Test Cricket not in it's healthiest state: Ponting

[RoboRocks]

guys dont kill me after reading this post....

ODIs and T20s rule... countries should stop playing tests and boring the audience

You're not serious are you?

Although I feel that Twenty20 will never overtake Test cricket. I don't like to see people like Allen Stanford waving money at the ECB and the players trying to take Twenty20 ahead of Tests. Test cricket has been in existence since the 1880's, it wasn't overtaken by ODI cricket and I'm sure it won't be overtaken over by a game really designed for a bit of fun.

As m_vaughan says, you won't get the best cricket in 40 overs. You get it in a five day test match. Simple as that.

 

[nightprowler10]

Test Championship is impossible. These games so much time. We had Asian Test championship and that was superflop.

If ATC was a superflop then I like superflops. It created some very very interesting matches and had some great moments. I think a WTC would work very well if implemented correctly.

 

[aussie_ben91]

One-Dayers and Twenty20's take less skill because for the majority of a team's innings, there are no slips in place and batsman can get easy runs off nicks and edges instead of playing graceful strokes and earning your runs.

 

[India2011]

I think that it would be a big success. However, if they do it all in one go it would take months, which is not good. They should do a WTC, but have the matches held in between one-day series.

Like, say that India have a tour to New Zealand, and then a Series against England (hypothetically). In between those two series (both would be one-day series), India could play a few of their Test Championship games.

Just a theory, it might just work.

 

[usy]

Test Championship every 5 years in England of top 5 ranked test teams, who have been ranked there for certain period of time, would ROCK.

 

[sohum]

I know the shorter forms of the game will draw more crowds but how many of them have actually come to watch the cricket?

What else would you do at a cricket match?

sohummisra added 3 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...

Test cricket has been in existence since the 1880's, it wasn't overtaken by ODI cricket and I'm sure it won't be overtaken over by a game really designed for a bit of fun.

Umm.... Test cricket most certainly was beginning to weaken in the 90s until the Australians brought some elements of the ODI game into it. One could say that Test cricket was actually far less popular in most parts of the world until the Australians released their new brand of aggressive Test match batting (aggressive compared to traditional Test match batting). That has really led a resurgence of Test cricket which was probably aided along by India's competitiveness in the last 4 series' between the two teams and was completed by England's Ashes victory. If it wasn't for that resurgence, we may well not have been around here making elitist comments about Test cricket. In fact, many members on this forum would know as much about Test cricket as I know about the first few years of ODI cricket in the 70s.

sohummisra added 2 Minutes and 37 Seconds later...

Like, say that India have a tour to New Zealand, and then a Series against England (hypothetically). In between those two series (both would be one-day series), India could play a few of their Test Championship games.

Or... you could preserve the current FTP and instead nominate certain matches to be WTC matches. I would nominate the first match of each series, so that external factors in the series would play as less of a part as possible.

Hence, you would still have The Ashes, with the 1st Test counting towards a WTC table. You would still have Indo-Australia and any traditional rivalries while building points towards a WTC. Any teams that did not fulfill their FTP commitments within the timeframe of a WTC would then play one-off Test matches with the remaining countries depending on the organization of the tournament.

 

[shravi]

Or... you could preserve the current FTP and instead nominate certain matches to be WTC matches. I would nominate the first match of each series, so that external factors in the series would play as less of a part as possible.

But the home team will make the pitch to their advantage, so can't it can be argued that a home and away game should be played between each country in order for it to be a fair representation of who's the better team? The only way for it to be fair (in my opinion) would be for it to take place in a neutral venue each time. It would just take too long. Players will be dropped, players will retire and one/some of the teams might have a very different XI by the time it's over.