Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod]

[nhaila]

Actually Test match is the match of interview of a good cricketers but most of the cricketers now denied him from test match. Recently moien Ali a gentle man from England cricket team already decided to given off test cricket because he could have enough time for one day and t20 match.

[1715287901]

1715287901

[1715287901]

1715287901

[1715287901]

1715287901

[bryant.coleman]

Actually Test match is the match of interview of a good cricketers but most of the cricketers now denied him from test match. Recently moien Ali a gentle man from England cricket team already decided to given off test cricket because he could have enough time for one day and t20 match.

T20 means less effort and more money for the players. On the other hand, test cricket means more effort, more chances of injury, less free time and less salary. On top of that, for the batsmen T20 cricket is much more suitable because of all the restrictions introduced by the ICC. At this point, it is ridiculous for the international players to select test cricket over T20. Unless they are really bad in T20 (Steve Smith, Cheteshwar Pujara, Ajinkya Rahane, Dale Steyn.etc), they should concentrate more on the shorter format.

[Theones]

~SNIP

Interestingly the fan following of T20 cricket is more than the Test cricket. Amazingly you do not need a lot of skills like Test cricket in T20 format. You only need to hit the ball well as a batsman and as a bowler, you need to restrict the batsmen. I am not a fan of Test cricket and most of us here would agree that we do not have time to watch the match for a whole day. I generally go for the highlights rather than checking the score.

I remember an interview back in late 90s or early 2000s (I don't remember the exact year but T20 was not introduced at that time), players of different teams were asked whether they like Test or ODIs. Almost all players said Test cricket, as that is the proper cricket and cricketing skills can only be seen in Test format. I am sure all players today have consent on T20 that its the best cricketing format.
In T20, you bowl a great delivery and got six, bowl a bad delivery and got wicket. Same goes for batsman. Its all about action and luck in T20. 

[sovie]

Actually Test match is the match of interview of a good cricketers but most of the cricketers now denied him from test match. Recently moien Ali a gentle man from England cricket team already decided to given off test cricket because he could have enough time for one day and t20 match.

Moin Ali has played enough test cricket before retiring from it i.e. 64 tests. Right now preference of every cricketer is T20 aka IPL, where you player for shorter period of time and earn huge money. Of course no one pays to players and boards more then IPL. In my view, there is dire need of regulation in cricket - every baord must ensure that there players play Test and ODIs from national side and should not be running after heavily paid T20 tournaments throughout the year. 

[bryant.coleman]

~
In my view, there is dire need of regulation in cricket - every baord must ensure that there players play Test and ODIs from national side and should not be running after heavily paid T20 tournaments throughout the year. 

Wrong. This can't be put into practise unless the national board pays a much lower salary compared to franchise cricket. If such a regulation is brought in, the players would simply announce their retirement and concentrate on T20. How much Moeen Ali was getting while he was representing the ECB? His contract with Chennai Super Kings in the IPL is worth $980,000 per season, or $70,000 per match. And cricket is just like any other career option. You can't force someone to continue with a low paying job, that requires a lot more effort.

[laurenB7742]

~
In my view, there is dire need of regulation in cricket - every baord must ensure that there players play Test and ODIs from national side and should not be running after heavily paid T20 tournaments throughout the year. 

Wrong. This can't be put into practise unless the national board pays a much lower salary compared to franchise cricket. If such a regulation is brought in, the players would simply announce their retirement and concentrate on T20. How much Moeen Ali was getting while he was representing the ECB? His contract with Chennai Super Kings in the IPL is worth $980,000 per season, or $70,000 per match. And cricket is just like any other career option. You can't force someone to continue with a low paying job, that requires a lot more effort.

I agree with you. Players playing in the T20 leagues are paid so high compared to international matches. For example, look at the West Indies players, they play more in the T20  leagues more than their International team. Well having a clash with the board is also an issue but money is a huge factor in this. Maybe the boards can make a statement that T20 league players won't be paid more than a specific amount of money and maybe that might help a bit, other than that, I don't see a fix to this.

[Juggy777]

~
In my view, there is dire need of regulation in cricket - every baord must ensure that there players play Test and ODIs from national side and should not be running after heavily paid T20 tournaments throughout the year.  

Wrong. This can't be put into practise unless the national board pays a much lower salary compared to franchise cricket. If such a regulation is brought in, the players would simply announce their retirement and concentrate on T20. How much Moeen Ali was getting while he was representing the ECB? His contract with Chennai Super Kings in the IPL is worth $980,000 per season, or $70,000 per match. And cricket is just like any other career option. You can't force someone to continue with a low paying job, that requires a lot more effort.

I agree with you. Players playing in the T20 leagues are paid so high compared to international matches. For example, look at the West Indies players, they play more in the T20  leagues more than their International team. Well having a clash with the board is also an issue but money is a huge factor in this. Maybe the boards can make a statement that T20 league players won't be paid more than a specific amount of money and maybe that might help a bit, other than that, I don't see a fix to this.

