Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod]

[JSRAW]

The day-Night setting for Test cricket should be an obvious choice, especially in the Indian sub-continent due to the hot climate but not many countries host D/N tests here. Only BCCI hosted 2 D/N tests and they are still struggling with ball quality and trying to find the balance.

Ideally, ICC should make a rule that if there is a 3 or more matches series then 1 match should be D/N. ICC could also relax its rating system for pitches in D/N matches as it's going through a lot of testing, which is related to Pink balls.

I like the idea of D/N test matches. But if these matches are being staged in India, then the opponents should be from pig-4. Matches against really weak sides such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh doesn't make any sense, as the gap between these teams and India is too huge. Such matches will only benefit the individual players, in the form of improving their career stats. Even Pakistan and South Africa are OK, but other teams (including West Indies) can't remain competitive against the Indians, especially in the test format.

If talking about weak sides facing India in India or one-sided matches then they should host matches against Australia only.

In my recent memory, no team gave any competition to the Indian team. 2017 BGT was very competitive, recent BGT was okay, other than that I hardly remember anyone challenging the Indian team, including Poms. Kiwis hardly count as they don't get long series.

[Sithara007]

If talking about weak sides facing India in India or one-sided matches then they should host matches against Australia only.

In my recent memory, no team gave any competition to the Indian team. 2017 BGT was very competitive, recent BGT was okay, other than that I hardly remember anyone challenging the Indian team, including Poms. Kiwis hardly count as they don't get long series.

Australia do have a number of players who specialize in test format, including Steve Smith, Marnus Labuschagne, Mitchell Starc and Nathan Lyon. That is the reason why they are competitive against India. England can be competitive, with a full strength squad including Joe Root, Ben Stokes and Mark Wood. The same with New Zealand as well, if they include Williamson, Boult and Jamieson in the squad. But I agree that the gap is quite wide. But at least the case with other pig-4 teams are much better when we compare them with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. 

[JSRAW]

If talking about weak sides facing India in India or one-sided matches then they should host matches against Australia only.

In my recent memory, no team gave any competition to the Indian team. 2017 BGT was very competitive, recent BGT was okay, other than that I hardly remember anyone challenging the Indian team, including Poms. Kiwis hardly count as they don't get long series.

Australia do have a number of players who specialize in test format, including Steve Smith, Marnus Labuschagne, Mitchell Starc and Nathan Lyon. That is the reason why they are competitive against India. England can be competitive, with a full strength squad including Joe Root, Ben Stokes and Mark Wood. The same with New Zealand as well, if they include Williamson, Boult and Jamieson in the squad. But I agree that the gap is quite wide. But at least the case with other pig-4 teams are much better when we compare them with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. 

They already toured a couple of times, with all the big names you mentioned and still lost so doesn't matter.

The main point is if you are playing raw pace then you need courage but if you are playing world class spin then you need top quality skills which most of the cricketing nation lack, barring a few cricketers.

And for the thousand times, there is no concept of PIG-4 anywhere (officially or unofficially). You keep repeating this like a broken record.

[Sithara007]

And for the thousand times, there is no concept of PIG-4 anywhere (officially or unofficially). You keep repeating this like a broken record.

There is a concept of big-3 for sure - BCCI, ECB and CA. I added CNZ as the 4th team, since a few years back they were the no.1 test side. Back then they would have beaten anyone, including India and managed to win the ICC World Test Championship Final in 2021. Now their form has gone down, partly due to the refusal from players like Trent Boult to play test cricket, and partly due to injuries to some of their players like Kyle Jamieson. But during their peak period, they were without any doubt the no.1 test side (under the captaincy of Kane Williamson).

[fullhdpixel]

The tiered system is what test cricket needs badly. But due to pressure from lower ranking test nations, the board has never been able to implement these suggestions. And I don't believe that playing 8-12 test matches per year is viable, with the influx of franchise T20 leagues. Key players are not available for selection and hosting test matches can be a very tedious affair with lots of expenses. And the return is very low, compared to limited overs cricket. And more importantly, nowadays we don't have a lot of players who are capable of playing test cricket.

