SA Footy

In my opinion Test Cricket in Australia has come out as the elite form of the game. But remembering the doomsdayers in the 90's and the 00's it would be dead

What has kept Test Cricket going?

*The Ashes legacy?
*Australia coming back to the field?
*Australias Dominators who are histories Pioneers of result driven Test Cricket and religiously scored @ min 3.5 rpo?
*The Windies of the Mid 60's to the mid 90's?
*The Poms Ashes victory in 05?
*The decrease in Limited overs Popularity?

Look forward to hearing the theories......

Shane Warne, simple.

Certainly not Kallis.

All your points are very good reasons and out of all them i think the 05 ashes was probaly the biggest shot in the arm

Personally I think Shane Warne.

Teams had spent an enormous amount of time trying to emulate the great windies teams & their fast bowling brigade. Teams seemed to largely see pace bowling as their only real option. Then along came Warnie.

The Gatting ball in the 1993 ashes captured to imagination of the public. In turn his guile & ability to out think batsmen changed the way the game was played.

People began to once again appreciate the strategic nature of test cricket & the crowds returned with the expectation of seeing Warnie put the opposition in a spin.

As a cricket purist I have always loved test match cricket. When Warnie played I found myself on the edge of my seat always expecting something to happen which wasn't always the case. I think his way of planning and out thinking batsmen has been his legacy to the game & changed the way it is played forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Test cricket hasn't come out as the elite form of the game, it has always been so. As for it being 'saved' it is a long way from that. If Test Cricket was saved it was saved by attacking captains Illingworth and I Chappell in the early seventies and the emergence of one day cricket.

In Australia and England Test Cricket is well attended but not so everywhere else. South Africa have the best team in the world but only around 9000 people turned up for their boxing day clash against the number two ranked Indians. Test Cricket is a long way from being saved and that's why Teeball was invented (oh and for the ca$h).

regards,

REB

Kerry Packer. Without the players getting their hands on decent cash the game would be in monstrous trouble.

Grahaml wrote:Kerry Packer. Without the players getting their hands on decent cash the game would be in monstrous trouble.

Test cricket wasn't saved by Kerry packer, if it wasn't strong and popular like it was from 1973-1977, he wouldn't have wanted to touch it with a barge pole. You can't make money out of an un-popular sport.

Now he might have helped modernised it and made the cricket associations look at other means of supporting the game domestically but no way did Kerry Packer save Test Cricket

Adam Gilchrist.

I'm actually a tad worried for test cricket and don't blame t20 at all.

Countries like England and Aus are thriving crowds wise when it comes to test but unfortunately the same can't be said for NZ, WI, SA, SL.

One of the offsets I have seen from t20 is these countries is the administrators have become lazy, they make all the coin they need from t20 and therefore have become lazy in trying to promote test cricket and bring back the crowds.

Obviously in the case of NZ, WI poor on field performances haven't helped there cause but I think t20 has made alot of the administrators lazy and the needs for crowds at test cricket for wealth is non exsistant.

If crowds stop going completely then test cricket will become irrelevant. We need as many competitive countries as possible.

I would love to see Ireland gain test match status, there an improving nation and don't have alot of sporting sides competing at a high level on the international stage (football, union) are the only ones that come to mind. They have natural rivals in England

whufc wrote:I'm actually a tad worried for test cricket and don't blame t20 at all.

Countries like England and Aus are thriving crowds wise when it comes to test but unfortunately the same can't be said for NZ, WI, SA, SL.

One of the offsets I have seen from t20 is these countries is the administrators have become lazy, they make all the coin they need from t20 and therefore have become lazy in trying to promote test cricket and bring back the crowds.

Obviously in the case of NZ, WI poor on field performances haven't helped there cause but I think t20 has made alot of the administrators lazy and the needs for crowds at test cricket for wealth is non exsistant.

If crowds stop going completely then test cricket will become irrelevant. We need as many competitive countries as possible.

I would love to see Ireland gain test match status, there an improving nation and don't have alot of sporting sides competing at a high level on the international stage (football, union) are the only ones that come to mind. They have natural rivals in England

I think there's merit in that, whufc.

I think a lot of the problem has to do with the cost of match tickets in certain countries. A lot of the Caribbean nations, South Africa, Sri Lanka etc are poorer nations, and/or have a big gap between rich and poor. I know these problems exist in India, but they have the population that negates it for the most part.

So what is New Zealand's excuse?

I think in NZ's case it just the fact they are the exact same as they were 30 years ago

Population

+

Their team is shit

am Bays wrote:

Grahaml wrote:Kerry Packer. Without the players getting their hands on decent cash the game would be in monstrous trouble.

Test cricket wasn't saved by Kerry packer, if it wasn't strong and popular like it was from 1973-1977, he wouldn't have wanted to touch it with a barge pole. You can't make money out of an un-popular sport.

