New Test Cricket Rule

[OzzieCapie]

Gee what a silly suggestion.

Test cricket requires you to take 20 wickets in order to win (not counting declarations)...doesn't matter how much you score.

And that's SA's problem right there.

 

[Nerfherder]

They should give the team with the most wickets the win, if its the same or less then its a draw. IE yesterday we decleared with 3 wickets left and they finnished with 9 left. This will also encorage teams to declear earlier.

For those of you that complain that we should not mess with the format, did you know that they used to not have a time restriction ? The longest game ended up being 2 weeks ! (also SA vs England)

 

[Kabraal]

They should give the team with the most wickets the win, if its the same or less then its a draw. IE yesterday we decleared with 3 wickets left and they finnished with 9 left. This will also encorage teams to declear earlier.

For those of you that complain that we should not mess with the format, did you know that they used to not have a time restriction ? The longest game ended up being 2 weeks ! (also SA vs England)

No

 

[semiautomatix]

About the only rule I know of which the ICC is considering too force more results is to take away the captains options wrt pitch rollers in between innings. That’s a rule I can live with. The one in the OP…is ehhh insane…

Whereas I don't agree with the OP, I agree with his sentiment. Something needs to be done to broaden the appeal of test cricket. Newlands was the only ground where it was economically viable to host a match this season. We don't want to see test cricket change, but we also don't want to see it die due to lack of support.

 

[LancelotSA]

For those of you that complain that we should not mess with the format, did you know that they used to not have a time restriction ? The longest game ended up being 2 weeks ! (also SA vs England)

You failed to mention that even that game ended in a draw. A result was not achieved by the time England had to get on the boat for the trip home...

 

[phiber]

I think that the game is pathetic in the sense that the chasing team can if they see that they ain't gonna make it, decide to just block and play it safe.

And eventually let the game end in a draw. Boring, boring, boring.

What they should do is:

Force the chasing team to keep a run rate at or above the required run rate so that the "go for a draw" option is ruled out.
If the chasing team fails to do so, and have some wickets left at the end of the game, then the other team wins. Regardless if they failed to bowl out the entire opposing team.

That would make for a much more interesting game.

This makes the game unfair. If you are bored watching the game switch off your TV. The fact that the game was so close and could have been won on the last ball makes it one of the most exciting test matches ever. I guess u one of those kiddies that love watch 20/20 cricket. it is KILLING the pure form of the game (test cricket). They will never change test cricket to be like that. This is the way cricket has been played since it was invented! (Actually i think it was unlimited days initially )

 

[phiber]

They should give the team with the most wickets the win, if its the same or less then its a draw. IE yesterday we decleared with 3 wickets left and they finnished with 9 left. This will also encorage teams to declear earlier.
(also SA vs England)

Test cricket is just that, a test. Which smith failed, he should have declared earlier (we know those damn aussies would have done it) set england a realistic total, something they could have maybe chased (350 or 370) and then they would have played more shots. The fact is if they add this rule they will kill test cricket.

Now one rule i think they can add is something to do with this ball tampering and digging in ur studs/fingernails.

 

[hoegh]

Whereas I don't agree with the OP, I agree with his sentiment. Something needs to be done to broaden the appeal of test cricket. Newlands was the only ground where it was economically viable to host a match this season. We don't want to see test cricket change, but we also don't want to see it die due to lack of support.

um... im fairly certain kingsmead was pretty packed as well, i was there on the first day and it was the best crowd i have seen in about the last 12 years, i think this series has been supported very well!

 

[semiautomatix]

um... im fairly certain kingsmead was pretty packed as well, i was there on the first day and it was the best crowd i have seen in about the last 12 years, i think this series has been supported very well!

Remember the time of year when the Kingsmead test was played?

I went to Centurion and other than the weekend it was pretty dismal. I'm guessing the Wanderers will also be fairly sad.

I was watching the Australia vs Pakistan game and I could hardly spot the spectators. So, regardless of how much you need to appreciate a sport if it becomes economically viable (and thanks to limited overs and T20 test cricket can still be played) to ensure a permanent spot in the calendar.

 

[Hogrod]

Good grief, OP it's test cricket not pro20.

 

[Ou grote]

I think that the game is pathetic in the sense that the chasing team can if they see that they ain't gonna make it, decide to just block and play it safe.

And eventually let the game end in a draw. Boring, boring, boring.