I also believe 8 to 12 test matches in one year is not possible but as I already mention if we are able to have 10 to 14 test matches in two years this is also good idea because this will increase quality and performance as well to many teams which are having good domestic system and able to bring test playing players because now they can do all their strategy with WTC final which is going to play after every two years this is also good idea but here we need to have better support from big countries as well.

The Ashes and BGT trophies are good as these teams are competitive in finance and playing quality, but others have no luxury like this which is big case here ICC and big countries can help all others which could be surely vital for this format and his long life.

[Sithara007]

I also believe 8 to 12 test matches in one year is not possible but as I already mention if we are able to have 10 to 14 test matches in two years this is also good idea because this will increase quality and performance as well to many teams which are having good domestic system and able to bring test playing players because now they can do all their strategy with WTC final which is going to play after every two years this is also good idea but here we need to have better support from big countries as well.

The Ashes and BGT trophies are good as these teams are competitive in finance and playing quality, but others have no luxury like this which is big case here ICC and big countries can help all others which could be surely vital for this format and his long life.

Even 10 to 14 matches per 2 years sounds like a lot for me. 7 test matches per year comes to 35 days. Most of the teams don't play more than 25 to 30 ODI matches in a year and in case of T20I the number is even lower. So how can we justify spending far more days for the least popular format, when compared to the more popular formats? IMO, 4-5 test matches can be played per year. That will give an ideal balance between all the formats. If we need more than this number, then separate squads should be formed for test as well as limited overs format.

[Webetcoins]

If talking about weak sides facing India in India or one-sided matches then they should host matches against Australia only.

In my recent memory, no team gave any competition to the Indian team. 2017 BGT was very competitive, recent BGT was okay, other than that I hardly remember anyone challenging the Indian team, including Poms. Kiwis hardly count as they don't get long series.

There is no doubt about Indian strength but here we can bring few changes as well which will help the game and this format as well as Pitches could be done under ICC supervision and ICC also bring few changes like visitors will be allowed to have first batted or bowl things like these can bring better results, and also we can increase revenue of many boards as well.

We have six good test playing countries so giving them regular matches in two years tenure could be good with other six also have must one or two test matches in this cycle will also help these countries for improving their game event this all in reality is no easy thing but if they are fair in development of this game they can do good changes for better results.

[Party24*7]

I also believe 8 to 12 test matches in one year is not possible but as I already mention if we are able to have 10 to 14 test matches in two years this is also good idea because this will increase quality and performance as well to many teams which are having good domestic system and able to bring test playing players because now they can do all their strategy with WTC final which is going to play after every two years this is also good idea but here we need to have better support from big countries as well.
The Ashes and BGT trophies are good as these teams are competitive in finance and playing quality, but others have no luxury like this which is big case here ICC and big countries can help all others which could be surely vital for this format and his long life.

Even 10 to 14 matches per 2 years sounds like a lot for me. 7 test matches per year comes to 35 days. Most of the teams don't play more than 25 to 30 ODI matches in a year and in case of T20I the number is even lower. So how can we justify spending far more days for the least popular format, when compared to the more popular formats? IMO, 4-5 test matches can be played per year. That will give an ideal balance between all the formats. If we need more than this number, then separate squads should be formed for test as well as limited overs format.

Honestly, I think it is time to just get rid of the test format. This is absolutely not popular at all right now. I honestly think there is no use for test cricket in this day and age. The time which is spent playing test cricket is going to be better utilized if T-20 matches are being played during that time frame. Test cricket is not useless. What it has become significantly unimportant.

