-dayers are getting boring in the middle of an innings, this would be even worse. The idea of limited overs Test cricket saddens me.

By stroke-play you mean slogging... They are not synonymous.

 

[Scotland]

Limited overs cricket is just that, which is what distinguishes it from test cricket.

No dice.

 

[R00StaR]

I think our shield cricket should be played that way, just over the 3 days rather than 4 and 70-75 overs ea.

Its possible test cricket could go the same path in time. While the obvious answer is produce wickets that get results the battle between bat and ball can be a fine a line. A little too much juice and ball dominates, batsmen have to play far more defensive to survive and we run the risk of 2.5-3day tests. Too flat and we'll we all know the result there, 5/700 drawn games.

The limited overs ensures results, while allowing the wicket to be of standard that allows positive stroke play (not slogging). So while i prefer test matches as they are, i can see a day it could happen. With the BBL making SS scheduling more difficult the 3 day format should help there, and 70-75 overs is enough for the top 5-6 bats to get scores if they're going to.

Look at the fast bowling stocks we have atm, as more money comes into the game (20/20) we'll have more 145k ish bowlers in every team, add a bit of swing and life in the deck and teams can easily be destroyed. Getting the wicket just right for results while allowing stroke play should just get harder and harder, this is one possible solution.

 

[frankrizzo]

test cricket is just fine, they are putting life back in the tracks, the top 5 teams in the word are separated by a few rankings points it's an intriguing time for tests.

As for the ops' concept, well the cynic in me can't help but think it would be the end of attacking test match bowling.

You have a team 5/230 with 17 overs left, in test cricket you go for the throat in this new version you would be more inclined to bring on an non threatening but tight bowler and just stop the runs for the last 17 overs.

it ends the high risk vs high reward aspect of attacking test match bowling.

 

[Underarm]

Agreed frank. Also, the perceived issue with tests is dwindling crowd, and this does nothing to solve that issue. Most matches have been done in 4 days recently, apart from sub continent pitches where some games go into the 5th day.....

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

It's called TEST cricket for a reason.

You have to TEST yourself to bat over a day
You have to TEST yourself to bowl a team out under a day
You have to TEST yourself to keep concentrating in trying conditions
You have to TEST yourself to battle through pain
You have to TEST yourself on grass tops, spinning wickets and flat decks
You have to TEST yourself knowing making 30- 40 doesn't cut it at this level

Think we get the drift.

Whats next, reduce 20/20 to 2 overs each, most sixes wins?

 

[pluga_4]

so what the op is saying is that team A bat for days 1 & 3 ?

eg. 1
so team A may bat on day 1 and end up 2/37 as it rained all day, team B could end up innings closed 8/340 on day 2 and on day 3 it may rain most of the day again and they could end up on 3/120 - game over.

No day 4 required yet nearly 2 days lost to rain...wtf ?

eg.2

team A bat on day 1 and get rolled for 130, team B complete the day batting on day 1 and bat out day 2 ending up on 9/485, day 3 team A bat again and end up 2/410 and are absolutely killing it, yet can't bat the overs they lost out on , back on day 1...then on day 4 team B bat and win making 9/66.

Still don't make sense to me.

 

[Alexwce]

Test cricket is fine. It isn't broke and thus no need to fix it. Others have highlighted why your concept is crazy anyways.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Let me preface this post by saying that this proposal is designed predominantly to promote discussion. I'm not saying that this should happen or that it is even close to a full-proof idea. My idea (again, not full-proof) to possibly revamp test cricket (which closely resembles ODI rules):

• Tests are played over a maximum of four days

• Matches will always end with a result (rain permitting)

• Each team has two innings (four innings total)

• Team A has a full day (90 overs) maximum in their first innings. If Team A is 6/400 at the end of the first day, their innings is finished (this will promote stroke-play towards the end of the innings like in ODIs/T20s)

• Team B bats for the whole second day, Team A the third (their second innings), and Team B the fourth (their second innings)

• If either team is ever bowled out before the end of their day/allotment of overs, the bowling team then gets to bat for the remainder of that time plus their originally allotted day

Thoughts? Criticisms? Am I crazy? Would this crash and burn?



PATENT PENDING

Simple question - why? Why is test cricket in need of a revamp? To me it's going on strong as ever, there has been great public support for it, good crowds, good ratings etc... why?

 

[V23]

This would crash and burn, if you think people say one-dayers are getting boring in the middle of an innings, this would be even worse. The idea of limited overs Test cricket saddens me.

By stroke-play you mean slogging... They are not synonymous.

Aggressive batting/stroke-play is not synonymous with slogging. When was the last time you saw Ponting or Tendulkar slog at the end of an ODI. Textbook shots, played in an aggressive fashion, can elevate the run rate without the need for 'slogging'.

As for the ops' concept, well the cynic in me can't help but think it would be the end of attacking test match bowling.