What they should do is:

Force the chasing team to keep a run rate at or above the required run rate so that the "go for a draw" option is ruled out.
If the chasing team fails to do so, and have some wickets left at the end of the game, then the other team wins. Regardless if they failed to bowl out the entire opposing team.

That would make for a much more interesting game.

That's just not cricket.

A draw is also a result, sometimes it's better than having a winner, a draw can also result in a series win.

Any 4 or 5 match series which gets decided on the last day of the series is more exciting and memorable than all the ODI's in history combined.

EG:
Ask the poms about Botham's ashes, or the bodyline series etc.

 

[OzzieCapie]

Test cricket has actually been more interesting than usual the last few years, but still you would only really be interested in parts of it where a team you like is involved. If Foxtel had Ind v SL, I'd tune in to see a certain passage/player and that's about it.

I was watching the Australia vs Pakistan game and I could hardly spot the spectators.

First day of the Sydney match was 30,000, not sure about other days.
Melbourne was 70,000 on first day...with a total over five days of 156,000 (about 21,000 average for next four days).

...and ticket prices in Aussie are very expensive compared to SA, pluis that was Pakistan , one of the weakest sides at present (or coming into series as one of weakest0...and one of least appealing to Aussies.

If it was an Ashes series, then you wouldn't be able to get tickets. MCG on Boxing Day would be 80,000 plus.

At Newlands, I heard the commentator saying that the crowds were of order of 16,000 per day.

Now this is SA vs Eng. How is this so poorly supported?

When you talk to people in SA then everybody has an opinion on the test team and the series (just like they do with Rugby). Everybody supports SA or talks about the game etc.
Now, given the reasonable prices, and the less sterile nature* of the stadiums there, how coem everybody talks cricket, but very few go to game??

*btw...at SCG these days you are basically only there to sit in your seat and watch cricket...they will sell you booze and just about when your money runs out they will determine that "you have had enough" and eject you...as if all that booze they sold you wasn't going to make you drunk in the sun?
In otherwords...despite it being a boring day all round by all respects other than the cricket, there seems to be enough people interested.

But why would you bother...if you can see it on TV and you can't have any atmosphere at the ground?

 

[semiautomatix]

Test cricket has actually been more interesting than usual the last few years, but still you would only really be interested in parts of it where a team you like is involved. If Foxtel had Ind v SL, I'd tune in to see a certain passage/player and that's about it.



First day of the Sydney match was 30,000, not sure about other days.
Melbourne was 70,000 on first day...with a total over five days of 156,000 (about 21,000 average for next four days).

...and ticket prices in Aussie are very expensive compared to SA, pluis that was Pakistan , one of the weakest sides at present (or coming into series as one of weakest0...and one of least appealing to Aussies.

If it was an Ashes series, then you wouldn't be able to get tickets. MCG on Boxing Day would be 80,000 plus.

At Newlands, I heard the commentator saying that the crowds were of order of 16,000 per day.

Now this is SA vs Eng. How is this so poorly supported?

When you talk to people in SA then everybody has an opinion on the test team and the series (just like they do with Rugby). Everybody supports SA or talks about the game etc.
Now, given the reasonable prices, and the less sterile nature* of the stadiums there, how coem everybody talks cricket, but very few go to game??

*btw...at SCG these days you are basically only there to sit in your seat and watch cricket...they will sell you booze and just about when your money runs out they will determine that "you have had enough" and eject you...as if all that booze they sold you wasn't going to make you drunk in the sun?
In otherwords...despite it being a boring day all round by all respects other than the cricket, there seems to be enough people interested.

But why would you bother...if you can see it on TV and you can't have any atmosphere at the ground?

The Ashes is probably the only real money maker in test cricket. Lucky for ODIs and T20s to keep the stadia afloat, eh? Also, unfortunately not every day of the year is boxing day.

You also failed to read where I pointed out that Newlands is the only stadium to actually draw the crowds on all 5 days, now didn't you?

The Wanderers will be a good litmus test. No more holiday, same tournament. Let's see what happens then.

 

[cr@zydude]

Test cricket has actually been more interesting than usual the last few years, but still you would only really be interested in parts of it where a team you like is involved. If Foxtel had Ind v SL, I'd tune in to see a certain passage/player and that's about it.



First day of the Sydney match was 30,000, not sure about other days.
Melbourne was 70,000 on first day...with a total over five days of 156,000 (about 21,000 average for next four days).

...and ticket prices in Aussie are very expensive compared to SA, pluis that was Pakistan , one of the weakest sides at present (or coming into series as one of weakest0...and one of least appealing to Aussies.