I don’t agree with this how can you ask player’s to take less money, put yourself in their shoes would you accept less money for the hard work you put in no right?. However to save test cricket boards can make it mandatory to pay a x number of test matches if fit and selected, and that’s something the player’s too will accept.

[TheGreatPython]

In these busy life, watching a majority of the test match leave out the full match, is quite hard. Everyone is busy with their lives, highest people can do is check the score from time to time. But there is no denying that this is the most unique and the root of cricket. But the busy everyday life of people is making it hard to watch test matches and also pretty boring as you said. That's why new formats like T-10 and The 100 are being introduced. You can sit in front of the TV for 2 hours and you have an action-packed match.

Yes recently most of the people are enjoying t20 match and 100 ball match because it's a short time play and one can easily get enough time and entertainment . But test match only I see the update results via Cricbuzz but not television 📺.

Even now in popularity T20 and A Hundred is going quite good but still we have, some good number of test lovers because this is also very interesting and entertaining cricket due to T20. It's also reaching some good level of expertise.

Moin Ali has never been good in test because he was a good player of short format cricket, but England take some good chance above him and bring them in test where he has done some good but still he was not comfortable, so he announces retirement but right now England is enjoying with 2 legends of this game like Broad and Anderson both are giving really great performance in coming Ashes surely they are going to be really entertaining cricket from these both teams.

[sovie]

~

I don’t agree with this how can you ask player’s to take less money, put yourself in their shoes would you accept less money for the hard work you put in no right?. However to save test cricket boards can make it mandatory to pay a x number of test matches if fit and selected, and that’s something the player’s too will accept.

My point is that there must be some regulation that national side schedule should not be disturbed by any league just like we see in other sports. In the end its the national side that highlights the player to be picked by T20 Leagues. How many players are picked up in leagues that haven't played any international cricket? So boards have the right to made it compulsory for players to remain available for national side. Its board that should decide not the players.

[Sithara007]

My point is that there must be some regulation that national side schedule should not be disturbed by any league just like we see in other sports. In the end its the national side that highlights the player to be picked by T20 Leagues. How many players are picked up in leagues that haven't played any international cricket? So boards have the right to made it compulsory for players to remain available for national side. Its board that should decide not the players.

Such a rule will not work, as already posted previously.

The player will simply refuse to enter in to a contract with the national cricket board. Look at all the South African players. They refuse contracts from CSA, and now play domestic cricket in England, New Zealand or the United States due to the quota policy. And as long as they are not contracted, the national cricket board can't do anything against them. But if a player is contracted, then obviously he needs to follow whatever the board tells him. If the board ask him not to play in any of the franchise leagues, then he doesn't have any other choice but to follow that.

