International Cricket
- Thread starter planetgeli
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
SL 42 all out in about an hour's play in Durban.
Their previous record low score was 71, so they've smashed that.
Their previous record low score was 71, so they've smashed that.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Test championship is a farce. S.Africa up to 2nd in the table. They never play more than 2 tests a series. And they will get through this round without playing either Australia or England. If they qualify for the final it will discredit the whole system.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
So if you're only playing 2 test series, mostly at home, and not playing England or Australia, not getting over rate deductions - you get to the final. Farce.
I see they're playing in Gqeberha. Try saying that...at all.
(Used to be Port Elizabeth so you can see why they might have wanted to change the name).
I see they're playing in Gqeberha. Try saying that...at all.
(Used to be Port Elizabeth so you can see why they might have wanted to change the name).
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Yeah it's all over the place isn't it. Nobody really understands it. TBF I think it also wouldn't work if it went the other way - that only the big nations who play more tests could qualify and nobody else had a chance. I'm sceptical they can ever get that balance right though and at the moment nobody seems particularly engaged with it. If you get into the final then great, if not then whatever, not the end of the world.
It's a total shitshow really... it's a nice idea but by nature Test cricket doesn't lend itself to a tournament format. Just leave it alone. Cricket is so weird the way it keeps trying to strangle itself. There can't be another sport like it. If seasoned cricket followers can't follow this format then how the hell is a casual fan supposed to understand it.
You've also got the bizarre position where England are docked WTC points for their slow over rate despite already being out of the running for the final. I know they got hit with a fine as well but Stokes has a point. In a seam friendly country like NZ of course the over rate is going to be slower than in the sub-continent where seamers barely bowl.
You've also got the bizarre position where England are docked WTC points for their slow over rate despite already being out of the running for the final. I know they got hit with a fine as well but Stokes has a point. In a seam friendly country like NZ of course the over rate is going to be slower than in the sub-continent where seamers barely bowl.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Meanwhile India all out for 180 in the pink ball, and that wasn't under lights. Aus starting cautiously. 9/0 but will they be 62/5 at the close?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I like the idea of a Test Championship, and there are always going to be issues over teams playing different numbers of tests (and India vs Pakistan never happening). My solution to this is minimum 3-test series, six series per cycle, championship played over 2.5 years, final alternated between countries depending on time of year. It would have the effect of setting the absolute minimum a little higher - just over seven tests per year rather than the current six. More ambitiously, you could increase the number of series per cycle from six to seven or eight. Increasing it to seven would set the minimun average tests per year at 8.4. If you set it at eight, then you can have all teams playing one another every cycle (except India/Pakistan).
This would require:
1. The standardisation of match fees so that all players are paid the same per match, paid for by a central fund to which countries contribute according to means. Something close to this is in the pipeline, which is great. If players know there are at least 8-9 tests per year and they'll be paid, say, £20k to play in each one, that's a proper incentive to want to play test cricket. Financially, it is totally doable if England, Aus and India want it to happen. It also solves the current iniquitous situation where players from a winning team are sometimes paid as little as 10% the amount paid to players from the team they've just beaten. (Central contracts would be unaffected.)
2. England, Australia and India agreeing to play one another home and away over a five-year cycle rather than a four-year cycle. They're not going to want to do this cos money. I actually think twice every four years is a bit too often - twice every five years is about right. But sadly, this is not likely to happen, and without it, a change to a 2.5-year cycle with min 3 tests per series is logistically difficult - you would occasionally have them playing each other twice over one cycle.
Compromises could be made here. You could relax the requirement for three-test series to get the eight series per cycle in, although that would be a shame. England/India/Australia would still be playing each other a lot, given they have five-test series.
This would require:
1. The standardisation of match fees so that all players are paid the same per match, paid for by a central fund to which countries contribute according to means. Something close to this is in the pipeline, which is great. If players know there are at least 8-9 tests per year and they'll be paid, say, £20k to play in each one, that's a proper incentive to want to play test cricket. Financially, it is totally doable if England, Aus and India want it to happen. It also solves the current iniquitous situation where players from a winning team are sometimes paid as little as 10% the amount paid to players from the team they've just beaten. (Central contracts would be unaffected.)
2. England, Australia and India agreeing to play one another home and away over a five-year cycle rather than a four-year cycle. They're not going to want to do this cos money. I actually think twice every four years is a bit too often - twice every five years is about right. But sadly, this is not likely to happen, and without it, a change to a 2.5-year cycle with min 3 tests per series is logistically difficult - you would occasionally have them playing each other twice over one cycle.
Compromises could be made here. You could relax the requirement for three-test series to get the eight series per cycle in, although that would be a shame. England/India/Australia would still be playing each other a lot, given they have five-test series.
Last edited:
You should work for the ICC with simplification ideas like that 
No, a WTC is unworkable, Test cricket is unique and doesn't lend itself to a tournament format. But looking at the crowds in NZ, Aus and England I don't think Test cricket is in as much danger as people think. McSweeney for instance is a T20 player, just captained his side to the BBL championship but is preferring test cricket by the looks.