If it was an Ashes series, then you wouldn't be able to get tickets. MCG on Boxing Day would be 80,000 plus.

At Newlands, I heard the commentator saying that the crowds were of order of 16,000 per day.

Now this is SA vs Eng. How is this so poorly supported?

When you talk to people in SA then everybody has an opinion on the test team and the series (just like they do with Rugby). Everybody supports SA or talks about the game etc.
Now, given the reasonable prices, and the less sterile nature* of the stadiums there, how coem everybody talks cricket, but very few go to game??

The game at Newlands wasn't badly supported, our grounds are just smaller than those in India and Aus. Newlands has a about 20 000 seats, and teh first 3 days sold out before the test started.

 

[stefan9]

Test cricket is just that, a test. Which smith failed, he should have declared earlier (we know those damn aussies would have done it) set england a realistic total, something they could have maybe chased (350 or 370) and then they would have played more shots. The fact is if they add this rule they will kill test cricket.

Now one rule i think they can add is something to do with this ball tampering and digging in ur studs/fingernails.

Smith declaration was fine. england had enough time to win if they played very well. They never went for it which is their nature. Australia would have gone for that target that he set. It was similar to what ponting set SA in perth.

Remember the time of year when the Kingsmead test was played?

I went to Centurion and other than the weekend it was pretty dismal. I'm guessing the Wanderers will also be fairly sad.

I was watching the Australia vs Pakistan game and I could hardly spot the spectators. So, regardless of how much you need to appreciate a sport if it becomes economically viable (and thanks to limited overs and T20 test cricket can still be played) to ensure a permanent spot in the calendar.

T20 and odi cricket has funded test cricket for a long time now. Issue is really quite simple its pretty uncomfortable in the sun on uncomfortable seats for 7 hours then add in the over priced food and drinks plus the trouble with parking space and you realise its just more fun and economical at home. Only places that get decent crowds are aus and england for test cricket.

The crowds at odi cricket has also been going down due the impact of t20. T20 is the perfect format for a day out.

Test cricket is still my favorite format but I will watch it at home on my comfortable couch with air conditioning. T20 I will watch live.

 

[semiautomatix]

Smith declaration was fine. england had enough time to win if they played very well. They never went for it which is their nature. Australia would have gone for that target that he set. It was similar to what ponting set SA in perth.

T20 and odi cricket has funded test cricket for a long time now. Issue is really quite simple its pretty uncomfortable in the sun on uncomfortable seats for 7 hours then add in the over priced food and drinks plus the trouble with parking space and you realise its just more fun and economical at home. Only places that get decent crowds are aus and england for test cricket.

The crowds at odi cricket has also been going down due the impact of t20. T20 is the perfect format for a day out.

Test cricket is still my favorite format but I will watch it at home on my comfortable couch with air conditioning. T20 I will watch live.

I think that's a good way to put it!

 

[OzzieCapie]

You also failed to read where I pointed out that Newlands is the only stadium to actually draw the crowds on all 5 days, now didn't you?

No I didn't fail to read it...I read it and in fact commented on it....but it (the actual numbers) means a differnt thing to me in terms of support.
Why do you assume I took issue with you on that...and with such antagonism too.

I just stated the case as it was in Australia, re your comment on the Pakistan game...and I compared the SA crowds in general vs SA's own hysterical support for cricket.

Can someone make a point that is somewhat parallel and slightly different...or even very...without someone else taking it as a personal dig??:erm:

 

[Morgoth]

I believe one day cricket has had its time, T20 and Test cricket is the way forward.... Odis just doesn't feel the same anymore

 

[semiautomatix]

No I didn't fail to read it...I read it and in fact commented on it....but it (the actual numbers) means a differnt thing to me in terms of support.
Why do you assume I took issue with you on that...and with such antagonism too.

I just stated the case as it was in Australia, re your comment on the Pakistan game...and I compared the SA crowds in general vs SA's own hysterical support for cricket.

Can someone make a point that is somewhat parallel and slightly different...or even very...without someone else taking it as a personal dig??:erm:

It's not that, its that you're trying to disagree by agreeing with me. Just thought I'd point out that logic doesn't work.

Now it would appear it is you that has taken a personal affront to my comments, perhaps you should just let it go?

 

[Devill]

why do people hate draws so much?

No idea. Test 1 and 3 of this series just went to show again how exciting a draw can be... Was nail biting till the last ball.