Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod]

[Haunebu]

Test cricket can defiantly revive if we have interesting test matches like this where 20 wickets fell on one single day. From New zeland side only Mitchel and Tom Blundell were the two batsmen who score runs rest of the batting line up collapsed in both teams. Result of the match would be in favor of New zeland if they have lead of 50 more runs.

It basically becomes a T-20 or ODI at that point which is why Test Cricket will continue dying in my opinion. Was never really a fan of tests to be honest which is why I won't miss them.

ODIs are also becoming less relevant and they might die at some point in the future too. Both these formats will probably be completely replaced by T-10 and T-20 formats which would be a great change overall.

[Sithara007]

It basically becomes a T-20 or ODI at that point which is why Test Cricket will continue dying in my opinion. Was never really a fan of tests to be honest which is why I won't miss them.

ODIs are also becoming less relevant and they might die at some point in the future too. Both these formats will probably be completely replaced by T-10 and T-20 formats which would be a great change overall.

I agree. Already test cricket is on it's deathbed and very soon ODI will be facing that fate. That said, I am horrified with the prospect of T10 replacing ODI cricket. IMO, T10 is not cricket. It is more like baseball. I am OK with the T20 format, but definitely not OK with T10. Why can't we ban this god forsaken format for the general wellbeing of cricket? If the ICC want matches to be reduced to 10 overs per side, then they should reduce the number of players from 11 to 6. Imagine this, 11 guys having a total of 10 overs. That is less than one over per player. Definitely not fair.

[Minecache]

It basically becomes a T-20 or ODI at that point which is why Test Cricket will continue dying in my opinion. Was never really a fan of tests to be honest which is why I won't miss them.

ODIs are also becoming less relevant and they might die at some point in the future too. Both these formats will probably be completely replaced by T-10 and T-20 formats which would be a great change overall.

I agree. Already test cricket is on it's deathbed and very soon ODI will be facing that fate. That said, I am horrified with the prospect of T10 replacing ODI cricket. IMO, T10 is not cricket. It is more like baseball. I am OK with the T20 format, but definitely not OK with T10. Why can't we ban this god forsaken format for the general wellbeing of cricket? If the ICC want matches to be reduced to 10 overs per side, then they should reduce the number of players from 11 to 6. Imagine this, 11 guys having a total of 10 overs. That is less than one over per player. Definitely not fair.

I am also not a very big fan of test cricket but I really like to see the skill that is needed to play well in test cricket. In the t20 format, skill is hardly needed in my opinion. I want to see that one-day international cricket never dies, that is the most basic format of cricket. But it does look like what happened to test cricket is going to happen to ODI cricket also and there is nothing anyone will be able to do about it. But I really hope it doesn't get shorter than t20. Because then we will see 11 batsmen in a team or 11 bowlers.

[Haunebu]

IMO, T10 is not cricket. It is more like baseball. I am OK with the T20 format, but definitely not OK with T10. Why can't we ban this god forsaken format for the general wellbeing of cricket? If the ICC want matches to be reduced to 10 overs per side, then they should reduce the number of players from 11 to 6. Imagine this, 11 guys having a total of 10 overs. That is less than one over per player. Definitely not fair.

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

[n0ne]

IMO, T10 is not cricket. It is more like baseball. I am OK with the T20 format, but definitely not OK with T10. Why can't we ban this god forsaken format for the general wellbeing of cricket? If the ICC want matches to be reduced to 10 overs per side, then they should reduce the number of players from 11 to 6. Imagine this, 11 guys having a total of 10 overs. That is less than one over per player. Definitely not fair.

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

This is true, at the beginning it won't be that attractive and with time this will gain importance. On the other side this is pure destruction of real cricket. With the start of these games, test matches will lose its importance. Just think of the scoring pattern, players will just try to make more aggressive shots than perfect shots. In T-20 matches we can see some balls reaching boundaries and sixes which weren't expected by the batsman himself.

[Sithara007]

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

In the end, the viewers will get whatever they want. Even for the T10 format, the total duration (90-100 minutes) is slightly longer than a standard football match or a game of field hockey. In the future, T10 may become the preferred format and T20 may face the same fate as that of test cricket and ODI. Nowadays viewers want maximum action within a short duration, and T10 is very much suited for that purpose. And who knows? It may make cricket more popular in markets such as USA and Japan, where baseball is dominant.

