Third Test. SA v England. Jo'burg, Jan 14-18

[Dr Cricket]

There is still a huge interest in test cricket.

If the powers that be were to end it that would lead to a breakaway. I can see world cricket splitting anyway at some point in the future.

yeah interest in test cricket is huge, just needs someone to take a risk and find a way to channel it better.

A splinter group is probably the best way IMO.

The current powers have become greedy and are only interested in themoney.

Look at the West Indies. All their players want is fair pay which they are not getting. I think in ten years time the ICC will only be a small part of international cricket as another Packer-style revolution will take place.

Hopefully the splinter group isn't the big 3, otherwise all you getting is 3 domestic T20 competitions and an international league format during the gaps when the Indian/Aussie/England season doesn't take place.
Although I doubt the Big 3 CEO are smart enough to come with a International league format so it could just be big 3 playing against each other during the gaps.

[Aidan11]

There is still a huge interest in test cricket.

If the powers that be were to end it that would lead to a breakaway. I can see world cricket splitting anyway at some point in the future.

yeah interest in test cricket is huge, just needs someone to take a risk and find a way to channel it better.

A splinter group is probably the best way IMO.

The current powers have become greedy and are only interested in themoney.

Look at the West Indies. All their players want is fair pay which they are not getting. I think in ten years time the ICC will only be a small part of international cricket as another Packer-style revolution will take place.

Hopefully the splinter group isn't the big 3, otherwise all you getting is 3 domestic T20 competitions and an international league format during the gaps when the Indian/Aussie/England season doesn't take place.
Although I doubt the Big 3 CEO are smart enough to come with a International league format so it could just be big 3 playing against each other during the gaps.

No it will be the big three that the new group will rebel against. Admittedly though they will need some money behind them to do it.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Issue with that thinking is that only series between England have history and tradition.
Really only England vs australia/India/SA have that.
India vs Australia another and probably india vs pakistan.

I think all series do, apart from those involving Zimbabwe or Bangladesh, with Sri Lanka maybe a bit lacking, so far.

West Indies v most sides is a very evocative fixture. WI v Australia is a great fixture, currently at a low. Maybe it'll never recover. But, if nurtured, it might. To a business model, that would be considered sentimental. But sport is only partly a business.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think test cricket has major problems. Simply put, I couldnt name you another sport where the historical progression has lead to quality of the sport slowly draining away. I watch the rugby world cup a couple of months ago and marvelled at how quick and skillful all players had become. You watch football sides in a League Two FA cup game and marvel at even the ball control of your average bottom rung football player in England, not to mention the overall skill level of the top flight. Even in cricket, in one day internationals and T20 there has been innovations in batting techniques and style that are mind blowing.

Test cricket feels subpar. Good bowling in tough conditions leads to Trent Bridge style capitulations, or we get poor wickets and no results. Ill take the predictions here with a pinch of salt, we are all cricket lovers who spend time on here debating the nitty gritty, but I cant expect new people to the game be attracted to this sport because the standards are very low.

I mean Australia were the best team in the world apparently when they came to England last, but a bit of swing made them look like chumps. And England won a series where they were annihilated in two tests. South Africa are at home now and have a team where all their best players dont seem to have their heart in it. The Windies produced the best teams ever but are wrapped in a "we dont really care" thing at the moment and as a team might not exist for long.

I honestly dont see a future for test cricket.

Sadly, my posts were written from the same sort of place. Against that, I considered SA's defensive epic against India in Delhi. To me that is a kind of timeless monument to the game. It can only happen if people care hugely. Yet, in cricinfo, an Indian academic wrote an article shortly afterwards that this must never be allowed to happen again, and it had no place in the modern world...!

Sport only sort of works, if it is an opiate of the masses. Once people don't have that suspension of disbelief, it seems to disappear (as happened with me and football). With Test cricket, there are the administrators, the fans, the players, and the press all picking away the four corners of the fabric, and it feels like it is starting to unravel. Could be just me of course.

[Arthur Crabtree]

As for the history and relevance, I am not sure even fans deep down believe this is a selling point. Cricinfo had an article about best performances recently, and newer performances were ignored. This is because a 200 nowadays doesnt mean as much, we all know that Stokes scoring 250 against a South Africa team full of dross is as meaningless in history as a 50 against Pollock and Donald on a tough pitch.

The Ashes have been boiled to death in recent years, and the consistent touring means most away sides on long tours are sent to the hangman. There just isnt the mental will to play these series from the players, and for me this isnt a sideby point. You feel it in games, that they arent relevant at all anymore

Yes, good point.

It might be a factor for me that I don't really care much about my national side anymore. Maybe I'd feel differently if that was the case.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Probably worth pointing out that an away win for England does go against the trend of something that is being considered a weakness of the modern game.

[braveneutral]

I think the quality of rugby has become far worse.

I don't even watch it much anymore due to the volume of kicking back and forth.

[sussexpob]

I think the quality of rugby has become far worse. I don't even watch it much anymore due to the volume of kicking back and forth.

If you dont watch it anymore, then you have obviously missed a period between world cups when ball handling skills and back row forward play has reached a pinnacle. I would suggest Japan's team this time around could have won a world cup against any team pre-2000's, even sides like this make the ball sing in hand. The game so much quicker now, teams from 10 years ago wouldnt know what hit them.