[Sithara007]

~~~~
We have six good test playing countries so giving them regular matches in two years tenure could be good with other six also have must one or two test matches in this cycle will also help these countries for improving their game event this all in reality is no easy thing but if they are fair in development of this game they can do good changes for better results.

This is something that I suggested a while back. There should be a proper tiered system in test cricket (and not the sham we have right now, where 9 teams are in tier-1 and the remaining 3 teams are in tier-2). There should be actually 3 tiers, with 6 teams each. In the first tier, we can have pig-4 plus South Africa and Pakistan. In the second tier we can have the remaining test nations such as Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. And in the last tier, we can have associate nations like Namibia, Scotland, Netherlands, Nepal and Canada. But more importantly, there should be a promotion-relegation system.

[JSRAW]

And for the thousand times, there is no concept of PIG-4 anywhere (officially or unofficially). You keep repeating this like a broken record.

There is a concept of big-3 for sure - BCCI, ECB and CA. I added CNZ as the 4th team, since a few years back they were the no.1 test side. Back then they would have beaten anyone, including India and managed to win the ICC World Test Championship Final in 2021. Now their form has gone down, partly due to the refusal from players like Trent Boult to play test cricket, and partly due to injuries to some of their players like Kyle Jamieson. But during their peak period, they were without any doubt the no.1 test side (under the captaincy of Kane Williamson).

They were the number 1 team for just a few months, before the WTC finals India was the number 1 team for 5 consecutive years.

If talking about weak sides facing India in India or one-sided matches then they should host matches against Australia only.

In my recent memory, no team gave any competition to the Indian team. 2017 BGT was very competitive, recent BGT was okay, other than that I hardly remember anyone challenging the Indian team, including Poms. Kiwis hardly count as they don't get long series.

There is no doubt about Indian strength but here we can bring few changes as well which will help the game and this format as well as Pitches could be done under ICC supervision and ICC also bring few changes like visitors will be allowed to have first batted or bowl things like these can bring better results, and also we can increase revenue of many boards as well.

We have six good test playing countries so giving them regular matches in two years tenure could be good with other six also have must one or two test matches in this cycle will also help these countries for improving their game event this all in reality is no easy thing but if they are fair in development of this game they can do good changes for better results.

ICC has no say in bilateral series so they can't interfere, they only come into the picture when pitch ratings come into play.

Taking toss advantage away from the home team is a good idea and many pundits talked about it over the years but ICC never acted on it. Also, almost half of the Indian team's wins at home came when they lost the toss so toss hardly matters when any team playing against India in India. Happened in many series, including BGT, against Poms, kiwis or against Proteas.

[dezoel]

ICC has no say in bilateral series so they can't interfere, they only come into the picture when pitch ratings come into play.

Taking toss advantage away from the home team is a good idea and many pundits talked about it over the years but ICC never acted on it. Also, almost half of the Indian team's wins at home came when they lost the toss so toss hardly matters when any team playing against India in India. Happened in many series, including BGT, against Poms, kiwis or against Proteas.

I understand currently ICC has nothing to do any bilateral series, but now I want them to do interfere with test matches can bring good revenue for ICC and related cricket teams because if we will bring this all under WTC then surely we will have the good number of test matches even few will be no interesting but still this could be beneficial for the all parties and ICC can go through into this format in good way.

But, here I also want to add now it's time for them to say goodbye to ODI after 2031 World Cup and just stay with Test matches and T20i which will be better things and few can stay with two teams as well which will be also helpful even just for few countries because all can't afford this luxury, but these are beneficial things which will bring more entertainment specially after England Bazball strategy things are going positive for the test format and many countries will try to follow them as well.

[mm2543363580]

I also believe 8 to 12 test matches in one year is not possible but as I already mention if we are able to have 10 to 14 test matches in two years this is also good idea because this will increase quality and performance as well to many teams which are having good domestic system and able to bring test playing players because now they can do all their strategy with WTC final which is going to play after every two years this is also good idea but here we need to have better support from big countries as well.
