Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod]

[Sithara007]

Limited overs cricket is different from 5 days cricket and full member status depends on the later, it directly related to ICC funding. As of now it goes like this.

Full test nations (12) gets a bigger slice of a pie, atm 85%-90% goes to full nation (test playing countries).

Then comes the associate nations (90+), they gets around 10-ish%. No strict restriction here, like domestic setup (age group , women cricket) etc.

I don't have an issue with India getting $230 million per year (38.5% of the ICC revenues). But how can it be justified that Zimbabwe receives $17.64 million every year from the ICC (2.94% of the ICC revenue), while a team like Nepal receives just $200,000 to $250,000 per year? Nepal is lucky, because they receive around $500,000 to $600,000 per year from the ACC. But teams like Namibia and Papua New Guinea are not that lucky. They don't have the luxury of the ACC funding them.

[JSRAW]

Limited overs cricket is different from 5 days cricket and full member status depends on the later, it directly related to ICC funding. As of now it goes like this.

Full test nations (12) gets a bigger slice of a pie, atm 85%-90% goes to full nation (test playing countries).

Then comes the associate nations (90+), they gets around 10-ish%. No strict restriction here, like domestic setup (age group , women cricket) etc.

I don't have an issue with India getting $230 million per year (38.5% of the ICC revenues). But how can it be justified that Zimbabwe receives $17.64 million every year from the ICC (2.94% of the ICC revenue), while a team like Nepal receives just $200,000 to $250,000 per year? Nepal is lucky, because they receive around $500,000 to $600,000 per year from the ACC. But teams like Namibia and Papua New Guinea are not that lucky. They don't have the luxury of the ACC funding them.

If free loading and performance are the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.

Bangladesh makes a strong case, Windies as well despite rich legacy. Pakistan is not far behind. Likes of ireland and afghans hardly Play tests.

[Bitcoin Smith]

If free loading and performance are the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.

Test format is depleting already and we only have very few teams that can match or even capable of playing 5 long days and still makes it interesting. That is one of the reason England is doing something called bazball even if it is not giving them the results they wanted while other teams like AUS and IND makes it aggressive also a balanced approach.

If we only keep these best teams and remove others then the potential viewers will reduce that affects the revenue and ultimately every sport is a business so they will try to keep it stretch as long as possible while concentrating on the profit making format that is why T20 is given more importance than others.

[Fuso.hp]

Since there is a rule in cricket that cricketers from one country can go to another country and become citizens of that country and play for that country, so if a developed country spends enough money on cricketers, then cricketers from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or other countries can play for all those countries.

Anyone in the world can go to other country and became a citizen if they met all the requirement to become eligible so it's not something specific for cricketers alone.

And that is how USA participated in the champions trophy with the players origin from India and other countries but played for USA which will not work in the long run because even they these player got talents they got other careers and chose cricket for a month or two but in the hardcore cricketing nations the players who will just live their life as cricketer by 24/7 effort to become a better player so an occasional player can't match that level from someone who spend years to reach the same.

Yes, I know that this will not work in the long run, but when a completely new team comes into cricket, naturally they will not have good quality cricketers and initially they will recruit some cricketers and later they will encourage their local youngsters to come into cricket and they will recruit various cricket specialists at the field level so that in a few years their pipeline will be strong enough. If a completely new team does not do this, then it will be very difficult for them to start cricket well. The United States participated in the last T20 World Cup with almost all the cricketers from other countries. In that tournament, we saw that the United States performed quite well, but the problem is that they did not work in the same way with their cricket after that tournament and they did not organize any bilateral series after that, that is why the people of the United States do not have that much demand for cricket.

[Bitcoin Smith]

~
but the problem is that they did not work in the same way with their cricket after that tournament and they did not organize any bilateral series after that, that is why the people of the United States do not have that much demand for cricket.

It is because they hired player temporarily, so when the tournaments end they went back to their jobs and some of them are delivery person, a computer engineer and so on. With that model they can't build a team and if they want to build a cricket team then they can import talents from anywhere but they need to work all round the year to compete with the team even with the associate nations because they even train and try to get better by participating in every possible leagues and fund their national team.

