creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

I agree that Jimmy wasn't anywhere like a test player and he's done all the things you suggest. What I asked was "what is it?" and "how is it measured"....

It’s measured by improvement. Players who work hard to improve their game. You can see it in output. Out of these lot which have improved since they started their test career?

[Worthy4England]

I agree that Jimmy wasn't anywhere like a test player and he's done all the things you suggest. What I asked was "what is it?" and "how is it measured"....

It’s measured by improvement. Players who work hard to improve their game. You can see it in output. Out of these lot which have improved since they started their test career?

But if you looked at say Root (because we were looking at the batting) - as with everyone, his results over time have changed year by year. He's certainly got worse from say his first 4 seasons, does that mean he's not bothered or did he set a really high bar, that he was unlikely to sustain?

Both Sibley and Crawley averaged top 40's last CY an improvement over the year before. They've dipped this. Is that because they're shit and last year was an "accident?"

What about Jos? 2019 averaged mid 20's, was he just not trying had enough? Lack of desire? If you look at his year by year stats, they've gone from his start year - worse, better, better, worse, better, worse. Two worse out of last three - doesn't want it anymore?

It's a complex topic, and I'm not convinced (as I'm not when "playing for the shirt" and the like are cited in football), that it's anything like as simple as "desire"

[BWFC_Insane]

I agree that Jimmy wasn't anywhere like a test player and he's done all the things you suggest. What I asked was "what is it?" and "how is it measured"....

It’s measured by improvement. Players who work hard to improve their game. You can see it in output. Out of these lot which have improved since they started their test career?

But if you looked at say Root (because we were looking at the batting) - as with everyone, his results over time have changed year by year. He's certainly got worse from say his first 4 seasons, does that mean he's not bothered or did he set a really high bar, that he was unlikely to sustain?

Both Sibley and Crawley averaged top 40's last CY an improvement over the year before. They've dipped this. Is that because they're shit and last year was an "accident?"

What about Jos? 2019 averaged mid 20's, was he just not trying had enough? Lack of desire? If you look at his year by year stats, they've gone from his start year - worse, better, better, worse, better, worse. Two worse out of last three - doesn't want it anymore?

It's a complex topic, and I'm not convinced (as I'm not when "playing for the shirt" and the like are cited in football), that it's anything like as simple as "desire"

Of course you have performance dips over time and what knot. Joe Root is one who came in was test quality and didn’t necessarily need the same level of improvement. What I’m arguing is that when you come in as a batsman and early doors you have an average of 30 or thereabouts you know you are missing your mark and need to change something in your game. How many of these players have gone and done that? Bairstow did the opposite he changed his technique for white ball cricket. And now struggles in tests. Crawley came in looked a player with some talent but clearly chased too many…has that changed? No. He’s made at least to my eyes no improvement at all.

[Worthy4England]

See, for me, Crawley has probably had to come in, too many times whilst all the writing's still on the ball. Whilst that can always happen at three, it's pretty much been every other innings. Number three coming in at 100-1 (or maybe just 50) with change bowlers on, is a different beast than constantly being in, in the first 5 overs. I don't think he's performed well, this year but who has, with the bat? And when it gets to the point that people think 20 is ok, because 5 other batsmen didn't get that far, it's a real problem. The top 7, only Root and Stokes showing anything like good test class recently...as much as we all look at the Ashes, we've been playing the top two test sides in the World at the moment. They're in that position because they're good. The notion NZ are a gimmie and India can't play Englush conditions doesn't hold anymore. Sometimes, they're just better than we are.

[Prufrock]

Matt Parkinson is flying at the moment. Almost literally. Bowling superbly and what a take.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'll be down in Cardiff next Wednesday evening with nowt fert do. Just checked the 'What's On' and it came up with The Hundred - Welsh Fire vs London Spirit. 1 x women's game + 1 x men's game.

