Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod]

[Ayers]

I think it is time for ICC to actually let go of test cricket. Instead of spending time and resources on test cricket, I think they really should spend those things for the t20 format. In this day and age, everyone wants to see the winning team have more skill compared to luck.

I don't think the ICC will ever get rid of test cricket since the recent Ashes has proven that it still has a sizeable audience who are willing to watch them despite all of the problems associated with it.

T-20 format is definitely a lot more entertaining in comparison, but the test format is special in its own way.

I have seen somewhere that ICC will reduce the ODI series after 2027 and increase the Test and T20I series. There was a meeting somewhere and former players like Sangakkara and Sachin were in this meeting and they agreed. I don't think ICC will ever think to get rid of the test format. Actually, I found a relevant article from ESPNcricinfo which you may find interesting to read^[1].

T20 format spreading all over the world. Even shorter format like T10 getting popularity as well. Since those are short format game, people get entertainment for a few hours. Lot of things happens in a few hours.

[1] https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/mcc-recommends-significant-reduction-of-odi-cricket-after-2027-1386819

Don’t honestly know what is going to be achieved by reducing the number of ODI matches and increasing the number of test and T-20 matches. I genuinely think that the popularity of ODI is far bigger compared to the popularity of test. And if they should reduce anything, they should do it with the test cricket format.

I know that the Ashes series is still popular. But except for that one series, people are not going to go see the test cricket being played for five days. And I genuinely think that the Asha series is an exception. The exception does not make the rule in my opinion. So in my personal opinion, I don’t know what they were thinking, but time is changing and they should try to keep up.

[JSRAW]

Don’t honestly know what is going to be achieved by reducing the number of ODI matches and increasing the number of test and T-20 matches. I genuinely think that the popularity of ODI is far bigger compared to the popularity of test. And if they should reduce anything, they should do it with the test cricket format.

I know that the Ashes series is still popular. But except for that one series, people are not going to go see the test cricket being played for five days. And I genuinely think that the Asha series is an exception. The exception does not make the rule in my opinion. So in my personal opinion, I don’t know what they were thinking, but time is changing and they should try to keep up.

England vs India and BGT (India vs Australia) broadcasting revenues are going off the chart every year that's why BGT is now 5 test match series, instead of 4 tests.

3 formats are not sustainable in the long run. It's more like a survival of the fittest, with Test cricket it's a romanticization and connected to ICC's revenue model. T-20 format generates enough revenue and is hardly a loss-making affair.

It doesn't help when ODI WC comes after 4 years. In contrast, T-20 WC pops up after every 2 years so you could say that there is some recency bias as well as far as spectators are concerned, due to fast paced cricket.

[posi]

New Zealand always give their 101% while playing against Australia. But they have to deal with a huge disadvantage in terms of smaller population and minuscule player pool. In recent times, New Zealand have been able to perform much better than what is expected from them, thanks to the large influx of players from South Africa. But now that advantage is being lost because some of their top players (Trent Boult for example) are refusing to play international matches, so that they can focus more on franchise T20 leagues. 

New Zealand and South Africa are only teams that haven't won any world cup till date. Newzealand only had an ICC champions trophy to there name as major win while SA still to win any major icc tournament. Both these have tendency to play well and make it to finals or semis but they are not able to win any tournament. Both teams wait is getting longer and longer to win a major icc tournament.

New Zealand used to give its best whereas South Africa is unlucky to miss chances. It was during the 2015 ODI World Cup semifinal South Africa played against New Zealand. In the match South Africa won the toss and decided to bat making 281/5 with Du Plessis scoring 82 runs and Ab de Villiers scoring 65* runs. At the end David Miller scored 49 runs in 18 balls. The match was reduced to 43 overs. New Zealand scored 299 runs in 42.5 overs and won the match by 4 wickets and a ball left. It was Grant Elliott who changed the match and it a winning one for New Zealand.

Playing franchisee T-20 leagues are obviously more beneficial for a player compared to playing for the national team. So of course, a player is going to choose to play in franchisee T-20 leagues. But of course that is going to put the national team in a big disadvantage. The New Zealand team is certainly a good one. But the recent achievements have not been great for them. Having a smaller population is certainly a disadvantage. But that cannot be an excuse. A First world country like New Zealand should be able to produce good players.