No, a WTC is unworkable, Test cricket is unique and doesn't lend itself to a tournament format. But looking at the crowds in NZ, Aus and England I don't think Test cricket is in as much danger as people think. McSweeney for instance is a T20 player, just captained his side to the BBL championship but is preferring test cricket by the looks.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing is, as long as the 'big three' insist on playing each other twice every four years, there are bound to be some big gaps when they don't play other teams (don't think Bangladesh have ever played in Aus, for example). And the WTC cycle has to be over either two or four years.
I like the idea of putting it over 2.5 years so that the final can be played in lots of different places.
I like the idea of putting it over 2.5 years so that the final can be played in lots of different places.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm a sad fucker and I have actually worked this through. My solution works logistically. But it has that one stumbling block.You should work for the ICC with simplification ideas like that
No, a WTC is unworkable, Test cricket is unique and doesn't lend itself to a tournament format. But looking at the crowds in NZ, Aus and England I don't think Test cricket is in as much danger as people think. McSweeney for instance is a T20 player, just captained his side to the BBL championship but is preferring test cricket by the looks.
(Crowds in India for the NZ series were also good - a solid 20k plus on most days. Crowds in WI/SA recently not so great.)
GarveyLives
Well-Known Member
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
R Ashwin retires from international cricket.
Devastating at home, he's been the main reason for a number of trouncings of England and others.
There's a big gap in test cricket coming up for lots of teams so his probably won't be the last big retirement.
Imo this is how to retire. No huge fanfare or farewell tour. Just a press conference when the time comes to say you're done.
Devastating at home, he's been the main reason for a number of trouncings of England and others.
There's a big gap in test cricket coming up for lots of teams so his probably won't be the last big retirement.
Imo this is how to retire. No huge fanfare or farewell tour. Just a press conference when the time comes to say you're done.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Great player. Always seemed bizarre when India would sometimes leave him out, imagine England having the depth to do something like that.
Jadeja is knocking on a bit as well, it will be a big hole for India to fill without the two of them. I'm sure they'll find good spinners but I don't know if they'll replace that all round ability - it felt like they had eight batters and six bowlers at times.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Not sure he'd agree with you. He's pretty pissed off about not being in the team, which is why he's gone. He had to be persuaded to stay after the 1st Test. Then didn't do so great in the 2nd. Which isn't how he should be remembered.
Definitely a GOAT, even if most of that was down to being brilliant at home. Averaging over 5 wickets per match and he scored 6 centuries.
Always had a soft spot for him. Bye Ash, and thanks for the memories.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He's always struggled in Aus, tbf, so not so surprising not to pick him. Jadeja has a much better record in Aus and is the better batter, so I would pick j over a in Aus and you don't really need two spinners.
It's a lopsided record, although his average of 30 away from home is decent. Not quite a home specialist but he did struggle in Aus and in SA. But then Warne struggled in India. Murali struggled in Aus. There aren't many bowlers who were amazing everywhere. Malcolm Marshall perhaps.
It's a lopsided record, although his average of 30 away from home is decent. Not quite a home specialist but he did struggle in Aus and in SA. But then Warne struggled in India. Murali struggled in Aus. There aren't many bowlers who were amazing everywhere. Malcolm Marshall perhaps.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That would be a massive shame. He's only 34 and very clearly still at the top of his game. Also, test cricket is his best format. And he's closing in on 10,000 test runs.
My guess is that Kohli and Rohit Sharma may go soon. Maybe they will stick around until after the England tour.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
There's a case to be made that they should be told they're going isn't there. India have a history of letting their big stars drag on past their best but are they in the best six batters they've got currently?
Yeh - India's got a ludicrous number of hugely talented batsmen waiting for their turn
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
A big two tests coming up for those two, maybe, particularly for Rohit.
It is a shame when great players decline. Kohli still looks great until he gets out but the scores just aren't there any more.
It is a shame when great players decline. Kohli still looks great until he gets out but the scores just aren't there any more.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is why I dislike the long goodbyes. Tim Southee was the weak link in NZ's bowling attack vs England, and he'd done nothing for the year before that either. Everyone knew it. And it's zero-sum in internationals in that you playing means someone else isn't.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Broad and Anderson are a good example of a pair that came together due to a brutal axing of a long-term regular. They first played together in NZ after Hoggard and Harmison, two heroes from the 2005 Ashes had been dropped mid-series. Hoggard never played again.
And that's right imo. It's as it should be. In a way, Ashwin quitting because he's pissed off he's not being selected is the right way for a player to go. It's a shame he's going off in a huff and he didn't want to stick around and support the team until the end of the tour, particularly as India could still win the tour. But that's the only bit of it that is a shame, imo.
And that's right imo. It's as it should be. In a way, Ashwin quitting because he's pissed off he's not being selected is the right way for a player to go. It's a shame he's going off in a huff and he didn't want to stick around and support the team until the end of the tour, particularly as India could still win the tour. But that's the only bit of it that is a shame, imo.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Whereas Australia presumably haven't. Not sure Nathan McSweeney will make it to the Ashes. Not sure he'll make it to the 4th Test here tbh.