Might just give it a whirl

[dave the minion]

I'll be down in Cardiff next Wednesday evening with nowt fert do. Just checked the 'What's On' and it came up with The Hundred - Welsh Fire vs London Spirit. 1 x women's game + 1 x men's game.

Might just give it a whirl

Do it - will be a cracking day out. We went to OT for the Machester game a couple of weeks back and it was brilliant

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll be down in Cardiff next Wednesday evening with nowt fert do. Just checked the 'What's On' and it came up with The Hundred - Welsh Fire vs London Spirit. 1 x women's game + 1 x men's game.

Might just give it a whirl

Do it - will be a cracking day out. We went to OT for the Machester game a couple of weeks back and it was brilliant

But all these opposethehundred cranks on twitter say nobody is enjoying it and there are no crowds there?

I have watched a bit on telly and its ok - I don't get too excited by it but I also don't see why it would make anyone angry. If its popular it will take off and if not it won't.

[Prufrock]

I'm the ground it's just T20 tbf. I enjoyed it.

I'm off to Lords!

[Prufrock]

2 mins of very light rain. Covers on, covers off. F*ck knows when they're back. How can it take this long?!

[BWFC_Insane]

2 mins of very light rain. Covers on, covers off. F*ck knows when they're back. How can it take this long?!

Its a major issue with test cricket. People just don't understand that when you're trying to get youngsters interested they just cannot understand why everything takes so long. People get the rain. But when its a few minutes of light rain get back on immediately. Don't spend half an hour messing round.

[Worthy4England]

The umpires and ground-staff are not meteorologists. Their task, in a 5 day match, is to keep the condition of the ground as equitable as possible for both sides, notwithstanding the wicket changes over that period. It's relatively easy to say in hindsight, that it was only 2 minutes of light rain, but if that doesn't transpire and it's 2 minutes of heavy rain, that can have a more significant impact. Once the umpires have taken the decision, to go off (or not start), then they need to get it covered quickly as possible. It doesn't take much rain to make a bowlers run-up dangerous, at which point, they'd wait even longer for it to dry out. Which no one cares about in short form, as the whole ethos is to hit them for six anyhow.

In short form, there's probably less of a problem, as both sides more likely to be impacted by any prevalent weather conditions.

[BWFC_Insane]

The umpires and ground-staff are not meteorologists. Their task, in a 5 day match, is to keep the condition of the ground as equitable as possible for both sides, notwithstanding the wicket changes over that period. It's relatively easy to say in hindsight, that it was only 2 minutes of light rain, but if that doesn't transpire and it's 2 minutes of heavy rain, that can have a more significant impact. Once the umpires have taken the decision, to go off (or not start), then they need to get it covered quickly as possible. It doesn't take much rain to make a bowlers run-up dangerous, at which point, they'd wait even longer for it to dry out. Which no one cares about in short form, as the whole ethos is to hit them for six anyhow.

In short form, there's probably less of a problem, as both sides more likely to be impacted by any prevalent weather conditions.

If we don't wake up and do something about it test cricket will die. It will die with us. Nobody is saying just bowl in dangerous conditions or whatever. But why when going off at the start of a day for a light shower can't players and umpires wait close to the playing area so that if it stops play can resume immediately should conditions allow? Instead it takes ages for players to trundle back from the dressing room etc...

There are basics that are just wrong right now. I'd also argue that test cricket is partly dealing with conditions that may not be equitable for both sides. I think that's just something we have to learn to deal with if we are to see the game evolve and remain popular.

[Worthy4England]

The umpires and ground-staff are not meteorologists. Their task, in a 5 day match, is to keep the condition of the ground as equitable as possible for both sides, notwithstanding the wicket changes over that period. It's relatively easy to say in hindsight, that it was only 2 minutes of light rain, but if that doesn't transpire and it's 2 minutes of heavy rain, that can have a more significant impact. Once the umpires have taken the decision, to go off (or not start), then they need to get it covered quickly as possible. It doesn't take much rain to make a bowlers run-up dangerous, at which point, they'd wait even longer for it to dry out. Which no one cares about in short form, as the whole ethos is to hit them for six anyhow.