[JSRAW]

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

In the end, the viewers will get whatever they want. Even for the T10 format, the total duration (90-100 minutes) is slightly longer than a standard football match or a game of field hockey. In the future, T10 may become the preferred format and T20 may face the same fate as that of test cricket and ODI. Nowadays viewers want maximum action within a short duration, and T10 is very much suited for that purpose. And who knows? It may make cricket more popular in markets such as USA and Japan, where baseball is dominant.

ICC chief also mentioned similar thingy in his recent interview but his focus was more on T-20, it's the shorter format which subsidize the test cricket, he also hinted that new countries should forget about playing test matches as it's already loss making affair for the most of the Test playing nations. 

[pakhitheboss]

IMO, T10 is not cricket. It is more like baseball. I am OK with the T20 format, but definitely not OK with T10. Why can't we ban this god forsaken format for the general wellbeing of cricket? If the ICC want matches to be reduced to 10 overs per side, then they should reduce the number of players from 11 to 6. Imagine this, 11 guys having a total of 10 overs. That is less than one over per player. Definitely not fair.

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

T10 can only become more successful than T20 if the rules of this format can be tweaked. I mean at the moment it is completely like a T20 game but with less overs. Niether the batter gets a chance to settle nor the bowler has the opportunity. The format is too short for me and I still will prefer a T20 format over T10. By the way we are discussing it on the wrong thread.

Next test match between NZ and ENG starts on the 10th of this month. I hope the NZ team works on their batting more this time.

[Sweminer777]

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

In the end, the viewers will get whatever they want. Even for the T10 format, the total duration (90-100 minutes) is slightly longer than a standard football match or a game of field hockey. In the future, T10 may become the preferred format and T20 may face the same fate as that of test cricket and ODI. Nowadays viewers want maximum action within a short duration, and T10 is very much suited for that purpose. And who knows? It may make cricket more popular in markets such as USA and Japan, where baseball is dominant.

I also agree that if they bring in another shorter format of cricket it will obviously be attracting more people to cricket.

Honestly, I think the popularity of cricket will surely increase if they do such a thing. But the problem is cricket will lose its basics. Everyone is going to come into the field and try to hit every ball out of the ground. And there will not be much skill required for that. And we all know that spin bowling is a part and parcel of cricket. And if t10 is introduced I think off-spin bowlers are not going to be needed at all. They will be out of the equation. All it is going to need is some really fast bowlers and some good leg-spin bowlers.

[JSRAW]

IMO, T10 is not cricket. It is more like baseball. I am OK with the T20 format, but definitely not OK with T10. Why can't we ban this god forsaken format for the general wellbeing of cricket? If the ICC want matches to be reduced to 10 overs per side, then they should reduce the number of players from 11 to 6. Imagine this, 11 guys having a total of 10 overs. That is less than one over per player. Definitely not fair.

Understandable. However, I feel that T-10 format could attract a bigger audience primarily due to the length of the games. Many people don't even have time to fully watch T-20 games from start to finish which is where the T-10 format comes into the picture.

It would definitely feel unfair at first, but I am confident that viewers would get used to it pretty quickly.

T10 can only become more successful than T20 if the rules of this format can be tweaked. I mean at the moment it is completely like a T20 game but with less overs. Niether the batter gets a chance to settle nor the bowler has the opportunity. The format is too short for me and I still will prefer a T20 format over T10. By the way we are discussing it on the wrong thread.

Next test match between NZ and ENG starts on the 10th of this month. I hope the NZ team works on their batting more this time.

There is no need to change any rule imo. Quick solution would be.

Organise the T-10 WC and in the very first edition let India-Pakistan to qualify for the finals, followed by India winning by fine margin. Voila!! 

After that BCCI will take care of everything.

[Sithara007]

There is no need to change any rule imo. Quick solution would be.

Organise the T-10 WC and in the very first edition let India-Pakistan to qualify for the finals, followed by India winning by fine margin. Voila!! 

After that BCCI will take care of everything.

LOL.. if that happens, then the BCCI will convert IPL to a T10 league. Instead of 10 teams, they can have 20, and that alone should bring $10 billion in franchise fees. Total number of matches will just double, and advertisement slots will get sold for record amounts. Even tier-2 cities such as Dehra Dun and Guwahati can have IPL franchises. But the big question is whether there are enough local players to support 20 teams. They can increase the overseas quota from 4 to 5, but even then the remaining 6 players need to be locals.

[JSRAW]

There is no need to change any rule imo. Quick solution would be.

Organise the T-10 WC and in the very first edition let India-Pakistan to qualify for the finals, followed by India winning by fine margin. Voila!! 

After that BCCI will take care of everything.

