General Cricket Discussion

[angryangy]

Declarations have been made during Timeless Tests. Even without pressure of time, there's still such a thing as timing and a good time for the other team to be sent in. So too, few Timeless Tests were wholly unlike anything we see today. Indeed, it is probably the concept of 3 day Tests that would confuse and frustrate modern viewers more.

All Tests in Australia during the Golden Age were timeless and yet Clem Hill, Warwick Armstrong, Macartney and Trumper were all known for their shots. Some very good players are indeed remorseless stonewallers, but it is not the game which defines the player. To say players would doubtlessly turn into shotless wonders is perhaps to argue that they are making lots of unnecessary mistakes in Tests already. I don't know if they'd agree.

 

[sifter132]

I think it's a fairly silly idea. I just don't see the point of making it timeless. The 6 day Test they had for the Aus vs ICC XI was a good idea. Do we really need 7+ days? For starters the pitch will be in poor shape and injuries are more likely with bowlers run ups and footholes. You also have the problem of selling tickets and scheduling for TV: Do they allow for an 8th day in the TV schedule? Could you buy a ticket for day 10? How are you going to maintain interest if India is 5/900 in reply to England's 7/800 dec? That assumes a flat pitch, but if you have a green pitch the match won't last more than 5 days anyway...Timeless just seems like a stunt.

The bottom line for me though is if your match is lasting a week that means there's some long innings going on, and in my mind if your bowlers can't bowl a team out twice in 2 or 3 days, why should you get to win?? Your match is only going to last 6,7 or more days if both teams bowlers are ineffective (or unless one team just bats for a ridiculously long time I suppose). In my mind, that means both teams deserve a draw.

I'd schedule it like the ICC XI Test: for 6 days, perhaps with an extra day in reserve, only to be used if a certain amount of time is lost due to rain.

 

[Insomniac]

I think it's a fairly silly idea. I just don't see the point of making it timeless. The 6 day Test they had for the Aus vs ICC XI was a good idea. Do we really need 7+ days? For starters the pitch will be in poor shape and injuries are more likely with bowlers run ups and footholes. You also have the problem of selling tickets and scheduling for TV: Do they allow for an 8th day in the TV schedule? Could you buy a ticket for day 10? How are you going to maintain interest if India is 5/900 in reply to England's 7/800 dec? That assumes a flat pitch, but if you have a green pitch the match won't last more than 5 days anyway...Timeless just seems like a stunt.

The bottom line for me though is if your match is lasting a week that means there's some long innings going on, and in my mind if your bowlers can't bowl a team out twice in 2 or 3 days, why should you get to win?? Your match is only going to last 6,7 or more days if both teams bowlers are ineffective (or unless one team just bats for a ridiculously long time I suppose). In my mind, that means both teams deserve a draw.

I'd schedule it like the ICC XI Test: for 6 days, perhaps with an extra day in reserve, only to be used if a certain amount of time is lost due to rain.

The first problem in your argument there, is England won't be declaring.

 

[6ry4nj]

The first problem in your argument there, is England won't be declaring.

They did in 1938, when Hutton got his long-time record 364, England got their all-time record 903-7 (declared), and the Aussies lost by an innings and 579 (another record I presume). (I hate doing research but mea culpa I admit I did some). That was a timeless Test. As a non-Aussie, I have no objection to seeing a repeat of that.

 

[JimineeCricket]

Hi, my name is Emily and I'm a new addition to planet cricket. I just wanted to know if anyone had heard of 'Titans of cricket'? Flintoff is heading the event as the English captain. Looks quite fun. Opinions?

 

[War]

On the timeless test argument, firstly i would say i dont even know why the ICC even wants to have a test championship that in itself is a dumb idea.

Just stick to the normal thing as we have been doing for more than 50 years in that whenever two teams are the most dominant and they are about the clash in a test series like recent India vs South Africa and the current IND vs ENG test series. Simply herald that as the "battle for the #1" series.

----------

South Africa news: Lonwabo Tsotsobe strives to maintain third seamer's spot | South Africa Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

It would be crazy if the SA selectors continue to pick him as the 3rd seamer over the likes of McLaren, De Wet, O'Reilly when SA next play tests.


Pakistan news: Umar Gul ready to lead Pakistan attack | Pakistan Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

It will be interesting to see if he can. But as usual its such a grave disappointment for world cricket that Asif/Aamir aren't around to lead that PAK attack. An attack of Asif/Aamir/Gul/Riaz/Ajmal would have been the most lethal in the world today.


Australian news: Don't forget Hauritz - Vettori | Australia Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Poor argument from Vettori.

