General Cricket Discussion

[Till Valhalla]

@A.P Haux

He might retire before starting.

 

[Na Maloom Afraad]

*Me at a family wedding:

@A.P Haux

 

[Till Valhalla]

*Me at a family wedding:

This generation you know is hopeless.

 

[Na Maloom Afraad]

This generation you know is hopeless.

If you say so uncle

 

[icyman]

Because the ICC distributes most of the money that boards will make

Not particularly complicated in all fairness given that most, if not all tests played these days are a part of the WTC which is an ICC event.

Bilaterals aren't the ICC's headache tbh. Also, let us assume that equal match fees are paid (will never happen), how will that protect Test matches? I see here, a player trying to put forth his case for extra emoluments. That's it.

Unless the individual boards act to improve in -stadia experience and unless the quality of cricket being played doesn't improve, I don't see this format drawing many people.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

Bilaterals aren't the ICC's headache tbh. Also, let us assume that equal match fees are paid (will never happen), how will that protect Test matches? I see here, a player trying to put forth his case for extra emoluments. That's it.

Unless the individual boards act to improve in -stadia experience and unless the quality of cricket being played doesn't improve, I don't see this format drawing many people.

It's almost 2am I'm not debating with you @icyman I'm smarter than that

 

[Bevab]

Bilaterals aren't the ICC's headache tbh. Also, let us assume that equal match fees are paid (will never happen), how will that protect Test matches? I see here, a player trying to put forth his case for extra emoluments. That's it.

Unless the individual boards act to improve in -stadia experience and unless the quality of cricket being played doesn't improve, I don't see this format drawing many people.

These aren’t mere bilaterals though which I already pointed out, they’re technically part of an ICC event. Not sure if you saw Khawaja’s statement but he was spot on when he said the financial incentive to prefer tests over T20s is simply missing for a player due to the lopsided potential earnings in the latter. A standardised match fee is a small step towards rectifying that. And finally… it’s not really a shocker that a player is pitching an idea to earn more money is it?

I agree with you on individual stadium experience needing to become better for fans. I think the quality is mostly fine, we get results in most tests these days unlike in the past and the draws are either due to the weather or some great batting if you discount the few roads. There’s also the issue of test cricket being a thing of the past when time was simply a luxury everyone could afford in comparison to the world now.

 

[Bigby Wolf]

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

I agree with some points being made here, WTC matches should have standard match fees. This would remove any difference in terms what people earn per test match. A Kohli should be making same amount as a Shane Dowrich. Once that is put in, that would be a great first step.

 

[icyman]

Standardization of match fees would depend upon individual boards, right? The ICC won't be in a position to enforce this upon anyone.

I agree that Test players have the right to earn monies and there's nothing wrong in it. However, I fail to understand why this would benefit/protect the format?

 

[Bevab]

Standardization of match fees would depend upon individual boards, right? The ICC won't be in a position to enforce this upon anyone.

I agree that Test players have the right to earn monies and there's nothing wrong in it. However, I fail to understand why this would benefit/protect the format?

The question isn’t of making every board pay the same match fee, it is for the ICC to pay every player that is involved the same fee because they’re playing in an ICC event. The cricket boards can pay what they do on top of that.

It’s a matter of simple economics sometimes my friend. Someone did the math on Shaheen’s earnings per delivery in the recent test and in some of his T20 leagues and the difference was quite stark, asking players to merely do the former for pride isn’t going to work in the long run. It won’t instantly create a situation where tests are paying as much as the T20 circuit on their own but it is a start.

 

[icyman]

See, the ICC doesn't do it for WT20 / CWC, then why would they interfere in the WTC as well? FIFA doesn't pay the players a match fee, it is the individual associations who do. This idea isn't a feasible one.

asking players to merely do the former for pride isn’t going to work in the long run.

If the format continues, these players will go away. In your talks, you've never been one who feels that pride/ nationalism works. There are quite a few though, who still get excited about playing for their country, come what may. This may change, but it will take years for this to. I don't think it will ever happen in the sub-continent tbh, but you never know.

It won’t instantly create a situation where tests are paying as much as the T20 circuit on their own but it is a start.