In short form, there's probably less of a problem, as both sides more likely to be impacted by any prevalent weather conditions.

If we don't wake up and do something about it test cricket will die. It will die with us. Nobody is saying just bowl in dangerous conditions or whatever. But why when going off at the start of a day for a light shower can't players and umpires wait close to the playing area so that if it stops play can resume immediately should conditions allow? Instead it takes ages for players to trundle back from the dressing room etc...

There are basics that are just wrong right now. I'd also argue that test cricket is partly dealing with conditions that may not be equitable for both sides. I think that's just something we have to learn to deal with if we are to see the game evolve and remain popular.

Where are they going to wait? and for how long? Do they just stand under brollies around the boundary? Once covers are on, it's likely to take longer to remove them, than it takes to get from the changing rooms to the boundary edge. Not every game is about "rush" and "action" and test cricket's one of them.

Of course dealing with conditions is part of the game. I said that myself. But keeping it as equitable as possible for both sides should still be the goal.

As for the notion that Test Cricket is going to die, Test attendances in the UK have been increasing steadily since the 1980's and increased every decade since. Of course there are larger grounds now, and I doubt anyone is going back to 1970's and before when they used to cram folks on the outfield round the boundary rope. Test Matches were generally over-subscribed anyhow. I'm all for having alternative forms of the game, although they don't appeal to me. Surprisingly enough, probably the ground that has the highest liklihood of wham, bam results cricket (Headingly) - the trend has been downwards. I doubt many "youngsters" would understand "Test Cricket" if they played 15 hours a day in all weather. If I was trying to get a youngster interested, I wouldn't take them to a Test Match.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'll be down in Cardiff next Wednesday evening with nowt fert do. Just checked the 'What's On' and it came up with The Hundred - Welsh Fire vs London Spirit. 1 x women's game + 1 x men's game.

Might just give it a whirl

Do it - will be a cracking day out. We went to OT for the Machester game a couple of weeks back and it was brilliant

But all these opposethehundred cranks on twitter say nobody is enjoying it and there are no crowds there?

I have watched a bit on telly and its ok - I don't get too excited by it but I also don't see why it would make anyone angry. If its popular it will take off and if not it won't.

As discussed previously, my preferred format will always be test cricket. However, as I found when I went to the T20 at OT in 2018 between us and Yorks, once you've got into the spirit of it there's a fantastic evening out to be had. I just have no interest in watching it when I'm sat at home.

[BWFC_Insane]

The umpires and ground-staff are not meteorologists. Their task, in a 5 day match, is to keep the condition of the ground as equitable as possible for both sides, notwithstanding the wicket changes over that period. It's relatively easy to say in hindsight, that it was only 2 minutes of light rain, but if that doesn't transpire and it's 2 minutes of heavy rain, that can have a more significant impact. Once the umpires have taken the decision, to go off (or not start), then they need to get it covered quickly as possible. It doesn't take much rain to make a bowlers run-up dangerous, at which point, they'd wait even longer for it to dry out. Which no one cares about in short form, as the whole ethos is to hit them for six anyhow.

In short form, there's probably less of a problem, as both sides more likely to be impacted by any prevalent weather conditions.

If we don't wake up and do something about it test cricket will die. It will die with us. Nobody is saying just bowl in dangerous conditions or whatever. But why when going off at the start of a day for a light shower can't players and umpires wait close to the playing area so that if it stops play can resume immediately should conditions allow? Instead it takes ages for players to trundle back from the dressing room etc...

There are basics that are just wrong right now. I'd also argue that test cricket is partly dealing with conditions that may not be equitable for both sides. I think that's just something we have to learn to deal with if we are to see the game evolve and remain popular.

Where are they going to wait? and for how long? Do they just stand under brollies around the boundary? Once covers are on, it's likely to take longer to remove them, than it takes to get from the changing rooms to the boundary edge. Not every game is about "rush" and "action" and test cricket's one of them.