[Compromise me]

New Zealand always give their 101% while playing against Australia. But they have to deal with a huge disadvantage in terms of smaller population and minuscule player pool. In recent times, New Zealand have been able to perform much better than what is expected from them, thanks to the large influx of players from South Africa. But now that advantage is being lost because some of their top players (Trent Boult for example) are refusing to play international matches, so that they can focus more on franchise T20 leagues. 

New Zealand and South Africa are only teams that haven't won any world cup till date. Newzealand only had an ICC champions trophy to there name as major win while SA still to win any major icc tournament. Both these have tendency to play well and make it to finals or semis but they are not able to win any tournament. Both teams wait is getting longer and longer to win a major icc tournament.

You are right. They are  big teams that performed very well in series and performed well in ICC tournaments but they are unlucky teams and still did not achieve any ICC tournament trophy. In ICC  World Cup 2019 Final New Zeland played well till end . Score was level and super over score was also level. But New Zealand lose match because boundaries of England was more than New Zealand.South African is also good team but still couldn't achieve any ICC tournament trophy

[GigaBit]

New Zealand always give their 101% while playing against Australia. But they have to deal with a huge disadvantage in terms of smaller population and minuscule player pool. In recent times, New Zealand have been able to perform much better than what is expected from them, thanks to the large influx of players from South Africa. But now that advantage is being lost because some of their top players (Trent Boult for example) are refusing to play international matches, so that they can focus more on franchise T20 leagues. 

New Zealand and South Africa are only teams that haven't won any world cup till date. Newzealand only had an ICC champions trophy to there name as major win while SA still to win any major icc tournament. Both these have tendency to play well and make it to finals or semis but they are not able to win any tournament. Both teams wait is getting longer and longer to win a major icc tournament.

New Zealand used to give its best whereas South Africa is unlucky to miss chances. It was during the 2015 ODI World Cup semifinal South Africa played against New Zealand. In the match South Africa won the toss and decided to bat making 281/5 with Du Plessis scoring 82 runs and Ab de Villiers scoring 65* runs. At the end David Miller scored 49 runs in 18 balls. The match was reduced to 43 overs. New Zealand scored 299 runs in 42.5 overs and won the match by 4 wickets and a ball left. It was Grant Elliott who changed the match and it a winning one for New Zealand.

Playing franchisee T-20 leagues are obviously more beneficial for a player compared to playing for the national team. So of course, a player is going to choose to play in franchisee T-20 leagues. But of course that is going to put the national team in a big disadvantage. The New Zealand team is certainly a good one. But the recent achievements have not been great for them. Having a smaller population is certainly a disadvantage. But that cannot be an excuse. A First world country like New Zealand should be able to produce good players.

A cricketer doesn't get the facilities that a player gets in football. However, franchise T20 leagues have given cricketers a different feel in recent times. Although it is very little compared to football but it is not less as a cricketer due to which many players have started dreaming of targeting IPL. They try to do well in one particular league in a year. Such interest in individual players has sometimes had a huge impact on the national team as well. We have seen a few days ago where New Zealand team lost miserably to Pakistan where some of their good players were regulars in IPL.

[posi]

Playing franchisee T-20 leagues are obviously more beneficial for a player compared to playing for the national team. So of course, a player is going to choose to play in franchisee T-20 leagues. But of course that is going to put the national team in a big disadvantage. The New Zealand team is certainly a good one. But the recent achievements have not been great for them. Having a smaller population is certainly a disadvantage. But that cannot be an excuse. A First world country like New Zealand should be able to produce good players.

A cricketer doesn't get the facilities that a player gets in football. However, franchise T20 leagues have given cricketers a different feel in recent times. Although it is very little compared to football but it is not less as a cricketer due to which many players have started dreaming of targeting IPL. They try to do well in one particular league in a year. Such interest in individual players has sometimes had a huge impact on the national team as well. We have seen a few days ago where New Zealand team lost miserably to Pakistan where some of their good players were regulars in IPL.

