my mission to save test cricket ! :)

[Owzat]

I came up a similar format to this "two day Test" suggestion about 20 years ago when I 'discovered' Armchair Cricket. Playing two innings a side of that was just too long and laborious, not much quicker than the real thing. ODIs just lacked enough overs to get batsmen big scores and I always liked the tail batting properly so 50/60 or 72 overs per side (as many as the scorecards would permit) didn't really accommodate 'batting properly'

So I came up with 100 overs a side in a one innings match. It falls halfway between a Test and ODI because you can bat properly but it is still 'limited overs'. This also takes weather out of the equation if you bat the two innings/2x100 overs

Limited Overs 'Test' cricket

- 100 overs per side
- 20 overs per bowler
- played over two days but scope to complete if rain affected
- limited fielding restrictions (4 min/max inside/outside the ring)
- two new balls per innings, to be used as seen fit by the captains.
- very strict regulations on bowling wide or short*
- innings to be batted to a conclusion so the margin is always measured in runs**

*sides may see fit to bowl short or wide to slow run-rates down. Bouncers should be limited by height and frequency. Excess bouncers would result in warnings, maybe two bouncers per over but not two per over every over (excessive) VERY strict application of rules on short-pitched bowling to tailenders.

**this is an optional measure I'd like seen in ODIs, maybe not in this format. You see margins of 10 wickets, but many observe that it might have taken 299 balls to get there and so was close. This makes the margin more apparent and can counter any instances where one side collapses batting first and the spectators are denied cricket.

The major benefits to this format are :

TACTICS

Sides have to use 5+ bowlers so they would have to choose their side carefully. Do they opt to muddle through 20 overs with part-timers so they can play the extra batsman, or do they play five proper bowlers?

Batting first or second shouldn't be such an issue as they should both have to bat in morning conditions at some point, if they bat long enough that is. Time wasting would be time wasted because the match would be played to a conclusion.

Sides will have to weigh up the pace of batting, they will want to score quickly but have 100 overs so they won't want to waste it. This SHOULD produce a more entertaining form of Test cricket as the sides will want to post a winning total and so can't just bat 180 overs to post 600.

Side will also have to weigh up the balance of attacking and defending when bowling. There will be a need to take wickets as there is in any current format, but it could prove a ding-dong battle royale with 100 overs to bat which should stop sides defending too much as they may do at 450/3 off 130 overs. Fielding restrictions only used to stop sides defending should help.

Two new balls is one of my favourite innovations. Instead of waiting X overs to give the side a new ball, give them two at the start and let them decide when and how to use them. It's a way better tactic than powerplays, and the side would have the option to use the old ball or the new ball - but only the one in any given over.

I wouldn't tinker with field settings too much, only to stop sides putting sweepers all over the boundaries so keep

RESULT & SPECTATORS

It should produce a result, although it may need to go three days to produce it. It lasts long enough to give a good and entertaining game while being short enough it won't drag if the pitch is flat, or be a drawn out yet foregone conclusion if it becomes one-sided



I may have missed some benefits, but I think 100 overs a side would produce an excellent match. That both sides would have to use 5+ bowlers, both have to bat for a long time but not indefinite period, have limitation on defensive fieldsetting etc should produce something halfway between a Test and ODI. They could also just be fitted into a weekend which a Test won't and you don't often get two ODIs in one weekend

 

[Varun]

A query - if we are changing Test cricket to that extent, that it doesn't really look like test cricket (apart from the player kits :\), then how is it saving test cricket?

 

[JD10]

Aaron i totally agree that test cricket is proper cricket but 20/20 is bringing more people than test cricket. Also more money is brought into the sport and getting more kids intrested in cricket.

 

[AngryPixel]

Lesser crowd in test matches is ,to some extent, due to poor administration. They should allot test matches to the tradition test centers which always bring big crowd. Recently concluded India vs Australia series was perfect example. First match was at Mohali where crowd was average. But in the second match,at Bangalore, it was house full throughout 5 days.

 

[pcfan123]

Test cricket will be fine as long as 2020 is expanding at the expense of ODI cricket.

A few worrying signs have been the sharp rise in 2 Test match series and CA's recent new proposal and Windies players skipping central contracts.

That being said, I think Test cricket and ODI cricket need to fight each other to survive.