LOL.. if that happens, then the BCCI will convert IPL to a T10 league. Instead of 10 teams, they can have 20, and that alone should bring $10 billion in franchise fees. Total number of matches will just double, and advertisement slots will get sold for record amounts. Even tier-2 cities such as Dehra Dun and Guwahati can have IPL franchises. But the big question is whether there are enough local players to support 20 teams. They can increase the overseas quota from 4 to 5, but even then the remaining 6 players need to be locals.

They are planning to make IPL 90 days affairs from next year or so.

If by any chance this T-10 scenario ( it was supposed to be a joke on how BCCI hijacked the T-20 format completely) pans out then BCCI will push for another 1 month dedicated window for T-10 format.

I would love to see representation from associate nations too in 5 overseas players category. 

[Haunebu]

In the future, T10 may become the preferred format and T20 may face the same fate as that of test cricket and ODI. Nowadays viewers want maximum action within a short duration, and T10 is very much suited for that purpose. And who knows? It may make cricket more popular in markets such as USA and Japan, where baseball is dominant.

I don't think the T-20 format will disappear anytime soon even after T-10 becomes more popular since there are a large section of fans currently who are actually willing to watch them from start to finish.

There is no need to change any rule imo. Quick solution would be.

Organise the T-10 WC and in the very first edition let India-Pakistan to qualify for the finals, followed by India winning by fine margin. Voila!! 

After that BCCI will take care of everything.

Lol. A better solution would be to host global matches like before(Asia vs Rest of the World). This is similar to royal rumble matches in the WWE.

[Juggy777]

In the future, T10 may become the preferred format and T20 may face the same fate as that of test cricket and ODI. Nowadays viewers want maximum action within a short duration, and T10 is very much suited for that purpose. And who knows? It may make cricket more popular in markets such as USA and Japan, where baseball is dominant.

I don't think the T-20 format will disappear anytime soon even after T-10 becomes more popular since there are a large section of fans currently who are actually willing to watch them from start to finish.

There is no need to change any rule imo. Quick solution would be.

Organise the T-10 WC and in the very first edition let India-Pakistan to qualify for the finals, followed by India winning by fine margin. Voila!! 

After that BCCI will take care of everything.

Lol. A better solution would be to host global matches like before(Asia vs Rest of the World). This is similar to royal rumble matches in the WWE.

I wouldn’t be surprised if T10 became popular in the future, but I feel that 10 overs are too less for a proper entertaining match and hence I believe that T20 will survive in the long term too. @JSRAW both the current India and Pakistan team are strong so they could definitely make it to the finals of a T10 World Cup in a hypothetical scenario, but BCCI won’t launch T10 because smaller format means less ad revenues for BCCI.

[Sithara007]

They are planning to make IPL 90 days affairs from next year or so.

If by any chance this T-10 scenario ( it was supposed to be a joke on how BCCI hijacked the T-20 format completely) pans out then BCCI will push for another 1 month dedicated window for T-10 format.

I would love to see representation from associate nations too in 5 overseas players category. 

I don't have any issue if they want to extend IPL to 3 months. But then they should not complain about new ICC tournaments. Because the BCCI last time stood against increasing the number of ICC tournaments (T20 world cup every two years, instead of four). And also, they should provide a part of their income to the ICC. Right now, the so called foreign player retention fee is pocketed by 3-4 countries such as Australia, England and West Indies. The ICC needs to distribute this fund evenly among the member states. And regarding associate players, the franchises don't prefer such players, no matter how talented they are.

[JSRAW]

They are planning to make IPL 90 days affairs from next year or so.

If by any chance this T-10 scenario ( it was supposed to be a joke on how BCCI hijacked the T-20 format completely) pans out then BCCI will push for another 1 month dedicated window for T-10 format.

I would love to see representation from associate nations too in 5 overseas players category. 

I don't have any issue if they want to extend IPL to 3 months. But then they should not complain about new ICC tournaments. Because the BCCI last time stood against increasing the number of ICC tournaments (T20 world cup every two years, instead of four). And also, they should provide a part of their income to the ICC. Right now, the so called foreign player retention fee is pocketed by 3-4 countries such as Australia, England and West Indies. The ICC needs to distribute this fund evenly among the member states. And regarding associate players, the franchises don't prefer such players, no matter how talented they are.

ICC did try to pull this card of sharing IPL revenue. BCCI simply said them to fuck off unofficially.