[CryptoYar]

Test format is depleting already and we only have very few teams that can match or even capable of playing 5 long days and still makes it interesting. That is one of the reason England is doing something called bazball even if it is not giving them the results they wanted while other teams like AUS and IND makes it aggressive also a balanced approach.

If we only keep these best teams and remove others then the potential viewers will reduce that affects the revenue and ultimately every sport is a business so they will try to keep it stretch as long as possible while concentrating on the profit making format that is why T20 is given more importance than others.

Teams like England with their Bazball strategy and other aggressive teams like Australia and India are trying to make game more dynamic to attract viewers. However because cricket is business shorter formats like T20 are more popular and make more money. This puts cricketing authorities in tough spot they need to make Test cricket both interesting to watch and financially successful without losing its special qualities all while making sure sport continues to grow worldwide. It is difficult balancing act that will determine future of format.

[JSRAW]

If free loading and performance are the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.

Test format is depleting already and we only have very few teams that can match or even capable of playing 5 long days and still makes it interesting. That is one of the reason England is doing something called bazball even if it is not giving them the results they wanted while other teams like AUS and IND makes it aggressive also a balanced approach.

If we only keep these best teams and remove others then the potential viewers will reduce that affects the revenue and ultimately every sport is a business so they will try to keep it stretch as long as possible while concentrating on the profit making format that is why T20 is given more importance than others.

Sab paise ka khel hai babu bhaiya.

Having said that, i won't mind if ICC go with the relagation system. Big con would be if one of BIG 3 ends up in 2 tier, it's a double edge sword in case of revenue and schedule of big series but at the same time, it will give good weightage to performance.

I also don't mind if ICC restrict tests status to limited countries, given they are going for multiple teams wc, at least 24+ with proper qualification rounds and no favrotarism to big teams and obviously ditch the white ball ranking in qualification.

[Haunebu]

This puts cricketing authorities in tough spot they need to make Test cricket both interesting to watch and financially successful without losing its special qualities all while making sure sport continues to grow worldwide. It is difficult balancing act that will determine future of format.

It's not that tough actually. They just need to let the big teams play more matches between themselves through 2 or more team format tournaments and allow the lower ranked teams to play in separate tournaments between themselves.

This is basically the whole 2 tier system which I completely support since it is the optimal balancing act that you spoke of.

[Fuso.hp]

~
but the problem is that they did not work in the same way with their cricket after that tournament and they did not organize any bilateral series after that, that is why the people of the United States do not have that much demand for cricket.

It is because they hired player temporarily, so when the tournaments end they went back to their jobs and some of them are delivery person, a computer engineer and so on. With that model they can't build a team and if they want to build a cricket team then they can import talents from anywhere but they need to work all round the year to compete with the team even with the associate nations because they even train and try to get better by participating in every possible leagues and fund their national team.

That is why I mentioned earlier that players cannot be brought into the team just to play in big tournaments but they will play cricket regularly and they will invest a lot of money in cricket as well as play bilateral series with big teams every year. Earlier we have seen many countries qualify for the main stage of the World Cup and only these cricketers played cricket in that World Cup tournament and the rest of the time these cricketers would go back to their jobs. When new teams join cricket, I would like it to be like this that the cricketers' only profession is cricket and they can make their country's name shine through cricket as well as they are financially well-off. When the younger generation can see that there is a good future in cricket and if he can become a good quality cricketer, he can earn a lot of money, then the youth will pay more attention to cricket.

[Sithara007]

If free loading and performance are the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.

Bangladesh makes a strong case, Windies as well despite rich legacy. Pakistan is not far behind. Likes of ireland and afghans hardly Play tests.

In case of Bangladesh and West Indies, I can't say that they are weaker than Nepal or Namibia, which is the case with Zimbabwe. If the BCB organizes a 5-match T20I series against Nepal, then we can expect Bangladesh to win the series easily by a margin of 4-1, or even 5-0. If ZC do the same, the results will be 2-3 or even 1-4 in favor of Nepal. Zimbabweans are playing it safe, by refusing to take on any of the associate teams (which actually preserves their T20I ranking).

