There were many dire forecasts of the future of test cricket back in the 80’s when one dayers became very popular and strike rates were poor (hello Boycott)
Off the top of my head some gradual changes unfolded such as the boundary rope, allowing lights to come on to keep play going, making up overs by starting the next day earlier.
Rain obviously often gets in the way like we just saw and as do flat pitches which can result in bat fests.
But more often than not a result ensues and many well before the end of day 5.
The irony is that in my opinion test cricket has now surpassed one dayers and is more entertaining than ever.
1 Like
It was never overtaken in the first place.
1 Like
For a while there crowds and ratings suggested otherwise.
But test cricket was always the real cricket and will always be.
1 Like
Your wrong.
In the mid to late 80’s and early 90’s 1-dayers were way bigger than tests. Even MCG would often have tickets for days 2,3,4 and 5 available on the day up until the mid 90’s.
'80 '84 '85 '91 '92 and 93 all under 100K crowd for the full test with the '93 test having less than 50K over the 3.5 days despite that being South Africa’s first tour to Aus after the lifting of their ban, so was a pretty big deal to have them touring at that time.
1 Like
Sorry: my point was obviously too subtly made. Test cricket has- to those who truly appreciate the sport- always been the best format.
2 Likes
I’d even say that the ODIs actually helped ‘save’ test cricket as new batting approaches lead to first the Aus team starting to score at much higher rates and then others following suit and being able to get results much more frequently even if some time was lost to rain. Ironically considering the pre ODI torpor, a drawn five day test became something of an excitement for a while as teams digging in and holding on for a draw became more of a rarity.
On the other hand rain is more of a problem when it comes to shorter series where a rain driven draw can make it hard to get a series result.
I think it’s weird framing though. They have retained the ashes because in winning the first two tests they got themselves into a lead that England are now unable to overcome. The fact the point of no return was reached due to weather doesnt make the unassailable nature of their lead a technicality, which is what so much of the coverage seems to be suggesting. It would probably be better coverage to comment on it being “weird for australia to retain the ashes on the back of England bowling too many extras and not taking their catches.”
It’s been a strange series in that England were very close even in their 2 losses and with only a small change in fortunes this could be a 4-0 series at this point, but it isnt. That isnt how test cricket works.
2 Likes
For the Ashes the best way for England to retain would be on terrestrial television with the nation engaged in it.
It doesn’t feel like it has been since 2005
1 Like
Its easy to pile on a team in hindsight, but even if we take into account their relaxed approach to matches to try and take off the pressure, I am not sure they conducted in the best preparation for the series. How useful is preparing with a match against Ireland? Or rounds of golf? Or Stokes preparing with rounds of Vodka shots (technically a bottle) 4 days before the first match? There is a relaxed approach and there is a lackadaisical approach. Australia are World Test Champions not by accident. Surely you want to hit the ground running against such a foe?
1 Like
I have no issue with this. The best knock I’ve ever seen by a club cricketer was from a lad who turned up still pissed from the night before, scored a rapid 50 and took 5 wickets. Eddie Paynter is our example here. I’ll happily have a few pints before a game. Professional as fcuk 
Not really. The great Australian teams (decade starting mid 90s) would never have found themselves wanting the last two days of a test rained out let alone publicly uttering this. They were champions partly because their mental attitude was so strong and they often overcame rain affected tests to win because of this and they always backed themselves. The current Aussie team is miles away from this.
I think in case there are two full days lost to rain in a test match , a 6th day should be kept. If only for the chance that there might be a result in 4 full days.
It’s amusing because they’ve been talking up 4 day test matches for the last couple of years.
I know they would have only lost 1 day on this but it shows the issues with it.
1 Like
Five is fine, but start earlier and have a spare day.
I think an important part of test cricket is the option of holding on long enough to see out a draw in a game you cannot win. I think the obstacles in place to securing a win are what makes them valuable and you dilute the product too much if you push it to a point where a win is the expected result in every test.
I think it makes sense to start earlier, especially when so many days of cricket fail to get in the required 90 overs, but dont think it should be combined with a 6th day. If you start early and allow a provision on the final day for extra overs to account for cricket lost to weather delays I think is a decent balance
2 Likes
BBC Weather is terrible. I trust Met Office’s predictions will be much closer to the truth. Though would I accept a 2-1 series win by drawing the last two just as England started playing well?
I generally agree, BBC is strangely ok down in the South West which I’ve never understood.
Playing a t20 game tonight.
Had my first game since getting back into cricket a couple of weeks.
Bowled 1.5 overs of absolute filth and 1 inswinger that clipped the top of off.
Smashed one six then one straight up in the air.
Hopefully do a little better tonight, might reach double figures in runs or perhaps 2 or 3 dot balls.
2 Likes