ODIs and Tests might as well be the same thing to the 2020 only crowd. Those who get their jollies from 2020 will probably find ODI just as boring as a Test.

kill the ODI game, its useless now

 

[AngryPixel]

Naah.. Kill the T20's. I hate it. Its fun to watch once in a few weeks. But it gets really ugly during IPL. T20 overdose. Thats why i just follow 1 team during IPL that keeps me sane

I would always prefer ODI's over T20 as there is some planning and strategy involved in that. T20 is just hit and giggle. They should be changing rules in ODI to save it rather than test.

A few of my suggestions for ODI's :

1)Remove the bouncer restriction. Bouncer is not a easy ball to bowl. You gotta have pace and accuracy. Else you would end up giving a long hop or poor bouncer which would cost the team. So if a bowler is good enough to bowl 4 bouncers in a row than the batsman should take this up as a challenge. I don't think many bowlers would bowl 4 bouncers in a row to David Hussey, Kevin Pietersen etc. International cricket is all about challenge and if you are not good enough to play a bouncer then you don't belong at this level.

2)Remove the over limit for bowlers. Just make it mandatory to play 4 bowler in the match.

3)Drag the boundary ropes back. I remember watching some matches in the 90's where batsman used to take 5 runs just by running. Lets see how many hit and giggle player manage to score in big grounds.
IMO ICC max limit is somewhere near 90 Meters. But most of the grounds these days have 60 meter boundaries. Thats causes those ugly mishits to go for six.(Yuvraj's 3 sixes out of those 6 would be easily caught on a bigger ground).

 

[Chewie]

With point 3, at many grounds its not possible to move the boundary ropes at all because of the small size of the field itself. And most grounds have the boundary ropes as far out as they can without risk of the fielders injuring themself.

I still feel that a bouncer restriction is necessary, but possibly increasing the number allowed to be bowled would be a good idea.

 

[sami ullah khan]

With regards to Point 2, teams will be able to manipulate it to their advantage. Teams will play three of their best bowler and include one all rounder like a Razzaq who will in effect get not more than two overs and will be primarily used as a batsman.

 

[Varun]

1)Remove the bouncer restriction. Bouncer is not a easy ball to bowl. You gotta have pace and accuracy. Else you would end up giving a long hop or poor bouncer which would cost the team. So if a bowler is good enough to bowl 4 bouncers in a row than the batsman should take this up as a challenge. I don't think many bowlers would bowl 4 bouncers in a row to David Hussey, Kevin Pietersen etc. International cricket is all about challenge and if you are not good enough to play a bouncer then you don't belong at this level.

Bouncer is restricted because it is dangerous to the batsmen, not because it is difficult to play.

3)Drag the boundary ropes back. I remember watching some matches in the 90's where batsman used to take 5 runs just by running. Lets see how many hit and giggle player manage to score in big grounds.

What I've been observing lately is that the crowd loves boundaries, indeed increasing no. of boundaries in fifty over games have actually increased the excitement in the games. Though it would present a challenge to the players, I feel that the viewing will go down.

 

[AngryPixel]

I would rather see someone finding the gap in the field rather than a bully slogging it away.

As far as bouncers are concerned, there are helmets for protection. What is the next thing they gonna do? Ban the yorker coz it may hurt the toe.

 

[ChefMan21]

Aaron i totally agree that test cricket is proper cricket but 20/20 is bringing more people than test cricket. Also more money is brought into the sport and getting more kids intrested in cricket.

I wanted to post something ground breaking and exciting, but you summarised everything I wanted to say. Damn you!

 

[ferg512]

I would rather see someone finding the gap in the field rather than a bully slogging it away.

As far as bouncers are concerned, there are helmets for protection. What is the next thing they gonna do? Ban the yorker coz it may hurt the toe.

Completely agree mate its ridiculous what batsmen get away with these days. Thats why I will say any batsman from the last 20-30 years cant be compared to players before hand. It's the same story with the front foot free hit rule.

Cricket is completely and utterly ruined by the administrators. Its because of their greed, they want the tests to go five days for the revenue and they cant see that it actually kills the game. I don't know why they get the idea everyone wants to see tons of runs scored, I generally find low scoring games much more exciting.

The boundaries are also an issue, I also hate it when there is so many crap shots that go for six. This will always be a problem in NZ however as we are playing on rugby grounds.