[welovebit]

If free loading and performance are the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.

Bangladesh makes a strong case, Windies as well despite rich legacy. Pakistan is not far behind. Likes of ireland and afghans hardly Play tests.

In case of Bangladesh and West Indies, I can't say that they are weaker than Nepal or Namibia, which is the case with Zimbabwe. If the BCB organizes a 5-match T20I series against Nepal, then we can expect Bangladesh to win the series easily by a margin of 4-1, or even 5-0. If ZC do the same, the results will be 2-3 or even 1-4 in favor of Nepal. Zimbabweans are playing it safe, by refusing to take on any of the associate teams (which actually preserves their T20I ranking).

Here I am not agreed with your observation about Zimbabwe vs Nepal even Zimbabwe is not performing good but still they could be done good, and I am sure result could be 2–3 in any team favor.
Zimbabwe is terrible in test format with their chances are high in white ball format because they are doing some work in this format, but their domestic setup in long format is never been good and ideal ICC needs to skip them from this and allowed to be play in other two formats which will be ok.
Now in test format difference of quality is widened between top 4 and others because mostly are doing not good work in test format which is surely not good while Australia, India, England and South Africa are on same level.

[Bitcoin Smith]

It's not that tough actually. They just need to let the big teams play more matches between themselves through 2 or more team format tournaments and allow the lower ranked teams to play in separate tournaments between themselves.

This is basically the whole 2 tier system which I completely support since it is the optimal balancing act that you spoke of.

Tournament? You meant the tours?

But we have WTC in the middle of this, the system is designed to include as many teams as possible with 6 tours each and the teams with top 2 winning the spots for finals based on percentage of points earned with number of matches played so the system need to be changed because currently it included top 9 teams eligible for WTC cycle.

[JSRAW]

If free loading and performance are the issue then why stop only on Zimbabwe? After all, we do have plenty of freeloaders and non performing actors in test status list.

Bangladesh makes a strong case, Windies as well despite rich legacy. Pakistan is not far behind. Likes of ireland and afghans hardly Play tests.

In case of Bangladesh and West Indies, I can't say that they are weaker than Nepal or Namibia, which is the case with Zimbabwe. If the BCB organizes a 5-match T20I series against Nepal, then we can expect Bangladesh to win the series easily by a margin of 4-1, or even 5-0. If ZC do the same, the results will be 2-3 or even 1-4 in favor of Nepal. Zimbabweans are playing it safe, by refusing to take on any of the associate teams (which actually preserves their T20I ranking).

Fund Nepal generously for 10 years in white ball and see them beating Bangbros and giving competition to others. They will see tons of improvement, maybe similar to Afghanistan.

But i wasn't making a case for white ball but red ball (big funding comes because of it).

[Sithara007]

Fund Nepal generously for 10 years in white ball and see them beating Bangbros and giving competition to others. They will see tons of improvement, maybe similar to Afghanistan.

But i wasn't making a case for white ball but red ball (big funding comes because of it).

This is the problem. Why so much focus is being given to red ball cricket and why they are making funding linked to it? Fund allocation to Zimbabwe should be cancelled and those funds should be re-distributed to the top associate nations. Even if 50% of the funds to Zimbabwe is diverted, it will amount to $8.82 million. Distribute those funds to the top-10 associate nations, and their allocation would go up to $1 million. This will go a long way in helping cricket in countries such as Nepal and Namibia.

[3kpk3]

But we have WTC in the middle of this, the system is designed to include as many teams as possible with 6 tours each and the teams with top 2 winning the spots for finals based on percentage of points earned with number of matches played so the system need to be changed because currently it included top 9 teams eligible for WTC cycle.

True. The whole WTC system needs a proper revamp in order to make the test format more entertaining on the whole. It would need to just include the popular teams from Tier 1 of the 2 tier proposed system.

The Tier 2 teams can play separate tournaments among themselves though this could have a detrimental effect on their future trajectory.

