ICCs grab for cash-the death of 5 Test Series?

[Kal-El]

Cricket has changed. It's no longer about the game, it's about making the ICC money. Unfortunately, due to this there are no longer regular 5 test series. The last two I can remember, 2005 Ashes and England in South Africa a couple of years back were MAGNIFICENT series. Rivalries were built up, heroes and villains made. THIS is what cricket is about, not 3 tests and 7 ODIs. It's a shame the game has gone down this route, it's a shadow of it's former self.

A tour used to be a big deal. There would be numerous tour games played to help players adjust to conditions, followed by a series. Now it's about getting teams in and out as fast as possible to maximize profits. It's fact that Test are a far more important and prestigious form of the game, so why is it there are constant meaningless ODI series while Test series are being rarer and rarer? The ICC is destroying the game, it is sad to see.

 

[Left_Hander]

Test Cricket is important and I think it brings the best out of players (eg. Langer scoring a 100 against England under pressure from Jaques trying to get his spot.) But I guess the ICC wants to promote the game and if they want to do that with ODI's then that's way to go for them. Personally I really like Test Cricket and the battle between bat and ball for 5 days is great to watch. Most people that don't like Cricket would rather sit down and watch the last 10 overs of a ODI than watch a few hours of a Test Match.

Personally I agree with your post as the ICC care more about people chucking and crowds sledging players than good cricket between two countries.

Reps for your post

 

[aussie1st]

They are still allowing the good contest to go the 5 tests though? I can understand the not so good clashes not going the 5 tests as it won't be competitive along with making the ICC no money.

 

[LA ICE-E]

plus icc aint just doing it for them selves as they are using money to spread the game and get associate countries up to the standards...

 

[angryangy]

I think it's not balanced evenly. Australia always plays plenty of tests, 15 last year, while England, South Africa and the West Indies all played more than 10 in 2005. India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and the minnows played between 6 (Bangladesh) and 9 (Pakistan, Sri Lanka). India actually played the same number of tests as Zimbabwe. For a team that has aspirations of being the best, that's inexcusable.

In Australia's instance, 5 match series are dying out as they're seen as a waste of time. Teams tour and get thrashed to the point that even the legacy of Frank Worrell is cut to 3 matches (though I imagine the tides are potentially turning there). It's probably in no small part due to limited preparations on tour, England came into the first test with just 7 days of match practice and none on the ground that they played. Matches against NZ and England might draw a crowd no matter what, but few wanted to see Pakistan without any puff. Let's face it, some tours of Australia would be whitewashes whether they were 3, 5 or 10 matches long.

So the dilemma is not only getting enough cricket in to the schedule, but individual countries must know who can be called upon to play an enthralling 5 match series. It would surely be a detriment to the PCB; that strategy of one interesting pitch and the rest made of whipped cream would be put to the test.