The Ashes and BGT trophies are good as these teams are competitive in finance and playing quality, but others have no luxury like this which is big case here ICC and big countries can help all others which could be surely vital for this format and his long life.

Even 10 to 14 matches per 2 years sounds like a lot for me. 7 test matches per year comes to 35 days. Most of the teams don't play more than 25 to 30 ODI matches in a year and in case of T20I the number is even lower. So how can we justify spending far more days for the least popular format, when compared to the more popular formats? IMO, 4-5 test matches can be played per year. That will give an ideal balance between all the formats. If we need more than this number, then separate squads should be formed for test as well as limited overs format.

Honestly, I think it is time to just get rid of the test format. This is absolutely not popular at all right now. I honestly think there is no use for test cricket in this day and age. The time which is spent playing test cricket is going to be better utilized if T-20 matches are being played during that time frame. Test cricket is not useless. What it has become significantly unimportant.

Getting rid of it is not the point as test format is really important for players to check their stamina and consistency like how they can play in 5 days . The true meaning of this format is to check players patience and sensibility on ground  . Many good players fail to perform in this format due to lack of experience. 
Its importance can't be denied .

[JSRAW]

ICC has no say in bilateral series so they can't interfere, they only come into the picture when pitch ratings come into play.

Taking toss advantage away from the home team is a good idea and many pundits talked about it over the years but ICC never acted on it. Also, almost half of the Indian team's wins at home came when they lost the toss so toss hardly matters when any team playing against India in India. Happened in many series, including BGT, against Poms, kiwis or against Proteas.

I understand currently ICC has nothing to do any bilateral series, but now I want them to do interfere with test matches can bring good revenue for ICC and related cricket teams because if we will bring this all under WTC then surely we will have the good number of test matches even few will be no interesting but still this could be beneficial for the all parties and ICC can go through into this format in good way.

ICC can't even force any cricket board to play bilateral cricket with others, case in point BCCI- PCB.

So what makes you think that cricket boards would agree to give bilateral series revenue-related power to ICC? Atm only 3 series (BGT, Ashes, Ind vs Eng) generate a ridiculous amount or fair amount of money to different boards when India plays against their teams (SA, NZ, SL, WI etc). Good luck trying to convince all cricket boards.

[Sithara007]

ICC can't even force any cricket board to play bilateral cricket with others, case in point BCCI- PCB.

So what makes you think that cricket boards would agree to give bilateral series revenue-related power to ICC? Atm only 3 series (BGT, Ashes, Ind vs Eng) generate a ridiculous amount or fair amount of money to different boards when India plays against their teams (SA, NZ, SL, WI etc). Good luck trying to convince all cricket boards.

Cricket is not the number 1 sport in both England and Australia, and therefore we can assume that revenue mostly comes from matches that involve India. Even in case of Ashes, I strongly suspect that the majority of the revenues originate form India. The ICC got it's fair deal with the WTC finals. Any more intervention into bilateral series will face strong opposition from the BCCI and other pig-4 boards. But I strongly suspect that the smaller boards such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will be open to this idea. They stand to gain, if revenues end up with the ICC.

[DanWalker]

ICC can't even force any cricket board to play bilateral cricket with others, case in point BCCI- PCB.
So what makes you think that cricket boards would agree to give bilateral series revenue-related power to ICC? Atm only 3 series (BGT, Ashes, Ind vs Eng) generate a ridiculous amount or fair amount of money to different boards when India plays against their teams (SA, NZ, SL, WI etc). Good luck trying to convince all cricket boards.

Cricket is not the number 1 sport in both England and Australia, and therefore we can assume that revenue mostly comes from matches that involve India. Even in case of Ashes, I strongly suspect that the majority of the revenues originate form India. The ICC got it's fair deal with the WTC finals. Any more intervention into bilateral series will face strong opposition from the BCCI and other pig-4 boards. But I strongly suspect that the smaller boards such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will be open to this idea. They stand to gain, if revenues end up with the ICC.

The problem is the revenue generation, and the funding is very different when it comes to the top four teams and the teams below them. The same things that are going to be agreed upon by the top teams are going to be denied by the teams that are below.

So that is all that’s going to be a problem for the ICC. Now ICC should come forward and make strong roles which will somehow be beneficial for all the teams. After all, there are only 10-15 cricket playing countries. That should be easy to handle.

[JSRAW]

ICC can't even force any cricket board to play bilateral cricket with others, case in point BCCI- PCB.

