The Future of Future Tours

[mrtwisties]

The cricket world is changing quickly. T20 is emerging, ODs seem to be in retreat, Pakistan is being abandoned as unsafe (who's next?), emerging cricketing nations like Bangladesh and Kenya seem to be backsliding and of course there are the ongoing political stoushes between national cricket boards. We might be in a bit of trouble if we're not careful.

Tour reform could help. I think we should be treating every tour as an opportunity to recruit a legion of new fans. From this perspective I think it's insane that we start with the test matches. It's like starting a free cheese tasting event with blue cheese, which truly is an acquired taste.

Tour format

5 x T20Is

Use these as an opportunity to draw in new fans and introduce the personalities. People get caught up in the drama of exciting rookies, rivalries between players, careers on the rocks, etc, etc. Should also be an opportunity to educate everyone but the most die-hard tragics in the subtleties of the game - rivalries between batsmen and bowlers, vulnerabilities to certain kinds of delivery, pitches and weather conditions, injury concerns, that sort of thing.

0 x ODIs

This format is being edged out by T20Is, and there's no good reason to figure out ways of keeping it relevant. New fans will just find its existence confusing. Everything that it used to do (attracting new fans, TV-friendliness, etc) T20Is do better. And ever since batsmen started taking their T20I approach into ODIs, it's becoming nothing more than a longer version of the shorter format, with little in the way of additional subtleties to appreciate. Every over of a T20 match is crucial. The same cannot be said of an ODI, Powerplay overs notwithstanding. We should be picking one format over the other, and I think it's pretty clear which one wins out.

3 x Tests

At the conclusion of the T20I series, you'll hopefully end up with a bunch of people who are interested in the personalities and a bit more knowledgeable about some of the subtleties of cricket. Hopefully the cricket tragics are all revved up, too. Now we need to get them all following / watching / attending Test cricket.

The obvious pitch here is that Test cricket is the ultimate, well, "test" of cricketing supremacy. That's easy to understand, and it's pretty compelling. But you've gotta make it easier for people to watch.

A few suggestions, in order from "easy" to "hard" to implement.

1. Set up sms alerts so that people can log on and watch online when their favourite batsman faces up to the new ball or approaches a century or whatnot.

2. Sell tickets to the exciting sessions (eg new ball sessions, or "green mamba" sessions at Kingsmead) and promote them almost as if they were separate events.

3. Put some effort into top-notch statistical analyses and visual representations, so that things can be put into perspective in real time, rather than after the event.

4. Have buses drive around to pick people up after work so they can come and attend the final sessions of play for free. Promote these buses through cricinfo (since everyone's going to have the page open while they're at work anyway). Focus on making the crowd atmosphere a convivial, enjoyable one, so that people say "if we're having after-work drinks, it might as well be at the cricket".

5. Day/night test matches. Use these to cram entire Test matches into a weekend / long weekend, or else to delay starting times so that people can attend after work. Don't ask people to use up a week of their holidays to attend a game. Make it fit into their lives. And if developing a new cricket ball is too hard, just use the current OD ball and replace it more frequently. I don't see anything wrong with more spells of new-ball bowling!

And then the tour ends. The next bit of thinking is how to follow up with the new fans to keep them invested in cricket and perhaps following more of the international matches between other teams - but for now, I think that's enough.

What do you think? Should we ditch ODIs? Are there any other reforms we can make to the experience of Test cricket? How can we take advantage of technology?

 

[SaiSrini]

I quite like the idea to make the sport more spectator friendly. Also the changes recommend sound interesting to me.

Ditching ODI's doesnt sound bad. I agree that after T20's, now batters seem to bat the same way in ODI's too, thereby making scoring 8-9 runs per over, a pretty easy task. ODi's have started becoming a prolonged slog fest these days and it will continue to do so.

I like these ideas.