I know that there is a big difference between football and cricket. But cricket is definitely going towards the franchisee leagues right now. So it is certainly easier for the cricketers to play for franchisee and try to get as much money as possible. Obviously people are going to take a little time to get this thing normalized. But with the growing T-20 leagues in almost everywhere I think more players are going to make these types of demands to be honest. For almost every cricketer at a certain age, international achievement is basically going to be kind of worthless in my opinion.

[eaLiTy]

~
Don’t honestly know what is going to be achieved by reducing the number of ODI matches and increasing the number of test and T-20 matches. I genuinely think that the popularity of ODI is far bigger compared to the popularity of test. And if they should reduce anything, they should do it with the test cricket format.

T20 is the format every country will be focusing because of the monetary benefits and Test matches ICC wants to maintain the heritage, ODI is a longer format now a days compared to the ever thriller T20 and the focus is to phase of ODI bilateral matches and concentrate on T20 and Test matches and then conduct the ODI World Cup as usual.

[Sithara007]

T20 is the format every country will be focusing because of the monetary benefits and Test matches ICC wants to maintain the heritage, ODI is a longer format now a days compared to the ever thriller T20 and the focus is to phase of ODI bilateral matches and concentrate on T20 and Test matches and then conduct the ODI World Cup as usual.

ICC still gets a large part of the revenue from ODI World Cup. However, the T20 World Cup is becoming increasingly prominent now. Also, T20 World Cup is being conducted every 2 years, and the ODI World Cup occurs only once in 4 years. After the 2027 edition of the 50-over world cup, I am not sure about the future of this tournament. Apart from the world cup, ODIs are mostly being played as part of bilaterals. ICC has decided to shelve the ODI Super League and therefore outside the tournament bilaterals are going to be the only avenue for ODI cricket. And in revenue perspective, test cricket is not very beneficial for the ICC.

[Haunebu]

A cricketer doesn't get the facilities that a player gets in football. However, franchise T20 leagues have given cricketers a different feel in recent times. Although it is very little compared to football but it is not less as a cricketer due to which many players have started dreaming of targeting IPL.

You are generalising incorrectly. Cricketers in certain countries like India, Australia, England etc do get similar facilities like football players while cricketers from countries like West Indies, Sri Lanka etc don't get similar facilities.

For almost every cricketer at a certain age, international achievement is basically going to be kind of worthless in my opinion.

I disagree. Achievements at any age matter. Just look at players like MSD, Anderson etc for example.

[posi]

For almost every cricketer at a certain age, international achievement is basically going to be kind of worthless in my opinion.

I disagree. Achievements at any age matter. Just look at players like MSD, Anderson etc for example.

Well, obviously achievements are going to matter. But what I meant to say is that the player is not going to differentiate too much between personal achievement/club achievement and his achievement with national team. Except maybe for the World Cup. The World Cup is the one and only achievement that every player wants to have in his lifetime. But when a player is going to get more money from franchisee leagues, it is sad but true that he’s going to choose fantasy leagues instead of his national team.

[Sithara007]

I disagree. Achievements at any age matter. Just look at players like MSD, Anderson etc for example.

A decade or two ago, it was extremely rare to have international cricketers playing beyond 37-38 years of age. But now even players who are above 40 years of age are participating in international matches without any issues. I am not just talking about James Anderson, but also about other players such as Imran Tahir and Misbah-ul-Haq. Now players are able to maintain their fitness level for extended durations, despite very heavy workload. T20 has become more prominent at the expense of 4-day and 5-day cricket, and that maybe one of the reasons. 

[Gladitorcomeback]

Well, obviously achievements are going to matter. But what I meant to say is that the player is not going to differentiate too much between personal achievement/club achievement and his achievement with national team. Except maybe for the World Cup. The World Cup is the one and only achievement that every player wants to have in his lifetime. But when a player is going to get more money from franchisee leagues, it is sad but true that he’s going to choose fantasy leagues instead of his national team.