Yeah, good point, but if a bowling side is aggressive and is able to bowl the opposition out before their allotted overs are finished, they will have a longer time to bat, and therefore, an advantage.

so what the op is saying is that team A bat for days 1 & 3 ?

eg. 1
so team A may bat on day 1 and end up 2/37 as it rained all day, team B could end up innings closed 8/340 on day 2 and on day 3 it may rain most of the day again and they could end up on 3/120 - game over.

No day 4 required yet nearly 2 days lost to rain...wtf ?

eg.2

team A bat on day 1 and get rolled for 130, team B complete the day batting on day 1 and bat out day 2 ending up on 9/485, day 3 team A bat again and end up 2/410 and are absolutely killing it, yet can't bat the overs they lost out on , back on day 1...then on day 4 team B bat and win making 9/66.

Still don't make sense to me.

I'll admit that rain is a tricky issue with this format. A Duckworth-Lewis system could be employed or another system to compensate for the rain. However, there is no simple way to combat rain delays that I can think of and that is why this is a preliminary concept.

Simple question - why? Why is test cricket in need of a revamp? To me it's going on strong as ever, there has been great public support for it, good crowds, good ratings etc... why?

A couple of years ago there was debate as to what the future of test cricket holds, due to decreasing crowds and other factors. It's just an idea I came up with one day and isn't meant to be taken 100% seriously.


I'm pleased that this topic has generated discussion rather than people insulting me directly, so thanks for that.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Personally, I think all that is required is for the balance to be returned towards the bowler. Either through better pitches (not roads), or perhaps balls with bigger seams to encourage movement.

In view of your proposal, a compromise perhaps. Teams can only bat for 250 overs in total, or perhaps limit both teams first innings to 120 overs.

 

[maelcoluim]

I think Test cricket is fine as it is, not many Tests seem to go to the fifth day anyway now with faster scoring and more competitive wickets. I imagine any major changes to Tests would infuriate the purists probably losing more fans then it gains.

 

[dr nick]

what's your solution where both sides get rolled in their first innings.

As the pitch dries out, the first team starts their 2nd innings.. say on Lunch Day 2, and gets to bat for 5 sessions until stumps on day 3 and the team batting last has to chase it in three sessions on the last day or lose?

PS: The expression is "fool-proof"

 

[V23]

what's your solution where both sides get rolled in their first innings.

As the pitch dries out, the first team starts their 2nd innings.. say on Lunch Day 2, and gets to bat for 5 sessions until stumps on day 3 and the team batting last has to chase it in three sessions on the last day or lose?

PS: The expression is "fool-proof"

I've got no answer for that yet, hence the 'concept', but I'm sure something can be devised to combat situations like this.

Cheers for the correction.

 

[rickyp]

What if the first day is washed out?

 

[V23]

What if the first day is washed out?

Remaining three days' play gets apportioned.

90 overs a day X 3 days = 270 overs

270/4 = 68 overs each innings (rounded up).

 

[rickyp]

What happens if team 1 bats their 90 overs, then the second day is washed out?

 

[V23]

What happens if team 1 bats their 90 overs, then the second day is washed out?

Day 3 - Team 2 bats for the whole day (assuming they aren't dismissed)
Day 4 - Team 1 bats for half the day and Team 2 the other half (unless dismissed earlier)

 

[dumb]

I'll admit that rain is a tricky issue with this format. A Duckworth-Lewis system could be employed or another system to compensate for the rain. However, there is no simple way to combat rain delays that I can think of and that is why this is a preliminary concept.

i think duckworth-lewis is able to be used because of the amount of ODI cricket already played - there is no pre-existing data for this format. in effect it could take years before solid, rounded data is able to be provided for this.

some test draws are very good games. artificially creating results won't make test cricket more exciting, it makes the game more regimented and takes away the freedom of a side battling to set a good total after following on, for example. the freedom of sides to bat for 100 overs, or try and save a game from a bad position in a rain-interrupted match, is an inherent part of the game.

 

[Ricketts]

Let me preface this post by saying that this proposal is designed predominantly to promote discussion. I'm not saying that this should happen or that it is even close to a fool-proof idea. My idea (again, not full-proof) to possibly revamp test cricket (which closely resembles ODI rules):

• Tests are played over a maximum of four days

• Matches will always end with a result (rain permitting)

• Each team has two innings (four innings total)

• Team A has a full day (90 overs) maximum in their first innings. If Team A is 6/400 at the end of the first day, their innings is finished (this will promote stroke-play towards the end of the innings like in ODIs/T20s)

• Team B bats for the whole second day, Team A the third (their second innings), and Team B the fourth (their second innings)

• If either team is ever bowled out before the end of their day/allotment of overs, the bowling team then gets to bat for the remainder of that time plus their originally allotted day

Thoughts? Criticisms? Am I crazy? Would this crash and burn?



PATENT PENDING

I kinda feel sorry for you taking the time to type all this out.