 

[sohum]

Some of the ideas for Test cricket are interesting, but I'd be against doing things like cramming a Test match into 3 days. While more people may be able to attend, it'd definitely speed up the whole burn-out thing. Day-night Tests may be a viable way to attract crowds, but then I think the atmosphere of Test cricket is for it to kind of a lazy day at the park, with period when the cricket gets exciting.

I think a few of these ideas would work in some countries--like England, Australia and South Africa. For example, I don't think the pick-up from work would work in India, where people tend to work pretty long hours anyway.

 

[age of the fall]

Not going to lie, I hate pretty much all of those ideas, especially ditching ODI's.

I would rather see T20 gone.

 

[mrtwisties]

I'd be against doing things like cramming a Test match into 3 days... I think the atmosphere of Test cricket is for it to kind of a lazy day at the park, with period when the cricket gets exciting.

Fair enough, and I confess I share your sentiments. Perhaps we could structure it so that the first test match was crammed into a weekend (so the T20I converts were more likely to give it a go) and then the other two matches were 5 day affairs (but extended into the evening / over the weekend so that more people could come along)?

For example, I don't think the pick-up from work would work in India, where people tend to work pretty long hours anyway.

This is also a fair point. Even in Australia, working hours are higher than they used to be. The 12 hour day has become the new standard, at least here in Sydney.

That said, if we looked more closely at the figures we might find that people don't actually work a 12 hour day. They might work two 8 hour days and two 16 hour days and then a 12 hour day on Friday, so that they might still come to the cricket on their 8 hour days if you made it easy enough for them.

Point I'm making is, we'd have to look closely at the numbers before we could say for sure whether an idea was good or not.

 

[mdoggie]

Not going to lie, I hate pretty much all of those ideas, especially ditching ODI's.

I would rather see T20 gone.

I have to agree with you, some of these ideas make me cringe. Keep one day cricket and 5 day tests. On the point picking up, that would work for school children similar to in South Africa were on school days in tests, children get in free.

 

[mattfb]

I strongly disagree with these ideas. Firstly 5 twenty20's is ridiculous, because it is easily the most boring format. If you can honestly tell me you enjoy all 40 overs of Twenty20 I will be amazed. After the first 8 or so overs it gets boring, then in the second innings if the batting team loses 2 or 3 early wickets they are basically out of it. In Test Cricket and to a lesser extent One Dayers teams have a chance to get back into it, but in Twenty20 you don't.

Selling tickets for certain sessions won't work as people can just stay in the ground anyway so they are saving money. Day/Night Test Matches arent a good idea either because by the time you get home it will be very late, and most of the time people will have to get up early for school/work.

 

[mrtwisties]

Let me clarify my position.

Personally, I don't really like the limited overs formats that much and would probably prefer it if we could go back to the days when there was nothing on but Test cricket. The recent AUS-SAF series has been a highlight of the last couple of years, but even seeing the Windies eke out a draw or India creaming New Zealand is good fun in my book.

But I'm a realist, and I'd like to see cricket become a more popular, more truly international sport, so I'm putting some ideas out there. A number of them I dislike myself, but I'm not going to say which ones, because I'm more interested in hearing other people's ideas and judgments about what would/wouldn't work.

And that's the context for my counter-argument to the anti-T20 sentiments expressed above. If you put a 5 x T20I series at the front end of a tour, I reckon it'd work. By which I mean, I reckon you'd get a lot of new people following / watching / attending the rest of the tour. And unless you're willing to be pretty disdainful about new fans, that's a good result.

mrtwisties added 12 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

Selling tickets for certain sessions won't work as people can just stay in the ground anyway so they are saving money.

<Problem Solving Cap ON>

1. Test matches are often pretty empty, especially at the times that this initiative would be for. Keep a stand reserved for single-session ticket-holders and clear that stand out at the end of each session.

2. Just let them stay anyway, since if they've come along and paid extra for good seats during an "exciting" session you'll probably come out ahead dollars-wise.