Actually every players come to this stage to make money and for this he always look for better opportunity for long term. Many players who retired from international cricket still interested in playing leagues. Some players really love their country and they give priority to play for country team but some other factor hurt them like not having a good relationship with the selector, coach and captain. All big player earned a fame from international cricket and I agree with you that players should always give priority to international over all other high paying league.

[Haunebu]

But when a player is going to get more money from franchisee leagues, it is sad but true that he’s going to choose fantasy leagues instead of his national team.

Yeah. That is true. Achievements matter less when compared to money in every sport out there for majority of the athletes.

I am not just talking about James Anderson, but also about other players such as Imran Tahir and Misbah-ul-Haq. Now players are able to maintain their fitness level for extended durations, despite very heavy workload. T20 has become more prominent at the expense of 4-day and 5-day cricket, and that maybe one of the reasons. 

It all comes down to money at the end of the day. They are trying hard to stay fit in order to compete with the younger cricketers in order to continue earning money and acquire some achievements in the process.

[lixer]

I disagree. Achievements at any age matter. Just look at players like MSD, Anderson etc for example.

A decade or two ago, it was extremely rare to have international cricketers playing beyond 37-38 years of age. But now even players who are above 40 years of age are participating in international matches without any issues. I am not just talking about James Anderson, but also about other players such as Imran Tahir and Misbah-ul-Haq. Now players are able to maintain their fitness level for extended durations, despite very heavy workload. T20 has become more prominent at the expense of 4-day and 5-day cricket, and that maybe one of the reasons. 

If you are able to check English counties' data then you will find we have too many players above 40 but for the International it's surely rare case but now with the fitness level of James Anderson we can expect good change because many players can do this with T20i with ODI is going to be also not good for them, but this format can give them good earning and time for playing.

Imran Tahir and Misbah are good but right now we have few players which are doing this all in franchise cricket which is good change but for the test format surely now it's going to be not easy just English players can do because they have good system which help them financially as well here in subcontinent it's never been ideal but good for the players those are in touch with franchise right now.

[posi]

I disagree. Achievements at any age matter. Just look at players like MSD, Anderson etc for example.

A decade or two ago, it was extremely rare to have international cricketers playing beyond 37-38 years of age. But now even players who are above 40 years of age are participating in international matches without any issues. I am not just talking about James Anderson, but also about other players such as Imran Tahir and Misbah-ul-Haq. Now players are able to maintain their fitness level for extended durations, despite very heavy workload. T20 has become more prominent at the expense of 4-day and 5-day cricket, and that maybe one of the reasons. 

If you are able to check English counties' data then you will find we have too many players above 40 but for the International it's surely rare case but now with the fitness level of James Anderson we can expect good change because many players can do this with T20i with ODI is going to be also not good for them, but this format can give them good earning and time for playing.

Imran Tahir and Misbah are good but right now we have few players which are doing this all in franchise cricket which is good change but for the test format surely now it's going to be not easy just English players can do because they have good system which help them financially as well here in subcontinent it's never been ideal but good for the players those are in touch with franchise right now.

Inevitably, every player faces the constraint of optimizing their performance on the field. So a player is always going to try to get as much money as possible while he is playing well in his career. Let’s not forget that every player is playing professionally, this is their profession.  They will have to think about money, and i do not have any problems with players, trying to get more money by playing franchisee leagues. Everyone has the freedom of choosing what they want to do in their career. And let’s just be honest, international cricket is never going to give as much money as franchisee cricket. So of course the players are going to choose franchisee cricket.

If a player is choosing to retire from international cricket so that we can perform and concentrate better in franchisee cricket, I don’t see any problem in that. The cricket board of that certain country might feel betrayed.

[MusaPk]

A decade or two ago, it was extremely rare to have international cricketers playing beyond 37-38 years of age. But now even players who are above 40 years of age are participating in international matches without any issues. I am not just talking about James Anderson, but also about other players such as Imran Tahir and Misbah-ul-Haq. Now players are able to maintain their fitness level for extended durations, despite very heavy workload. T20 has become more prominent at the expense of 4-day and 5-day cricket, and that maybe one of the reasons. 