Now he might have helped modernised it and made the cricket associations look at other means of supporting the game domestically but no way did Kerry Packer save Test Cricket

He headed a serious problem off before it became an issue. We've seen recently bundles of blokes picking footy over cricket. West Indies has had huge trouble keeping their kids in cricket. Keep your head in the sand all you like but giving blokes something for their time in that era helped keep the best players around.

Grahaml wrote:

am Bays wrote:

Grahaml wrote:Kerry Packer. Without the players getting their hands on decent cash the game would be in monstrous trouble.

Test cricket wasn't saved by Kerry packer, if it wasn't strong and popular like it was from 1973-1977, he wouldn't have wanted to touch it with a barge pole. You can't make money out of an un-popular sport.

Now he might have helped modernised it and made the cricket associations look at other means of supporting the game domestically but no way did Kerry Packer save Test Cricket

He headed a serious problem off before it became an issue. We've seen recently bundles of blokes picking footy over cricket. West Indies has had huge trouble keeping their kids in cricket. Keep your head in the sand all you like but giving blokes something for their time in that era helped keep the best players around.

One could argue that the Wet indies cricket was doomed once the English Counties limited the number of overseas players from 2 to 1 in teh early 90s. No longer could teh West Indies rely on their core of players being supported by english Domestic cricket:

Marshall - Hampshire
Garner and Richards - Somerset
Patterson - lancahire
Ambrose - Northhants
Walsh - Gloucs
Hooper - kent
Richardson - Yorks

Once that secondary income was cut by half that is what cost the West Indies

Why was there threats of player strikes in 1997-98? the top players got well paid but the shield players weren't
Why under the control of PBL did one-day cricket get pushed so hard in the 80s to the possible detriment of Test Cricket?

Don't get me wrong Kerry Packer certainly helped cricket modernise, look at new revenue streams and publicised it to a wider audience through marketing (C'mon Aussie C'mon) but to think he saved test Cricket is stretching the truth - Give Uncertain Corridors a read by gideon haigh if you think I'm alone in this train of thought.

If you read more, he was certainly more into helping his companies bottom line than cricket especially when you examine the deal struck in 1979 with the then ACB - all before Ian Chappells wish of a players Association could be formed.

What he did save is the domestic cricket structure - the shield and if by extenstion you want to say he saved Test cricket by doing that well all-right then.

There is about 150 people at the ground watching Pakistan vs Sri Lanka in the UAE.

Been a good test so far though Pakistan lost 6/80 mmmmmmm questions will be asked

daysofourlives wrote:Shane Warne, simple.

Don't think it needed saving, but if it was one person it was Warney.

whufc wrote:I'm actually a tad worried for test cricket and don't blame t20 at all.

Countries like England and Aus are thriving crowds wise when it comes to test but unfortunately the same can't be said for NZ, WI, SA, SL.

One of the offsets I have seen from t20 is these countries is the administrators have become lazy, they make all the coin they need from t20 and therefore have become lazy in trying to promote test cricket and bring back the crowds.

Obviously in the case of NZ, WI poor on field performances haven't helped there cause but I think t20 has made alot of the administrators lazy and the needs for crowds at test cricket for wealth is non exsistant.

If crowds stop going completely then test cricket will become irrelevant. We need as many competitive countries as possible.

I would love to see Ireland gain test match status, there an improving nation and don't have alot of sporting sides competing at a high level on the international stage (football, union) are the only ones that come to mind. They have natural rivals in England

Good post. The administration in most other countries is incompetent. Your hear about stuff like a test in India where you had to buy tickets for all five days or nothing. Or tests in the West Indies where daily tickets cost one month's average wage. In Australia all the states have initiatives to ensure big crowds, run good events, increase the value of memberships etc. Not to mention spectator facilities. Have these other countries heard of shade?

I also wonder whether matches are on free to air television in other countries? It makes a massive difference that cricket is available for everyone to watch, not just the rich. Keeps cricket in the consciousness. All kids would start by watching a bit of cricket on tv and later want to go to a game.

The ICC may be to the rescue......


ICC mull two-tier Test cricket

heater31 wrote:The ICC may be to the rescue......


ICC mull two-tier Test cricket

that looks like a pretty good idea..

Simply the game itself .

whufc wrote:I think in NZ's case it just the fact they are the exact same as they were 30 years ago

BUZZ. In the 1980's New Zealand were one of the best teams in the world. They were the only team to defeat the West Indies in a series I believe during that decade. Crowes, Coney, Wright, Edgar, Howarth, Cairns, Hadlee, Snedden, Chatfield, Smith.

Some handy players in there and at least 4 possibly 5 of them would make NZ's all time best side IMO.

rergards,

REB