3. Give full ticket holders little wrist-bands, a la those underage drinking thingies at concerts.

4. Just ask people to be honest, and wear the cost when 20% of the crowd acts immorally.

5. [All the other ideas that you could come up with if you actually decided to go ahead with it]

<Problem Solving Cap OFF>

 

[Skater]

I'm too much of a traditionalist to take to those ideas. In this order, a tour should be like this:

1 Twenty20: a showpiece event to get everyone into the tour. Play it early on a Saturday evening so the game starts and finishes in day light. People will be off work so they can fill up the ground. This will be played at one of the second string venues. In England, an example is the Rose Bowl.

5 ODIs: still better than Twenty20 in that teams have to sustain their performance over a longer period of time. Crowds like ODIs as well because they can make a day of it. ODIs should be played on Thursdays (day/night), Sundays (day), and Tuesdays (day/night). The matches tour round the country, using some of the second string grounds, and finishing at The Oval (in England, or a similar high status venue).

4 Tests: the ultimate format of the game. Each of them should be played at high status venues (Lord's, Edgbaston, Old Trafford, The Oval) and each of them should start on Thursdays. None of this is day/night nonsense. People will go in after work on Thursday, Friday (when people work short hours anyway) and Monday, and the crowds will be huge on the weekends.

Obviously the Ashes would be 5 Tests still. If need be, change the 5 ODIs to a tri-series.

 

[King Cricket]

This format is being edged out by T20Is, and there's no good reason to figure out ways of keeping it relevant. New fans will just find its existence confusing. Everything that it used to do (attracting new fans, TV-friendliness, etc) T20Is do better.

I don't agree with you, mate. Look, no matter how popular T-20 is it is not serious cricket. And ODI's are exciting enough to attract fans. 5 T-20 is really a bit extreme. And 0 ODIs- why? What does the ODI cricket lack? It's quite fine to be honest. It still fetches a lot of crowd, in India almost every ODI match fetches a stadium full of people? Why 0 ODI's? And why should cricket fans find it "confusing" ? I personally feel there's nothing "confusing" about the ODI's. Why should the people "confuse" it with T-20's? I think in future tours should be played just like they are played right now. Only we need to make the test cricket a bit exciting by making sporting pitches, etc etc , without changing the main game. Otherwise, the other two formats are fine. What made you think that the ODI's are losing popularity? At least in India, it's still very very popular, it's popularity has increased instead of decreasing- after the recent rise of the Indian team.
I think the tours should be like this:
1. 3 Tests
2. 5 ODIs
3. 1 T-20
In other words, they should be what they are right now. Sorry, but I'll totally disagree with you.

 

[Ari]

I'm too much of a traditionalist to take to those ideas. In this order, a tour should be like this:

1 Twenty20: a showpiece event to get everyone into the tour. Play it early on a Saturday evening so the game starts and finishes in day light. People will be off work so they can fill up the ground. This will be played at one of the second string venues. In England, an example is the Rose Bowl.

5 ODIs: still better than Twenty20 in that teams have to sustain their performance over a longer period of time. Crowds like ODIs as well because they can make a day of it. ODIs should be played on Thursdays (day/night), Sundays (day), and Tuesdays (day/night). The matches tour round the country, using some of the second string grounds, and finishing at The Oval (in England, or a similar high status venue).

4 Tests: the ultimate format of the game. Each of them should be played at high status venues (Lord's, Edgbaston, Old Trafford, The Oval) and each of them should start on Thursdays. None of this is day/night nonsense. People will go in after work on Thursday, Friday (when people work short hours anyway) and Monday, and the crowds will be huge on the weekends.

Obviously the Ashes would be 5 Tests still. If need be, change the 5 ODIs to a tri-series.

Basically agree with all of this but from an NZ point of view I would put the T20 and one of our bigger capacity grounds such as Auckland (for the $) and the tests to our proper test venues such as Napier, Hamilton and Wellington.

