But when it all comes down to it, it is the lack of foresight and general lack of business and cricketing intelligence at the top that is the biggest threat to Test cricket. (And cricket, in general.) We have some very mediocre minds running the game.
I 'm sorry if that sounded flippant but today I'm deadly serious. If the fundamentallists have their way we'll be left with a Test Circuit that only contains four or five teams and I don't think that would be sustainable. We can't play Australia/NZ/S Africa and West indies every two years.
Steve's correct. Nobody is going to play cricket in Pakistan for probably years. Doesn't take much to talk yourself into thinking India is unsafe too. The only thing that might save test cricket now is ironically, twenty/20 cricket because if it's safe to play the IPL then it has to be deemed safe to play test cricket there as well. Without the IPL I think the players of the world would declare the whole of the sub-continent a no go zone and would have done so after the Mumbai attacks.
I honestly believe we'll see a Pakistan ''home'' game at Headingley within the next two seasons. Normal cricket cannot carry on in Pakistan but provisions must be made to not lose it forever.
Tricky one this, as all of them are a contributory factor towards the decline of Test cricket plus the recent events in Pakistan have probably put the final nail in the coffin (no offence intended to those who lost their lives). Pakistan will not be playing at home for a while now and who wants to watch boring high scoring draws like the last one in the Windies. Lords do not help the situation either by having feather bed pitches there, thank goodness the other wickets in England are more sporting and give both bowlers and batters an equal chance. Australia and South Africa seem able to produce "result" wickets but the rest of the countries are too batter friendly and they just make matches dull and un-interesting.
Test cricket (and cricket in general) is a strange business. A match can last five days and still not bring about a result. In fact 35% of all Test matches ever played have been drawn i.e. no one won, no one lost, and it wasn't tied. They just played without getting a result...and we all go home shaking our heads.
Ridiculous, really. The 21st century, short attention-spanned, result-oriented fan, won't put up with this much longer.
Lies damned lies and statistics as someone once said.
if you look back over time some of the greatest Test matches have been exciting and memorable draws so they are very much part of the game.
The recent Test v the Windies when their last pair dogged it out to survive was just as gripping as a one sided innings victory to someone.
The Ashes 2005 drawn games were just as exciting as the victories - watching Lee survive the final over from Harmison after Pontings rearguard action and then the final Test at the Oval were just as memorable as Ashley Giles hitting the winning runs off Warne and Kasprowicz gloving it to Jones down the leg side.
Sorry but some one sided victories (when a proper side plays a minnow) are duller than a well fought out competitive draw on a sporting wicket for all types of player.
The draw is one of the quintessential beauties of cricket which makes it differ so much from most other sports where winning and losing are the only options - and perhaps explains why cricket used to be so much more civilised than some other sports!
Stop draws & cricket will lose something .... 2 of the most intense days play I've ever seen were Yorkshire trying to save a game against Lance (1987 at OT & 2005 at Headingley) ... thankfully we succeeded both times with 9 wickets down.
The 1987 draw (Blakey & Fletcher batted for over an hour although it could have been weeks) was the most significant. In 1987 Lancs came 2nd in the championship. If the last Yorks wicket had fallen in the game the extra points would have resulted in Lancs being champions. Soon after Yorks released Fletcher who then signed for Lancs
I'm not suggesting we "stop draws," merely that we reduce the number of "bore draws." Yes, an exciting draw is great to experience, but most draws are not exciting. 35% is way too high a rate. The fans deserve more "results."
Central contracts. They give the players too much of a comfort zone and limit the judgement and decision making of the selectors.
Yesterday's "has beens" are focussed upon to the exclusion of current form and performance.
The media men exacerbate the problem by talking only of those whom they have seen play and as they do not, by and large, watch any CC cricket they look only at those already involved currently or in the past.
In consequence, we are treated to an unending discussion of the fitness of the likes of Flintof, Simon Jones, Vaughan etc.
There is far too little consideration given to the new blood and current form when it comes to Test selection.