I have to come clean, I got it wrong

[King Cricket]

Test cricket is the pinnacle of the sport

Did I ever deny that? It's just that nowadays most of them look boring. Are you following the Eng-WI series?

2001 Border-Gavaskar, 2005 Ashes or the 2007 Border-Gavaskar trophy.

I have seen them. And anyway, there's something common in all these three tests. They are all either Ind vs Aus, or Aus vs Eng. I'm talking about modern day test cricket in general. Tell me how many test matches looked interesting this decade. I can name you numerous ODI matches. There's much more action in ODIs, you can't deny that. But in test matches- it might be because of the pitches, it might be because of some other factors- people are playing quite defensively. Defensive, defensive- and after four overs, a boundary. Whereas in ODIs, you see, ya, people play defensively in the start- but not like the tests. Alright, tests are the pinnacle of sports, but they become really boring at times for the spectators, and the in general the approach is a bit defensive. But, it still remains the pinnacle. It's just that some steps should be taken by the ICC to make it one bit more interesting which will do the job.

 

[King Pietersen]

Eugh. See, you're exactly the kind of fan that's ruining cricket. If all the young kids grow up believing that T20 cricket is the most exciting format of the game, then Test cricket will ineviteably die, which is seriously bad for the sport. Tests can have dull periods, as can ODi's and T20's. Unless you reduce a format down to 10 overs you're not going to have a 100% action filled game, I've seen some incredibly dull T20 games. Test cricket for me is still far more exciting and easily the pinnacle of the sport. I've nothing against T20 cricket, I actually like it, but it's the least important format of the game, and in my eyes the least entertaining. I'd much rather see a carefully crafted well built hundred over a 40 ball slog fest. Pietersen's hundred against New Zealand last year > Napier's 152 for Essex for example.

 

[shravi]

He's too young to understand the beauty of test cricket. There are very few young people that can appreciate test cricket. Far too naive. It's the attitude that's going to ruin cricket for me. The Mohali, Chennai and Sydney tests were so much more fun to watch than any ODI or T20 match.

 

[King Cricket]

Eugh. See, you're exactly the kind of fan that's ruining cricket. If all the young kids grow up believing that T20 cricket is the most exciting format of the game, then Test cricket will ineviteably die, which is seriously bad for the sport.

Now come on. There's no need to be this furious with me. I didn't say that I think T-20 is the best format of the game or I hate tests or whatever. You can still go through my posts in the "T-20 WC 07" thread where I actually criticized some aspects of T-20. I just feel that nowadays some of the tests look boring if compared to the modern day ODI cricket. The ICC should take some actions- like improving the quality of pitches and everything to make each of them a nail biter. Tests have everything in them, they still are the best, I still remain glued in front of the TV if India plays any test match (I woke up at 3:45 AM for four consecutive days just to watch a Ind-NZ test match, and I spent almost 6 to 7 hrs in front of the TV in that last day of the last test of the previous year's BG trophy, and I can swear in the name of Jesus that I'm not lying) I just think that the tests need to be made a little more interesting (by improving pitches, by inventing some new and unique ideas) to make them as exciting as any ODI match. I still think that the tests are the best and I will never change my viewpoint, but again to make them even more interesting, a little improvement is needed.

The Mohali, Chennai and Sydney tests were so much more fun to watch than any ODI or T20 match.

Did I ever deny that? I never said that I hate tests.What I think is that in general tests need to be made a little more exciting.

King Cricket added 9 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...

but it's the least important format of the game

I'm not denying this. I'm just not denying this. I too think this way. And the dquestion of T-20 is not coming here. We are talking about test and ODI cricket. Look, modern ODI cricket, as it stands, is say 5 percent more exciting than test cricket. Now to cover this 5 percent, some improvement is needed in the tests- improvement which will make a test match really exciting (it's already exciting, still- more exciting) which will take tests to a new level, which will increase the appeal of test cricket in the nations where cricket is not that widespread- this is what I'm trying to say. Tests cricket is somewhat boring if compared to the ODIs. And we'll have to make it as exciting as the ODIs. Otherwise, it's fine and still remains the best format.

 

[Precambrian]

and what about T20?

Oh you got to wait till England plays the minnows I guess....

Precambrian added 2 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

Eugh. See, you're exactly the kind of fan that's ruining cricket. If all the young kids grow up believing that T20 cricket is the most exciting format of the game, then Test cricket will ineviteably die, which is seriously bad for the sport. Tests can have dull periods, as can ODi's and T20's. Unless you reduce a format down to 10 overs you're not going to have a 100% action filled game, I've seen some incredibly dull T20 games. Test cricket for me is still far more exciting and easily the pinnacle of the sport. I've nothing against T20 cricket, I actually like it, but it's the least important format of the game, and in my eyes the least entertaining. I'd much rather see a carefully crafted well built hundred over a 40 ball slog fest. Pietersen's hundred against New Zealand last year > Napier's 152 for Essex for example.