I'm out of touch in recent updates but if i remember correctly then i think BCCI was against ICC event every year ( it wasn't related to T20 world cup every two years, instead of four) also i believe ICC already finalised the ICC event every year (Happy if someone correct me on this one?

[posi]

I don't have any issue if they want to extend IPL to 3 months. But then they should not complain about new ICC tournaments. Because the BCCI last time stood against increasing the number of ICC tournaments (T20 world cup every two years, instead of four). And also, they should provide a part of their income to the ICC. Right now, the so called foreign player retention fee is pocketed by 3-4 countries such as Australia, England and West Indies. The ICC needs to distribute this fund evenly among the member states. And regarding associate players, the franchises don't prefer such players, no matter how talented they are.

ICC did try to pull this card of sharing IPL revenue. BCCI simply said them to fuck off unofficially.

I'm out of touch in recent updates but if i remember correctly then i think BCCI was against ICC event every year ( it wasn't related to T20 world cup every two years, instead of four) also i believe ICC already finalised the ICC event every year (Happy if someone correct me on this one?

It will be better for cricket if IPL is brought down to finish in a shorter time as possible because for IPL, international cricket is suffering a lot. I think the days are over when IPL used to increase the popularity of cricket. Now it is just a way of making money and finding young players in the process.

So, I don't think international cricket should ever be stopped just because of one country trying to make money from a tournament and find new players for themselves.

[bitgov]

It will be better for cricket if IPL is brought down to finish in a shorter time as possible because for IPL, international cricket is suffering a lot. I think the days are over when IPL used to increase the popularity of cricket. Now it is just a way of making money and finding young players in the process.

So, I don't think international cricket should ever be stopped just because of one country trying to make money from a tournament and find new players for themselves.

This is correct - Had the IPL been done in shorter period of time - it would have pulled more attention.
And I also agree - earlier IPL was more of glitz and galm. There were so many popular faces involved as well. We used to see so many artists on the field too.

[Sithara007]

ICC did try to pull this card of sharing IPL revenue. BCCI simply said them to fuck off unofficially.

I'm out of touch in recent updates but if i remember correctly then i think BCCI was against ICC event every year ( it wasn't related to T20 world cup every two years, instead of four) also i believe ICC already finalised the ICC event every year (Happy if someone correct me on this one?

Fortunately for the ICC, the current BCCI leadership (Ganguly-Shah-Thakur) understands the need to be diplomatic with the other cricket boards. If it was Srinivasan or Pawar, they would have immediately blackmailed the ICC and threatened the latter with pullouts from the ICC tournaments. ICC should blame themselves. If they want more revenue, then they need steps to popularize cricket outside India. Reminds me of the stupid move from the European Union, to boycott Russian oil and gas, at the same time when they are overdependent on supplies from that country.

[JSRAW]

ICC did try to pull this card of sharing IPL revenue. BCCI simply said them to fuck off unofficially.

I'm out of touch in recent updates but if i remember correctly then i think BCCI was against ICC event every year ( it wasn't related to T20 world cup every two years, instead of four) also i believe ICC already finalised the ICC event every year (Happy if someone correct me on this one?

It will be better for cricket if IPL is brought down to finish in a shorter time as possible because for IPL, international cricket is suffering a lot. I think the days are over when IPL used to increase the popularity of cricket. Now it is just a way of making money and finding young players in the process.

So, I don't think international cricket should ever be stopped just because of one country trying to make money from a tournament and find new players for themselves.

And what should ICC do about it? Corner/Bully BCCI? I'm sure it won't go well.

ICC did try to pull this card of sharing IPL revenue. BCCI simply said them to fuck off unofficially.

I'm out of touch in recent updates but if i remember correctly then i think BCCI was against ICC event every year ( it wasn't related to T20 world cup every two years, instead of four) also i believe ICC already finalised the ICC event every year (Happy if someone correct me on this one?

Fortunately for the ICC, the current BCCI leadership (Ganguly-Shah-Thakur) understands the need to be diplomatic with the other cricket boards. If it was Srinivasan or Pawar, they would have immediately blackmailed the ICC and threatened the latter with pullouts from the ICC tournaments. ICC should blame themselves. If they want more revenue, then they need steps to popularize cricket outside India. Reminds me of the stupid move from the European Union, to boycott Russian oil and gas, at the same time when they are overdependent on supplies from that country.

Problem is ICC is perfectly fine with milking Indian market and not even trying to expand their footprints (although they are trying a bit in USA but again majority of stakeholders are Indian based). When you're dependent on only one board for the revenue then it's normal for latter party to flex their muscles.