Decade ago we don't have t20 format nor present t20 leagues. With few exceptions still mostly players retire by 37 to 38 years of age bracket. A change which I saw in South Asia is that till 90s maximum age of debut is 22 to 24 years. Players who crosses that age bracket can rarely made it to international cricket but now players even in 30s are making international debut.

[Sithara007]

A decade or two ago, it was extremely rare to have international cricketers playing beyond 37-38 years of age. But now even players who are above 40 years of age are participating in international matches without any issues. I am not just talking about James Anderson, but also about other players such as Imran Tahir and Misbah-ul-Haq. Now players are able to maintain their fitness level for extended durations, despite very heavy workload. T20 has become more prominent at the expense of 4-day and 5-day cricket, and that maybe one of the reasons. 

Decade ago we don't have t20 format nor present t20 leagues. With few exceptions still mostly players retire by 37 to 38 years of age bracket. A change which I saw in South Asia is that till 90s maximum age of debut is 22 to 24 years. Players who crosses that age bracket can rarely made it to international cricket but now players even in 30s are making international debut.

Some of the Indian players who made their debut recently were close to 30 years of age (examples are Mukesh Kumar and Thangarasu Natarajan). In India, the player pool is so deep that many of the players are getting a chance only after performing in domestic cricket consistently for up to 10 years. We will never get to witness someone in his teens making debut at international cricket ever again (Sachin Tendulkar made his debut when he was aged 16 years and 205 days). I don't even remember when was the last time I saw a teenager making his international debut.

[Compromise me]

Test match is happening between South Australia and Tasmania. Jake Lehmann played very well and performer century for his country, he made 115 excellent runs by facing only 143 balls. Ben Manenti also performed very well, he scored  71 runs by using only 60 balls. In first inning, South Australia made 307 . Gabe Bell took  3 wickets and gave 68 runs and he passed 2 overs meiden. Jarrod took 2 wickets by giving 36 runs. Tasmania batter Caleb is playing very well and made brilliant 45 runs . Charlie  Wakim also performing very well and his score is 36 and he is unbeatable. Brendon Doggett  took 1 wicket.

[Sithara007]

Test match is happening between South Australia and Tasmania. Jake Lehmann played very well and performer century for his country, he made 115 excellent runs by facing only 143 balls. Ben Manenti also performed very well, he scored  71 runs by using only 60 balls. In first inning, South Australia made 307 . Gabe Bell took  3 wickets and gave 68 runs and he passed 2 overs meiden. Jarrod took 2 wickets by giving 36 runs. Tasmania batter Caleb is playing very well and made brilliant 45 runs . Charlie  Wakim also performing very well and his score is 36 and he is unbeatable. Brendon Doggett  took 1 wicket.

Both county cricket in England and Sheffield Shield in Australia are ongoing at the moment. At least in county cricket, a sizable number of overseas players are taking part, including those from countries such as India and Sri Lanka. Now coming back to test cricket, the ICC World Test Championship 2023/25 will resume next month. New Zealand tour of Bangladesh will start on 28th November, with the first test match to be played in Dhaka. Then towards the end of this year, we have the test series between Pakistan and Australia (to be hosted by the latter).

[BitcoinsGreat]

Test match is happening between South Australia and Tasmania. Jake Lehmann played very well and performer century for his country, he made 115 excellent runs by facing only 143 balls. Ben Manenti also performed very well, he scored  71 runs by using only 60 balls. In first inning, South Australia made 307 . Gabe Bell took  3 wickets and gave 68 runs and he passed 2 overs meiden. Jarrod took 2 wickets by giving 36 runs. Tasmania batter Caleb is playing very well and made brilliant 45 runs . Charlie  Wakim also performing very well and his score is 36 and he is unbeatable. Brendon Doggett  took 1 wicket.

Today is the second day of the test match which is played in between South Australia and New South Wales. South Australia played very well yesterday and today they are also playing like a superhero. They did 40 scores in just 11 overs. I know this is a bad score in T20 or ODI but in a Test match, this score is very good. Yesterday two innings were ended, which is impossible because in the test players do not play fast but in this test match both teams try to play fast. South Australia played very well yesterday and today. Jack Nisbet  took one wicket today.