How to make Test Cricket more interesting?

[Leicester Fox]

I like Mikey Holdings proposal for 2 divisions.

 

[SaiSrini]

How about the ICC appointing a pitch inspector for test matches and put forward a set of rules that makes sure that the pitches retain the flavor of the host country but it also makes sure that the pitches do not encourage meaningless draws (i.e. pitches that encourage run fests)? The pitches should be inspected a few days before the respective game (before each series, the ICC should appoint the pitch inspector for that respective series). The pitch inspector should be a neutral guy (for e.g. if the test series is between India and Australia, the pitch inspector should be from neither of the two countries). If the pitch inspector decides that the respective pitch is not going to be of good standard and nothing much can be done (with only 1-2 more days to go for the match), he reports it to the ICC and suggests corrective measures and also suggests a specific alert level for that report (an alert level of 'High' means that the problem should be solved ASAP, an alert level of 'Medium' means that there is a problem but its not as serious). These alert levels will be based on the factors that caused the problem of the pitch not adhering to the proper standards.

 

[pcfan123]

Or is the pitch is not up to standard then the ICC fines the board of the host country $1 million. That ought to yield some results since cricket administrators from all countries are money grubbing swine.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

my worry about that is the ICC currently appoints the umpires and it's not like they're any good at their job these days. I think it is important to realise it's not a massive problem, it's annoying when it's happening but outside the recent windies and pak v sri lanka series (and maybe a couple of grounds in india) it's not been that much of a problem.

got to remember it isn't the boards that are in control of the wickets, it's clubs groundsmen, the team and board can request a wicket but they can be ignored (as new zealands groundsmen have a couple of times recently, they wanted slow turners against england after the win but got a green seaming wicket)

 

[AbhishekS]

I think test cricket is very interesting.
The follow-ons, the declarations, the new-balls, weather playing a spoil-sport,etc. really make test cricket interesting.
I dont think we need any change in the format of test cricket.

 

[manee]

I think pitches are not too bad, agreed some are ridiculous, the ones in pakistan for sri lanka were humiliating and it's only because other tragic events unfolded there this is forgotten. the problem is how to implement a consistent standard. you need actual guidelines, also some awful pitches have yielded exciting results and conclusions (cardiff a prime example) and a pitch too difficult to bat on is unsatisfying.

I disagree. A battle tipped in the bowler's favour is far more entertaining than a flat pitch where bowlers get wickets through attritiion and soft dismissals.

I would suggest a ground rating scheme in that the closeness of games, the runs per wickets etc, is evaluated and given a rating, (5 stars for a 4-5 day result wicket, 1 star for 2 or 3 innings draw or even a pitch that yields a result in almost 2 days, but opinions can be used) and if the ground gets below 2 star territory it is banned from hosting tests for a year, or something. This would prove effective because largely, the tests with bad wickets are the ones with the biggest grounds so that the hosts can get the most money (5 days at lords brings more than 5 days at the rose bowl) but this way england, for example, would have to make a good wicket on lords or else they would eventually be told they couldn't host tests for a year there. Also I wonder if a grounds groundsman would be instructed to make a 5 day bore wicket if the administrators knew they could lose test hosting privelage? I doubt it.

No, I don't think you can rate on result because even the perfect pitch could have a draw if the bowlers bowl terribly. The players do have a massive part to play in the result, as obvious as it sounds.

 

[Gurjot95]

Bring back Test Traingular Series

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I disagree. A battle tipped in the bowler's favour is far more entertaining than a flat pitch where bowlers get wickets through attritiion and soft dismissals.

No, I don't think you can rate on result because even the perfect pitch could have a draw if the bowlers bowl terribly. The players do have a massive part to play in the result, as obvious as it sounds.

the worst batting pitch I can remember in recent times was the one in the third test when south africa toured india. that was as rubbish match and many of the draws on flat pitches were much better (cardiff, the one were west indies got a draw by having powell and benn face the last 10 overs)

also, wickets that play to teams strengths can be boring, I thought some of the australian wickets when sri lanka toured had been flattened so murali could not have much impact, but they were reasonably bouncy and sri lanka were trounced both matches. I don't think these are great for the game.

also, I said they should use their opinions when deciding the rating, not necessarily going by the result.

however back to overall idea on making wickets better, I think a draw should be possible and it's true that there are many, many more results these days so it's a very fine balancing act, and you have to come up with an idea that targets the problem. what motivates flat wickets?

it was not the ECB that made cardiff flat, it was glamorgans appointed groundsman.

 

[SciD]

Bring back spitting cobra, minefield pitches like Australia-India in Mumbai game back.

 

[Cricketman]

Hell yes. The pitches should be downright dangerous on day 5.

 

[pcfan123]

there should be an option in the poll for uncovered pitches.

 

[nightprowler10]

there should be an option in the poll for uncovered pitches.

 

[pcfan123]

^ haha well played

 

[RoboRocks]

The idea for uncovered pitches is a valid one. If we can't produce an even contest between bat and ball over the next 2 years, then we shall have to consider the possibility.

As manee says we need to see results in test matches. If it means resulting into uncovered pitches to get a result, then so be it.

 

[sohum]

Rather than results, we should see a competition between bat and ball instead of one being completely dominant over the other. For example, the first Ashes test was breathtaking even though it wasn't a "result".

If you go ahead and allow "home-style" pitches, such as dustbowls in India or greentops in New Zealand, you've got to be sure that the home team can play in them, as well. For example, the 2002 Indian tour of New Zealand saw both teams struggle against pace bowling, which didn't really enhance the "home" factor. It was more of a case of who could outlast whom.