[sussexpob]

Probably worth pointing out that an away win for England does go against the trend of something that is being considered a weakness of the modern game.

Its an empty victory though, for me anyway, because the victory itself says more about South Africa's collapse as a test match force than England rising as a very good team (which in context, they are).

I have said it many times over the recent past, but this South Africa team is appalling for them. Their captain didnt want the job, and handed the baton over to another guy that doesnt seem to know if he even wants to play, let alone lead the team. Other senior players are rumoured to be on similar grounds, and the standards of the guys coming through the ranks is pretty poor seemingly. If this is indicative for the nest decade or a half, then the case could already have become terminal for South Africa.

I think this series represent for me the turning point for test cricket. When going to South Africa and playing a side becomes easy, then test cricket must be in a really shoddy state of affairs.

[sussexpob]

Sadly, my posts were written from the same sort of place. Against that, I considered SA's defensive epic against India in Delhi. To me that is a kind of timeless monument to the game. It can only happen if people care hugely. Yet, in cricinfo, an Indian academic wrote an article shortly afterwards that this must never be allowed to happen again, and it had no place in the modern world...!

Sport only sort of works, if it is an opiate of the masses. Once people don't have that suspension of disbelief, it seems to disappear (as happened with me and football). With Test cricket, there are the administrators, the fans, the players, and the press all picking away the four corners of the fabric, and it feels like it is starting to unravel. Could be just me of course.

Well its very worrying for cricket also if the main press platform for the game is able to write articles like that ( I read it too, and couldnt believe a professional journalist was writing that on a cricket website). But if this is representative of the feeling in India about it, then again it shows the shift. As you correctly point out, if the romance of such regard stands is lost on the public, then test cricket literally doesnt have a role in cricket anymore.

[Dr Cricket]

wise words from holding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... lding.html

[Alviro Patterson]

Probably worth pointing out that an away win for England does go against the trend of something that is being considered a weakness of the modern game.

Its an empty victory though, for me anyway, because the victory itself says more about South Africa's collapse as a test match force than England rising as a very good team (which in context, they are).

I have said it many times over the recent past, but this South Africa team is appalling for them. Their captain didnt want the job, and handed the baton over to another guy that doesnt seem to know if he even wants to play, let alone lead the team. Other senior players are rumoured to be on similar grounds, and the standards of the guys coming through the ranks is pretty poor seemingly. If this is indicative for the nest decade or a half, then the case could already have become terminal for South Africa.

I think this series represent for me the turning point for test cricket. When going to South Africa and playing a side becomes easy, then test cricket must be in a really shoddy state of affairs.

Got to bear in mind South Africa have gone into this test series on the back of a two and bit month long tour in India (3 T20is, 5 ODIs and 4 tests). Barely enough time to recover, let alone do a proper assessment of things.

Playing 8 test matches in 82 days with a 19 day turnover time between two long series is ridiculous, no wonder South Africa senior players are struggling. If they can't function then it makes it difficult for new players to bed into the team. For example, Dane Vilas (who averages 40 in FC cricket) has come into bat when South Africa's top 6 have collapsed.

The quality of test cricket can be improved if the future tours programme and matches are scheduled better, either play Tests and LOIs at separate times of the year or at least play LOIs before Tests to improve player preparation and acclimatisation.

[Arthur Crabtree]

wise words from holding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... lding.html

It seems everyone gets labelled as the new WI when they lose a series. Australia were going to be the new WI a few years ago. I suspect there's a lot of guess work going on as to how their future will develop. They've had a bad series against England (anyone can lose in India) and have had problems with injuries. They've been the best team, and they are coming back into the pack (they haven't been great in ODIs for a while). More than that feels a bit sensationalist to me.

[sussexpob]

Got to bear in mind South Africa have gone into this test series on the back of a two and bit month long tour in India (3 T20is, 5 ODIs and 4 tests). Barely enough time to recover, let alone do a proper assessment of things.

They werent close to being competitive in India when fresh, so I am not sure this is any valid reason in the context of modern cricket. Teams routinely have to fit in a lot of cricket in a really short space of time. Yes there are valid reasons as to why teams might lose competitiveness based on the sensible issues highlighted, but none of this fit the modern conventions. Players have to play this much, whether or not it impacts on quality of the product. The call is for quantity, not for quality. And players and boards are not going to subscribe to an approach that loses them money and makes them play more 5 day cricket infront of no one, rather than full stands at a T20 game.

Each team has 18 possible tours, so thats more than 4 each in a 4 year cycle, for all three formats, and not including international ICC competitions. So naturally players are on tour or away from home all the time anyway.

Something has to give, and its quite clear very few players are going to sacrifice big money for little physical effort, in place of playing 100 days on the road living in a hotel for no money. And thats not just me, other actual players (two international captains last week) saying or inferring it.

[sussexpob]

You also have to consider the length of careers in this work load. Australia lost their best batsman of the last era at 34 along with their best bowler at 33. South Africa lost Smith at 33, and Steyn has now missed 7 out of 8 tests this year due to fitness issues, and its doubtful he will be around much longer, so the same could happen to them. England themselves lost two prize batters in the lower to mid 30s.

Careers seem to be getting shorter if recent evidence is suggestive. So players will want to limit work load and maximise earnings even more.