So what makes you think that cricket boards would agree to give bilateral series revenue-related power to ICC? Atm only 3 series (BGT, Ashes, Ind vs Eng) generate a ridiculous amount or fair amount of money to different boards when India plays against their teams (SA, NZ, SL, WI etc). Good luck trying to convince all cricket boards.

Cricket is not the number 1 sport in both England and Australia, and therefore we can assume that revenue mostly comes from matches that involve India. Even in case of Ashes, I strongly suspect that the majority of the revenues originate form India. The ICC got it's fair deal with the WTC finals. Any more intervention into bilateral series will face strong opposition from the BCCI and other pig-4 boards. But I strongly suspect that the smaller boards such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh will be open to this idea. They stand to gain, if revenues end up with the ICC.

Bit confusing reply but it sums up with the bold part.

Please don't get offended but it's one of the stupid takes IMO, in case ICC gets the authority on bilateral cricket.

Every cricketing board is free to choose 6 bilateral series, in a hypothetical scenario let this idea come alive and at the same time let's see if BCCI hands out favor to anyone which they do regularly.

In covid times BCCI literally paid CA's salary just because they didn't cancel the BGT trophy and CA got a breather, same with the SA etc.  

If this idea becomes reality then I would be very disappointed but i won't mind if BCCI stops playing all lucrative/competitive series and instead opts for Zim/Afg/Ire and other associate nations, just to make a dent in this idea. If ICC is willing to burn it down then let them do it.

[Sithara007]

Bit confusing reply but it sums up with the bold part.

Please don't get offended but it's one of the stupid takes IMO, in case ICC gets the authority on bilateral cricket.

Every cricketing board is free to choose 6 bilateral series, in a hypothetical scenario let this idea come alive and at the same time let's see if BCCI hands out favor to anyone which they do regularly.

In covid times BCCI literally paid CA's salary just because they didn't cancel the BGT trophy and CA got a breather, same with the SA etc.  

If this idea becomes reality then I would be very disappointed but i won't mind if BCCI stops playing all lucrative/competitive series and instead opts for Zim/Afg/Ire and other associate nations, just to make a dent in this idea. If ICC is willing to burn it down then let them do it.

I am not even thinking about a scenario where the ICC dictates terms and conditions on bilateral series. I was talking about a possibility where they get a small share of revenue from these series (maybe 5% or 10%). I don't have a problem with that, as most of that money will end up with BCCI, as they stand to gain 33% to 40% of all the ICC revenues. But any suggestion that ICC would decide whom India would play against is outright ridiculous. That will never happen. But then, the BCCI are no saints. They have also organized useless bilaterals in the past, against teams such as Zimbabwe and West Indies.

[Iranus]

Sri Lanka    :   Ireland

I am very interested in Ireland vs Sri Lanka test match. Because in the last few series, we have seen erratic and poor performances from the Sri Lankan team. There is no player in this team who can perform consistently well with responsibility.
On the other hand, I saw the performance of the Ireland team against Bangladesh. This team performed well in the Test match. After a poor performance in the first innings, the team's comeback in the second innings is truly commendable.
And so I guess it will be much more difficult for Sri Lanka to beat Ireland in this test match. However, Sri Lanka's batting is very good. They managed to collect 135 runs by losing only 1 wicket. The pitch is also helping the batsmen. And so I think the match will be a draw.

[Sithara007]

Tried to watch the Sri Lanka vs Ireland match in SONY LIV. But found it too boring. Bowlers are hardly getting any assistance from the pitch and the Irish bowlers also don't have any sting. So far only one wicket has fallen and Sri Lanka looks set for a big score in the range of 500-600 runs by the end of second day's play. The second wicket partnership between Dimuth Karunaratne and Kusal Mendis is now worth 89 runs. The only wicket to fall so far (Nishan Madushka) went to medium pacer Curtis Campher.

[Minor Miner]

Tried to watch the Sri Lanka vs Ireland match in SONY LIV. But found it too boring. Bowlers are hardly getting any assistance from the pitch and the Irish bowlers also don't have any sting. So far only one wicket has fallen and Sri Lanka looks set for a big score in the range of 500-600 runs by the end of second day's play. The second wicket partnership between Dimuth Karunaratne and Kusal Mendis is now worth 89 runs. The only wicket to fall so far (Nishan Madushka) went to medium pacer Curtis Campher.

Kusal Mendis and Karunaratne both scored centuries. And at this moment, the Sri Lanka team has collected 258 runs with the loss of 1 wicket. I don't think the performance of Ireland's bowlers will be that poor. I expected a more responsible performance from Ireland's bowlers. Because Ireland's bowlers performed very well against Bangladesh in the last test match. Looks likely to score more than 360 today. If Sri Lanka manages to score more than 500 in the first innings, it will not be possible for Ireland to fight for a draw or win the match.