 

[mrtwisties]

The idea that ODIs are being edged out is hardly a fringe view. See eg Dileep Premachandran mid last year: Cricinfo - The death of the ODI?

If you're going to keep T20Is and ODIs, then we should probably try and make T20Is more clearly distinct. Perhaps you could introduce a substitution rule like in Football or Basketball, or something similarly radical.

 

[King Cricket]

^The ODI's didn't die, did they? Why should they? They are one heck of a format.

King Cricket added 0 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...

I'm too much of a traditionalist to take to those ideas. In this order, a tour should be like this:

1 Twenty20: a showpiece event to get everyone into the tour. Play it early on a Saturday evening so the game starts and finishes in day light. People will be off work so they can fill up the ground. This will be played at one of the second string venues. In England, an example is the Rose Bowl.

5 ODIs: still better than Twenty20 in that teams have to sustain their performance over a longer period of time. Crowds like ODIs as well because they can make a day of it. ODIs should be played on Thursdays (day/night), Sundays (day), and Tuesdays (day/night). The matches tour round the country, using some of the second string grounds, and finishing at The Oval (in England, or a similar high status venue).

4 Tests: the ultimate format of the game. Each of them should be played at high status venues (Lord's, Edgbaston, Old Trafford, The Oval) and each of them should start on Thursdays. None of this is day/night nonsense. People will go in after work on Thursday, Friday (when people work short hours anyway) and Monday, and the crowds will be huge on the weekends.

Obviously the Ashes would be 5 Tests still. If need be, change the 5 ODIs to a tri-series.

Good post. Agree with you.

 

[mrtwisties]

^The ODI's didn't die, did they? Why should they? They are one heck of a format.

No, they didn't die in the last half year. Nor were they expected to. But during the last six months I've been reading more and more articles like the one linked to, and watching as half-baked attempts are made to respond to the threat posed by T20s (eg Powerplay overs).

Glad you've at least come around to the idea of putting the limited overs games at the start of a Tour. I reckon that one's a no-brainer.

 

[mattfb]

Let me clarify my position.

Personally, I don't really like the limited overs formats that much and would probably prefer it if we could go back to the days when there was nothing on but Test cricket. The recent AUS-SAF series has been a highlight of the last couple of years, but even seeing the Windies eke out a draw or India creaming New Zealand is good fun in my book.

But I'm a realist, and I'd like to see cricket become a more popular, more truly international sport, so I'm putting some ideas out there. A number of them I dislike myself, but I'm not going to say which ones, because I'm more interested in hearing other people's ideas and judgments about what would/wouldn't work.

And that's the context for my counter-argument to the anti-T20 sentiments expressed above. If you put a 5 x T20I series at the front end of a tour, I reckon it'd work. By which I mean, I reckon you'd get a lot of new people following / watching / attending the rest of the tour. And unless you're willing to be pretty disdainful about new fans, that's a good result.

mrtwisties added 12 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...



<Problem Solving Cap ON>

1. Test matches are often pretty empty, especially at the times that this initiative would be for. Keep a stand reserved for single-session ticket-holders and clear that stand out at the end of each session.

2. Just let them stay anyway, since if they've come along and paid extra for good seats during an "exciting" session you'll probably come out ahead dollars-wise.

3. Give full ticket holders little wrist-bands, a la those underage drinking thingies at concerts.

4. Just ask people to be honest, and wear the cost when 20% of the crowd acts immorally.

5. [All the other ideas that you could come up with if you actually decided to go ahead with it]

<Problem Solving Cap OFF>

1. You can just leave the stand. Say your going for a piss or getting some food etc.

2. It wouldn't be cheaper or they would buy full match tickets.

3. Hard to see if everyone has a wrist band

4. More like 80% would stay.

Sorry to be picky, but I don't think that idea will work. Credit to you for trying to think up new ideas but I just can't see that one pulling off although I do think it sounds pretty good.