The Future of Future Tours

Appreciate the back-and-forth, Feelin Blue. I'm still not persuaded that the idea's impractical, though.

They segment the crowd at most concerts. You can pay for a single session at a Formula One event. Public protest marches can be directed into defined zones. Point is, crowd control is a fine art but it's one that's been learned, and I'm sure that administrators could use this capability to make the single session thing happen.

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.

1. Wouldn't work everywhere, but on most grounds you could cordon off a stand pretty easily, with its own toilets etc. And if there was only one premium session per day, you couldn't exactly hide in the dunnies and sneak back out for the next session.

2. You'd be surprised at what people pay for. Remember, this is targeted at the cash-rich, time-poor fan. They're not exactly known for doing their research. Give them premium seats and a few bells and whistles and they'll happily pay more than full match ticket prices for just the single session.

3. Works for concerts, though. Security is used to picking these things out at a distance. We used to have under-age areas cordoned off at one of the venues I worked for, and if a kid sneaked through to the other areas and didn't have a wrist-band they were spotted pretty quickly.

4. Maybe. Remember, we're not just relying on honesty here. People are presumably paying for a single premium session because they don't have time for the whole test match. I reckon you'd be more likely to find 80% have left by the end of the session than 80% stay for the next one.

mrtwisties added 3 Minutes and 11 Seconds later...

Here's a sixth idea to go with the first five:

6. Grounds access. During test matches, let people onto the grounds during the innings break (or perhaps even during session breaks), so that they can inspect the pitch / play matches on the ground, etc. A test match audience is mostly made up of die-hard fanatics, so they're likely to both appreciate the opportunity and not ruin things afterwards. This would contribute to a convivial atmosphere at test matches, and help persuade test match newbies to come back after they've given it a try the first time.
 
some of your ideas are very specific to how much the board and sponsors back the promotion of the tour. I know australian tests gets lots of sms stuff because there sponsors are a mobile company.

Don't like the idea of night tests but I have always thought that ODIs should come before the tests. It might be a bit of bother switching from one day mode to test mode but the pay off is a better understanding of the conditions and improved form for both teams, as well as hyping the rivalry a bit.

My main problem with future tours right now is how 2 test series are bunged in to plug gaps. There should constraints based on rankings on the minimum tests. When Australia hosted sri lanka, it was 2 tests despite that, at the time, sri lanka were very close to being the no.2 team in the world. This shouldn't be allowed. Australia should have had to play them at least 3 times instead of fobbing them off with 2 tests.

the only teams you should be allowed to play for 2 tests are ones way below (or above) you in the rankings to stop uncompetitive series' going on too long. You could even say a big ranking gap means a maximum number of tests.

It would provide incentives to preform, imagine if where you were in the rankings mattered to how many tests you played. Would england constantly use every series to experiment with young players, essentially disrespecting opposition and fans, if they thought that it could mean the ashes would only be 3 tests long?
 
With number 1, it's pretty easy to leave the stand in most grounds. Number 2 isn't a gurantee to work because we are relying on people not doing research. Fair call on 3 and 4 though.
 
My main problem with future tours right now is how 2 test series are bunged in to plug gaps. There should constraints based on rankings on the minimum tests. When Australia hosted sri lanka, it was 2 tests despite that, at the time, sri lanka were very close to being the no.2 team in the world. This shouldn't be allowed. Australia should have had to play them at least 3 times instead of fobbing them off with 2 tests.

the only teams you should be allowed to play for 2 tests are ones way below (or above) you in the rankings to stop uncompetitive series' going on too long. You could even say a big ranking gap means a maximum number of tests.

It would provide incentives to preform, imagine if where you were in the rankings mattered to how many tests you played. Would england constantly use every series to experiment with young players, essentially disrespecting opposition and fans, if they thought that it could mean the ashes would only be 3 tests long?

Interesting ideas. Especially agree re experimental series.

Some kind of handicap could be interesting, even if it's only shown in the statistical analysis. "On rankings and past form, Australia should beat Bangladesh by 126 runs - anything less than 50 and they'll lose their first place ranking".

Shame the Test World Championship is on the outer (see Cricinfo - Hopes for Test world championship fade, Test World Championship never to see Light of Day? and Ponting's pitch to administrators: forget Test world championship - Cricket).

mrtwisties added 2 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...

Just on the handicap thing - can you imagine if India were playing their hearts out in NZ to get a 2nd place test ranking? Would be cool. This whole carefree drubbing that they're dishing out lacks... tension.
 
Sorry, after a cracking ODI series like we saw in NZ, Commonwealth Series, etc I just can't see the format go. I would pretty much stop watching cricket if this went through. T20 is no ODI. The way the innings is built, the mixture of aggression and moderation, strategy with the powerplays - all of it.

Sorry, no.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top