Tests can never ever challenge the supremacy that the shorter formats have brought on. Unless and until, Test matches start drawing crowds on a regular basis, one cannot surely expect them to compete with the other formats. The situation will rapidly develop into the one you see with Women's cricket. No one is remotely bothered about their Tests. Having them once in a bluemoon does gather some sort of interest, but that's really it. The consumer's appetite for this format is going away.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

See, the ICC doesn't do it for WT20 / CWC, then why would they interfere in the WTC as well? FIFA doesn't pay the players a match fee, it is the individual associations who do. This idea isn't a feasible one.


If the format continues, these players will go away. In your talks, you've never been one who feels that pride/ nationalism works. There are quite a few though, who still get excited about playing for their country, come what may. This may change, but it will take years for this to. I don't think it will ever happen in the sub-continent tbh, but you never know.


Tests can never ever challenge the supremacy that the shorter formats have brought on. Unless and until, Test matches start drawing crowds on a regular basis, one cannot surely expect them to compete with the other formats. The situation will rapidly develop into the one you see with Women's cricket. No one is remotely bothered about their Tests. Having them once in a bluemoon does gather some sort of interest, but that's really it. The consumer's appetite for this format is going away.

Any argument about ways to sustain test cricket is ultimately irrelevant if you don't care if test care cricket survives. For me, and I'm sure many others, two-innings/long-form/test/first class cricket IS cricket. ODI and T20 are fine for what they are, and I consume a lot of them, but I wouldn't miss them if they weren't played.

You clearly either do not care about test cricket or think it should be left to die (or just being a troll). So why bother trying to get those who do care to justify themselves when your position is, as usual, immovable.

As to your point on women's cricket. 110,000 attended over five days during the last women's Ashes test. That makes me think a few more people are interested than 'no one'.

 

[icyman]

My position w.r.t Tests isn't immovable. I have genuinely enjoyed Test cricket in the past, but I do feel the quality on offer has gone down. As I mention below, only a handful of competitive nations remain. In the 1990s, most of the nations that played the longest format were competitive. It was good to watch. Furthermore, you haven't yet addressed how 'payment of equal match fees will help sustain the format?' Merely making a point and backing out of a debate just so you can't justify shouldn't be the way forth.

Also, coming from the UK, your thought process around Tests is going to be different than many others. Competitive test cricket is only being played by 3 nations- India, England and Australia. You could add the odd SA, NZ ,Pak to it, based on their minute successes. If countries cannot sustain themselves, they shouldn't be playing the format. It is as simple as that. While, the purists of the game still remain, it is a dwindling population, aided by many macro factors. Tackling these isn't going to be possible, even for an organization like the ICC.

Lastly, my point on women's cricket- I believe you subscribed to the same thought by stating that over 100,000 attended the game. Refer to the point above countries like UK, Australia will have a Test loving public and the stadium would be full. India, Pak, etc the stadium would be full only if their star player is reaching a milestone. Again on women's cricket- If you are only going to play a limited number of Test matches, the interest is going to be high. Even in India, you saw a similar trend recently. However, I'd like to see them play 3-4 series in a year and expect full houses every now and then.

 

[Bevab]

See, the ICC doesn't do it for WT20 / CWC, then why would they interfere in the WTC as well? FIFA doesn't pay the players a match fee, it is the individual associations who do. This idea isn't a feasible one.


If the format continues, these players will go away. In your talks, you've never been one who feels that pride/ nationalism works. There are quite a few though, who still get excited about playing for their country, come what may. This may change, but it will take years for this to. I don't think it will ever happen in the sub-continent tbh, but you never know.


Tests can never ever challenge the supremacy that the shorter formats have brought on. Unless and until, Test matches start drawing crowds on a regular basis, one cannot surely expect them to compete with the other formats. The situation will rapidly develop into the one you see with Women's cricket. No one is remotely bothered about their Tests. Having them once in a bluemoon does gather some sort of interest, but that's really it. The consumer's appetite for this format is going away.

Because the ICC wants to ‘save’ test cricket and their ideas for it are ranging from concepts that are inherently flawed like the WTC and four day tests. Those won’t make a difference in the long run like a regular match fee. The concept of a test fund still hasn’t been introduced despite all the talks over it.

I do agree that I’m more lukewarm on the pride thing compared to most players because I’m not one. Tests do have a market though, it doesn’t have the same reach as the shorter formats do but it is still quite sustainable if the people involved were actually interested in doing that but the needle seems to have moved towards “more white ball games please” because they see it is making them money at the moment and think even more of it will get them more money. It’s the perpetual growth mindset that’s plaguing many aspects of the modern world in a nutshell.