[bitgov]

~~~

Such a rule will not work, as already posted previously.

The player will simply refuse to enter in to a contract with the national cricket board. Look at all the South African players. They refuse contracts from CSA, and now play domestic cricket in England, New Zealand or the United States due to the quota policy. And as long as they are not contracted, the national cricket board can't do anything against them. But if a player is contracted, then obviously he needs to follow whatever the board tells him. If the board ask him not to play in any of the franchise leagues, then he doesn't have any other choice but to follow that.

Its not good for cricket then. Players first choice will be T20 leagues not the national side matches. We have seen so many test, ODI and T20I series where teams were playing with new players as senior players went to play leagues.
Shane Warne: Countries should stop picking players who choose IPL over international duty
IPL harming West Indies cricket, says Carl Hooper

[Vishnu.Reang]

Its not good for cricket then. Players first choice will be T20 leagues not the national side matches. We have seen so many test, ODI and T20I series where teams were playing with new players as senior players went to play leagues.
Shane Warne: Countries should stop picking players who choose IPL over international duty
IPL harming West Indies cricket, says Carl Hooper

I have to disagree with you. IMO, franchise leagues have done more to cricket than meaningless bilateral tours. I don't see any reason to give preference to national duty over franchise cricket. Perhaps the ICC can make it mandatory for the players to appear for their respective countries in world cups. Other than that, there should not be any restrictions. T20 leagues have brought new fans and money in to cricket. Test cricket on the other hand has played a large part in driving out younger fans and making cricket more unpopular.

[savetheFORUM]

Such a rule will not work, as already posted previously.

The player will simply refuse to enter in to a contract with the national cricket board. Look at all the South African players. They refuse contracts from CSA, and now play domestic cricket in England, New Zealand or the United States due to the quota policy. And as long as they are not contracted, the national cricket board can't do anything against them. But if a player is contracted, then obviously he needs to follow whatever the board tells him. If the board ask him not to play in any of the franchise leagues, then he doesn't have any other choice but to follow that.

Its not good for cricket then. Players first choice will be T20 leagues not the national side matches. We have seen so many test, ODI and T20I series where teams were playing with new players as senior players went to play leagues.
Shane Warne: Countries should stop picking players who choose IPL over international duty
IPL harming West Indies cricket, says Carl Hooper

These rules apply in soccer as players must play for national team instead of club, but sadly we are not able to do this in cricket IPL is multi-billion project and big three taking good profit from this, so they will never allow this even we are losing beauty of cricket. In man cases, we already lost this all but now as IPL organizers bringing some more teams, so this is going more lengthy and panic for other events in cricket and ICC is looking this all just as dumb case.

[ene1980]

I have to disagree with you. IMO, franchise leagues have done more to cricket than meaningless bilateral tours.

If it is competitive cricket, i do not mind, but i hate watching one sided games and i would not call every bilateral tours meaningless.

I don't see any reason to give preference to national duty over franchise cricket. Perhaps the ICC can make it mandatory for the players to appear for their respective countries in world cups. Other than that, there should not be any restrictions. T20 leagues have brought new fans and money in to cricket. Test cricket on the other hand has played a large part in driving out younger fans and making cricket more unpopular.

The ICC gives preference to national duty because that is how they earn money. I am not sure how much they earn with these franchise cricket.  The shorter format has attracted many viewers to the game and there is no debate on that.

[Sithara007]

The ICC gives preference to national duty because that is how they earn money. I am not sure how much they earn with these franchise cricket.  The shorter format has attracted many viewers to the game and there is no debate on that.

The ICC neither benefits from the franchise leagues, nor from the bilateral tours. Their revenue comes only from world cups and other tournaments that are organized by the ICC. So for the ICC, it is meaningless to get involved in this mess and it needs to be sorted out between the players and the board. My opinion is that the players have the option to chose. The so called "national boards" are private entities and they are not owned by the government. Playing for these boards is akin to working in a private enterprise.

[bitgov]

These rules apply in soccer as players must play for national team instead of club, but sadly we are not able to do this in cricket IPL is multi-billion project and big three taking good profit from this, so they will never allow this even we are losing beauty of cricket. In man cases, we already lost this all but now as IPL organizers bringing some more teams, so this is going more lengthy and panic for other events in cricket and ICC is looking this all just as dumb case.

IPL is beyond any doubt a multi billion dollar business and is the top preference for boards and Players these days. I want to know how T20 leagues are benefiting ICC? Because players are not playing for the national sides, tour are cancelled or rescheduled because of it. If its good for cricket then ICC must stop bilateral tours since they are getting worthless because of players unavailability.

[laurenB7742]

The Indian women's team batted first and scored 346 runs, losing just six wickets. India's performance against a strong team like the Australian women's team is very commendable. As the days go by, the Indian Woman's teams are improving a lot, they become more stronger day by day. The Australian team decided to bowl after winning the toss but so far they have not been able to do anything good. Most likely the match is most likely to be a draw.

[pakhitheboss]

The Indian women's team batted first and scored 346 runs, losing just six wickets. India's performance against a strong team like the Australian women's team is very commendable. As the days go by, the Indian Woman's teams are improving a lot, they become more stronger day by day. The Australian team decided to bowl after winning the toss but so far they have not been able to do anything good. Most likely the match is most likely to be a draw.

D Sharma is still batting and I think if she continues then a score of 400 or more can be accomplished. Indeed considering the Australian team, Indian team has done pretty well. The problem is that Indian team has lot 7 wickets and it will tough for the tail enders to support D Sharma.

[Theones]

The Indian women's team batted first and scored 346 runs, losing just six wickets. India's performance against a strong team like the Australian women's team is very commendable. As the days go by, the Indian Woman's teams are improving a lot, they become more stronger day by day. The Australian team decided to bowl after winning the toss but so far they have not been able to do anything good. Most likely the match is most likely to be a draw.

Thanks to great knock by Smriti Mandhana and Deepti Sharma, India made 377 runs. Other players also contributed well by scoring in 30s. Overall its good batting performance by Indian-W team.
Till now Aus-W batting is not as good as it should be. Still they have 6 wickets in hands and anything can happen. Mostly likely the match will end up in draw.

[add1ct3dd]

The Indian women's team batted first and scored 346 runs, losing just six wickets. India's performance against a strong team like the Australian women's team is very commendable. As the days go by, the Indian Woman's teams are improving a lot, they become more stronger day by day. The Australian team decided to bowl after winning the toss but so far they have not been able to do anything good. Most likely the match is most likely to be a draw.

D Sharma is still batting and I think if she continues then a score of 400 or more can be accomplished. Indeed considering the Australian team, Indian team has done pretty well. The problem is that Indian team has lot 7 wickets and it will tough for the tail enders to support D Sharma.

A very good display of batting and now bowling from Indian Women cricketers because I was not expecting performance like this from these ladies specially with pink ball and day/night match but these women done something special against the all odds.

Indian women are playing just their 3rd test but still on top of game against women from Australia those are very experienced and sometime back won against England women it's really amazing for me and fans like me in homeland Most chances we are going to have result as draw as one all day is washed out and now today end of third day we are in first inning of Australia trailing by 245 with 4 out not ideal situation for them, but Indian ladies can do some better for their first win if they play some attacking game.