[JSRAW]

Fund Nepal generously for 10 years in white ball and see them beating Bangbros and giving competition to others. They will see tons of improvement, maybe similar to Afghanistan.

But i wasn't making a case for white ball but red ball (big funding comes because of it).

This is the problem. Why so much focus is being given to red ball cricket and why they are making funding linked to it? Fund allocation to Zimbabwe should be cancelled and those funds should be re-distributed to the top associate nations. Even if 50% of the funds to Zimbabwe is diverted, it will amount to $8.82 million. Distribute those funds to the top-10 associate nations, and their allocation would go up to $1 million. This will go a long way in helping cricket in countries such as Nepal and Namibia.

It started with the test cricket so it obvious to revolve everything around it, old guard is still romantise the format and in layman terms it's considered real cricket, which comes with lots of respect that's why you see major players wants to play it.

T-20 cricket is disrupting the model and old guard  wants to preserve it at any cost. That's why ICC keep finding non performing test nations. If that wasn't the case then plenty of money could've been transferred to associate for white ball cricket.

[Bitcoin Smith]

It started with the test cricket so it obvious to revolve everything around it, old guard is still romantise the format and in layman terms it's considered real cricket, which comes with lots of respect that's why you see major players wants to play it.

And primary goal of anyone who play professional cricket is they want to represent their nation in whites, it may look boring for someone who grew up watching IPL and T20 games but it's definitely got the same potential in terms of thrilling and we get to kill 5 days of time too.

And shining in the test format is not possible for everyone, they need to be technically sound and good fitness and years of patience so it definitely got it's viewers no matter how much shorter format games we can have. And if someone is performing in test they will be considered the best player too but in T20 most people do and their value just remains for short term.

[Sithara007]

It started with the test cricket so it obvious to revolve everything around it, old guard is still romantise the format and in layman terms it's considered real cricket, which comes with lots of respect that's why you see major players wants to play it.
✂✂✂✂

Obviously red ball cricket is romanticized. But I don't agree when you say that there is a lot of respect in playing test cricket and major players want to play it. Test cricket remains popular only among the generation that is over 40 years old. And even they watch it  only when a major series, such as the Anderson-Tendulkar, Ashes or the Border-Gavaskar is scheduled. Players who prefer red ball cricket are very low in number, as most of them prioritize the franchise T20 leagues.

[JSRAW]

^^ look at players and setup from BIG -3 and add South Africa in the mix. Players from these countries do want to play test cricket and have dedicated test specialists.

New Zealand/sl are in transition period but players are coming, will even add pakistan in the list although not much success to show for but test cricket has value among players.

Yes, IPL and Franchise cricket has it charm and it's effecting the player's choice in regards to career but it's no where causing sudden death of test cricket.

[Platinumys]

It started with the test cricket so it obvious to revolve everything around it, old guard is still romantise the format and in layman terms it's considered real cricket, which comes with lots of respect that's why you see major players wants to play it.
✂✂✂✂

Obviously red ball cricket is romanticized. But I don't agree when you say that there is a lot of respect in playing test cricket and major players want to play it. Test cricket remains popular only among the generation that is over 40 years old. And even they watch it  only when a major series, such as the Anderson-Tendulkar, Ashes or the Border-Gavaskar is scheduled. Players who prefer red ball cricket are very low in number, as most of them prioritize the franchise T20 leagues.

When I watch Test matches between teams like England, Australia, India and South Africa, I feel that there is a different kind of excitement in Test matches and the beauty of the cricketers is in the Test format, but when other countries outside these countries face each other and when they play Test cricket, I don't know why it is boring to watch the Test format. Currently, different countries are organizing T20 leagues, due to which cricketers from different countries are busy with T20 leagues most of the year, due to which Test cricket is not actually organized in that way, but ICC should take several steps in this regard so that Test cricket does not lose its popularity. I think that when a country organizes a bilateral series, the Test format should be made mandatory so that the future generation is also interested in this Test format. The most prestigious tournament in the Test format is the Test Championship, where one of the teams, Australia, England, South Africa or India, is always the champion, but if this format can be managed differently, maybe the new teams can do well there.