 

[6ry4nj]

On the timeless test argument, firstly i would say i dont even know why the ICC even wants to have a test championship that in itself is a dumb idea.

Just stick to the normal thing as we have been doing for more than 50 years in that whenever two teams are the most dominant and they are about the clash in a test series like recent India vs South Africa and the current IND vs ENG test series. Simply herald that as the "battle for the #1" series.

Except that the India - South Africa series proved exactly nothing. Nor is the current series likely to result in either side having a firm hold on number 1. Whatever the result here, the victor could lose number one status subsequently by a disappointing result against a third party - "not with a bang but a whimper".

Compare and contrast with the one-day sitch. India have bragging rights at least until they lose an ODI series. It's not seriously in dispute.

That's why a Test championship is a smart idea not a dumb one. And a timeless Test is the best way of ensuring a result in the final of that championship.

 

[mohit_dude10]

That's why a Test championship is a smart idea not a dumb one. And a timeless Test is the best way of ensuring a result in the final of that championship.

Not sure if time-less test is the right idea. It can bring in lots of disadvantages like say for example a team can build on its lead to 600-700 to ensure it doesn't lose, if you get what I mean. It would just remove certain aspects like sportive declaration or pushing things quickly. Rather they could have reserve days in case of rain. A test beyond 6 days would become a joke of a final.

 

[shravi]

Just watched 'Fire In Babylon'. I recommend anybody who hasn't already seen it to do so. It's not so much about cricket as it is about the Carribean struggle to have their culture, race, color and nationality accepted. If you don't want to buy it, I may be able to point you in another direction via PM.

 

[6ry4nj]

Not sure if time-less test is the right idea. It can bring in lots of disadvantages like say for example a team can build on its lead to 600-700 to ensure it doesn't lose, if you get what I mean. It would just remove certain aspects like sportive declaration or pushing things quickly. Rather they could have reserve days in case of rain. A test beyond 6 days would become a joke of a final.

The Isner-Mahut match at Wimbledon that went to 70-68 in the fifth was a talking point, but it wasn't a joke. Neither would this be. What would be a joke would be deciding it by a super over or something ridiculous like that. Of course when the game's over, you stop playing - you only go to 6 days if you need them, ditto for 7 and up. I honestly don't see a downside.

It's debatable but I don't think it's true that the more defensively you bat, the more you score. I know you didn't say that but others have. By all means have a wicket with something in it for both pace and spin. Most innings don't get to 500, let alone 600+, and having more time doesn't make it significantly easier to get there.

Other option I can think of is using the first innings scores as a tiebreaker. That's a less 'pure' solution, although adequate. Of course, it still makes first-innings declarations much less likely.

Oh and if certain players have better things to do than turn up for day 7, well then they can default. They had no right to be competing for a Test championship in the first place!

 

[shravi]

Just watched 'Steve Waugh- A Perfect Day'. I'm sure as you can all imagine, the perfect day was that hundred vs England on the last ball of the day. A truly defining moment in cricketing history. A true champion.

Once again, if you want to see it but don't want to buy it, I could possibly point you in the right direction via PM.

 

[War]

Except that the India - South Africa series proved exactly nothing. Nor is the current series likely to result in either side having a firm hold on number 1. Whatever the result here, the victor could lose number one status subsequently by a disappointing result against a third party - "not with a bang but a whimper".

Compare and contrast with the one-day sitch. India have bragging rights at least until they lose an ODI series. It's not seriously in dispute.

That's why a Test championship is a smart idea not a dumb one. And a timeless Test is the best way of ensuring a result in the final of that championship.

So what if the IND vs SA contest proved nothing nor if the result of current ENG vs IND does not result in firm hold on the number 1 status?. We dont need to have a team who is clear # 1 in test cricket, whats wrong if we have a situation of constant fluctuation in tests at the top?.

The bragging rights that occurs after a team wins the world cup means nothing to smart cricket fans since the winner of world cup may have jsut been the best team during a tournament & on the day of a final. i.e India 1983 and SRI 96, AUS 87, IND 2011 - but not the best ODI team in the world at the current time.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

The bragging rights that occurs after a team wins the world cup means nothing to smart cricket fans

Condescendation and inaccuracy all rolled up in one.

 

[shravi]

The bragging rights that occurs after a team wins the world cup means nothing to smart cricket fans since the winner of world cup may have jsut been the best team during a tournament & on the day of a final. i.e India 1983 and SRI 96, AUS 87, IND 2011 - but not the best ODI team in the world at the current time.

How convenient!

 

[Themer]

Haha. Good one War...