From purely monetary point of view, it will be better if test cricket died. How can it "harm" the progress of cricket? Test cricket is a dinosaur living on past glory in my opinion.

(Runs)

 

[Skater]

I agree to a certain extent with King Cricket. Test cricket is not as exciting as OD cricket (and that includes T20, because that IS one day cricket). The cricket itself is faster paced and more exciting in an OD game.

The whole package and the immense skill involved in Test cricket means it will always be on top though.

 

[Kev]

All forms of cricket can be bloody tense and exciting.

A T20 going down to the last over, 15 or so needed to win
An ODI (Currently 50 overs although no always the case) maybe a tight low scoring affair again going right down to the wire.
A Test Match, end of day 5, last pair standing, fielders crowded around, spinner on.

All forms of Cricket can be a bit tedious

A T20 where the first team gets a reasonable but not spectacular score followed by a second team collapse
A 50 over game where it just seems to die out in the middle and the batsman seem unable to keep up with the rate (or even try to)
A Test match where you know damn well that there is no chance of anything other than a draw from the start of day 3.

All just as likely to happen as each other, and all regularly do.

 

[PhilD123]

From purely monetary point of view, it will be better if test cricket died.

This may be true, but it's a sad, sad state of affairs if cricket is purely about money. The skill and test of test cricket shouldn't be sacrificed for a few quid.

 

[Kev]

This may be true, but it's a sad, sad state of affairs if cricket is purely about money. The skill and test of test cricket shouldn't be sacrificed for a few quid.

Indeed, that and an effort to bring the game to people who actually don't really like it that much.

 

[Precambrian]

This may be true, but it's a sad, sad state of affairs if cricket is purely about money. The skill and test of test cricket shouldn't be sacrificed for a few quid.

For a few quid? Do you know how much the average cricketer earns in tests and what he earns in a premier T20 league?

And why any sane guy in the world, unless he is a complete nutter, devoid himself the opportunity to earn his fortune in a single T20 league which is equivalent to 10 years in test cricket?

I think the time has come for us to shed the garb of hypocrisy. Had we been in their places, we would be doing exactly the same.

 

[Skater]

I can't say I would. If they said to me 'Lee, you can play in the IPL and earn a million for seven weeks work, or play all 5 Ashes tests for nowt', I would probably be donning the whites.

 

[Kev]

I can't say I would. If they said to me 'Lee, you can play in the IPL and earn a million for seven weeks work, or play all 5 Ashes tests for nowt', I would probably be donning the whites.

That question probably gets harder to answer though if you have already played international cricket. While most of us would rip someones arm off to play in a Test match, that's mainly based on the fact that we aren't good enough to and enjoy watching. When you are good enough and have done so, the thought process and reality is a lot different.

 

[Precambrian]

Then you are simply a cricket crack like me. 95% of the world are not.

And sadly, they are a huge majority.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Well to me it does not matter if its test, ODI and T20. As long as its leather hitting some willow I am up for it. I watch all kind of cricket and enjoy every bit of it. Be it test or OD, the basic remains the same. The bowler has to ball a good ball, Batsmen has to react to it and fielders run after it or catch it. Test and OD cricket have their set of charms. Test cricket gives us a more orthodox side of the game. We get to see how steadfast and strong the bowlers are and how patient and technically correct batsmen are. In OD cricket the emphasis in on scoring runs due to lack of overs. People can have their preferences and liking of the versions of the game based on their taste and availability of spare time. But we should not denounce any form of our most beloved Game.:hpraise

 

[sohum]

Eugh. See, you're exactly the kind of fan that's ruining cricket. If all the young kids grow up believing that T20 cricket is the most exciting format of the game, then Test cricket will ineviteably die, which is seriously bad for the sport.

Ruining it for liking something that's exciting? It's not up to the fan to make Test cricket interesting, it is up to Test cricket to enthrall the fans. Test cricket is not doing itself any favors by producing draws over and over again, so the ICC really needs to start penalizing poorly prepared pitches. Using a poorly constructed music metaphor, if you're a young fan of rock music and have an opportunity to go to a Rolling Stones concert or an (insert-new-rock-band) concert and choose to go to the latter, it is not your fault that the Rolling Stones are losing popularity. It is the Rolling Stones' fault for not attracting the young scene.

The Rolling Stones are obviously in a position where they can ignore the young scene since they have so many fans. But Test cricket cannot fall into that same trap.

I would strongly encourage the ICC to allow for a "home court advantage" in Test cricket wherein the hosting country can prepare pitches that strongly favor them. That means dustbowls in India, greentops in Australia and New Zealand and heavy-moisture conditions in England. There's nothing that pulls a fan to a game like their team winning and if each team can be strong at home, you're going to go a long way in building a Test cricket fan-base.