Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Gingerfinch wrote:As for future test series. Four tests maximum maybe the way to go. This way, you can fit in three against another team, and still have time for the ODI's and T20's. OR only have a short ODI tri-series.

Id personally like to see a 12 team system for test cricket, split into 4 divisions, where you play two x 3 match series home, and then two tours away playing against the other teams in your group. Top goes up, bottom goes down. This gives 12 tests a year to all teams, and makes sure that games are all competitive, as you have in essence earn the right due to your success or weaknesses, to play in the tier of quality you occupy.

The problem with test scheduling is the temporal nature of teams fortunes. In 2010, a 5 match series vs India sounded like a quality billing, but at the moment it sounds like a snorefest.... In 2010, 5 tests vs New Zealand would have been utter one way traffic, at the moment it is probably the match up best in the world for entertainment. I want 5 tests v NZ, but by the time we schedule it, NZ could be back to 9th in the rankings and England could be top... or visa versa = boring series.

4 tests v Pakistan, and 3 vs a team we only played very recently and who have since lost their only two players who can pull a crowd in sounds utterly horrific test match summer.

Having a system as mentioned guarantees 100% that you have two different touring teams every year, something to play for, and competitive cricket that means something.

WDWWLLWDD is Cook's record since taking over from Strauss.

What does he need v Australia, Pakistan and South Africa to continue?

sussexpob wrote:Id personally like to see a 12 team system for test cricket, split into 4 divisions, where you play two x 3 match series home, and then two tours away playing against the other teams in your group. Top goes up, bottom goes down. This gives 12 tests a year to all teams, and makes sure that games are all competitive, as you have in essence earn the right due to your success or weaknesses, to play in the tier of quality you occupy.

The problem with test scheduling is the temporal nature of teams fortunes. In 2010, a 5 match series vs India sounded like a quality billing, but at the moment it sounds like a snorefest.... In 2010, 5 tests vs New Zealand would have been utter one way traffic, at the moment it is probably the match up best in the world for entertainment. I want 5 tests v NZ, but by the time we schedule it, NZ could be back to 9th in the rankings and England could be top... or visa versa = boring series.

4 tests v Pakistan, and 3 vs a team we only played very recently and who have since lost their only two players who can pull a crowd in sounds utterly horrific test match summer.

Having a system as mentioned guarantees 100% that you have two different touring teams every year, something to play for, and competitive cricket that means something.

What if you have a division of Australia, NZ and SA who have their summers at the same time of the year?

Arthur Crabtree wrote:WDWWLLWDD is Cook's record since taking over from Strauss.

What does he need v Australia, Pakistan and South Africa to continue?

Not lose and win at least one.

dan08 wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Id personally like to see a 12 team system for test cricket, split into 4 divisions, where you play two x 3 match series home, and then two tours away playing against the other teams in your group. Top goes up, bottom goes down. This gives 12 tests a year to all teams, and makes sure that games are all competitive, as you have in essence earn the right due to your success or weaknesses, to play in the tier of quality you occupy.

The problem with test scheduling is the temporal nature of teams fortunes. In 2010, a 5 match series vs India sounded like a quality billing, but at the moment it sounds like a snorefest.... In 2010, 5 tests vs New Zealand would have been utter one way traffic, at the moment it is probably the match up best in the world for entertainment. I want 5 tests v NZ, but by the time we schedule it, NZ could be back to 9th in the rankings and England could be top... or visa versa = boring series.

4 tests v Pakistan, and 3 vs a team we only played very recently and who have since lost their only two players who can pull a crowd in sounds utterly horrific test match summer.

Having a system as mentioned guarantees 100% that you have two different touring teams every year, something to play for, and competitive cricket that means something.

What if you have a division of Australia, NZ and SA who have their summers at the same time of the year?

Maybe have to spread over 2 years then... scope to add series in between to be orgainsed.

dan08 wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:WDWWLLWDD is Cook's record since taking over from Strauss.

What does he need v Australia, Pakistan and South Africa to continue?

Not lose and win at least one.

There was an article in one of the papers ( think it was the Daily Mail) suggesting that Root will take over the test captaincy at the end of the summer regardless of the Ashes result.

That suggests Cook wants to step down. They wrenched the ODI captaincy out of his cold, dead hands. So that would be a surprise.

Not sure where Root's stock as a potential captain has come from, he doesn't strike me as mature enough or strong enough in personality to take that job. All of his interviews are conducted while he smirks like a kid that just caught a glimpse of a pair of breasts.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:That suggests Cook wants to step down. They wrenched the ODI captaincy out of his cold, dead hands. So that would be a surprise.

It would be a surprise. The article was written before the NZ series and could well be wide of the mark.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... Lords.html

sussexpob wrote:Not sure where Root's stock as a potential captain has come from, he doesn't strike me as mature enough or strong enough in personality to take that job. All of his interviews are conducted while he smirks like a kid that just caught a glimpse of a pair of breasts.

Who else is there? I do expect Cook to carry on, if it's in his hands, though.

Gingerfinch wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Not sure where Root's stock as a potential captain has come from, he doesn't strike me as mature enough or strong enough in personality to take that job. All of his interviews are conducted while he smirks like a kid that just caught a glimpse of a pair of breasts.

Who else is there? I do expect Cook to carry on, if it's in his hands, though.

Anderson

sussexpob wrote:

Gingerfinch wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Not sure where Root's stock as a potential captain has come from, he doesn't strike me as mature enough or strong enough in personality to take that job. All of his interviews are conducted while he smirks like a kid that just caught a glimpse of a pair of breasts.

Who else is there? I do expect Cook to carry on, if it's in his hands, though.

Anderson

I'd rather they pick a batsman, and also someone who may be around for a few years.

Root. I'd like one of the new generation of players to do it. Moeen, except his place in the side isn't certain.

Can't see Anderson doing the job. He's too confrontational. Part of the problem with Cook is how poorly he represents the team as a figurehead and a spokesperson. If anything, Anderson would be worse. He's culpable in some of Cook's worst onfield tactical blunders. And he's a bit of a git.

Has Root ever captained any side before (apart from the odd match)?

It's a shame Taylor isn't in the Test team because he's had quite a bit of captaincy experience with the Lions.