Of course dealing with conditions is part of the game. I said that myself. But keeping it as equitable as possible for both sides should still be the goal.

As for the notion that Test Cricket is going to die, Test attendances in the UK have been increasing steadily since the 1980's and increased every decade since. Of course there are larger grounds now, and I doubt anyone is going back to 1970's and before when they used to cram folks on the outfield round the boundary rope. Test Matches were generally over-subscribed anyhow. I'm all for having alternative forms of the game, although they don't appeal to me. Surprisingly enough, probably the ground that has the highest liklihood of wham, bam results cricket (Headingly) - the trend has been downwards. I doubt many "youngsters" would understand "Test Cricket" if they played 15 hours a day in all weather. If I was trying to get a youngster interested, I wouldn't take them to a Test Match.

Attendances in grounds or even English watchers is not really the issue AFAIK worldwide TV audiences are declining. And thus the economy to support test cricket is also declining. Its of course not all about breaks or delays but the game does need to look at what it can do - especially around the pace its played at without fundamentally changing the format.

The thinking that you wouldn't take kids to a test match to get them into cricket for me sums up the problem. In India I've heard many kids - cricket is 20 over matches. That's their only reference now. IPL and international T20. They probably don't even know India are playing in a test now. I grew up on test and first class stuff. I like all formats but I feel that the line of thought that T20 is the entry to moving up to test matches in terms of interest levels - I'm not at all convinced. If the baseline is T20 I think you're effectively taking away most of the understanding of what makes a test match great and from there I suspect you are in many cases past the point of no return.

There are so many things to go on - scheduling tests at beginning and end of summer - refusing to start earlier than 11am - slow overrates - length of weather delays. You can do somethings to make the game more friendly for audiences on TV and in the ground. Why wouldn't you? Loads of ex pros are saying this so it isn't just me. I understand reticence for materially changing the game but most of this wouldn't impact the game.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The umpires and ground-staff are not meteorologists. Their task, in a 5 day match, is to keep the condition of the ground as equitable as possible for both sides, notwithstanding the wicket changes over that period.

Back in my day (granted 60 years ago) the job of the groundstaff was to make the wicket as favourable as possible to the home team, depending of their skill sets.

[BWFC_Insane]

On another note - what a terrible start for England. Put India in to bat in what are very challenging conditions at Lords - 120-0.

Awful.

[TANGODANCER]

On another note - what a terrible start for England. Put India in to bat in what are very challenging conditions at Lords - 120-0.

Awful.

The commentators ramble on about "fine bowling", but India are dealing with it easily, 126-0 right now. We're in trouble.

[Worthy4England]

The umpires and ground-staff are not meteorologists. Their task, in a 5 day match, is to keep the condition of the ground as equitable as possible for both sides, notwithstanding the wicket changes over that period. It's relatively easy to say in hindsight, that it was only 2 minutes of light rain, but if that doesn't transpire and it's 2 minutes of heavy rain, that can have a more significant impact. Once the umpires have taken the decision, to go off (or not start), then they need to get it covered quickly as possible. It doesn't take much rain to make a bowlers run-up dangerous, at which point, they'd wait even longer for it to dry out. Which no one cares about in short form, as the whole ethos is to hit them for six anyhow.

In short form, there's probably less of a problem, as both sides more likely to be impacted by any prevalent weather conditions.

If we don't wake up and do something about it test cricket will die. It will die with us. Nobody is saying just bowl in dangerous conditions or whatever. But why when going off at the start of a day for a light shower can't players and umpires wait close to the playing area so that if it stops play can resume immediately should conditions allow? Instead it takes ages for players to trundle back from the dressing room etc...

There are basics that are just wrong right now. I'd also argue that test cricket is partly dealing with conditions that may not be equitable for both sides. I think that's just something we have to learn to deal with if we are to see the game evolve and remain popular.

Where are they going to wait? and for how long? Do they just stand under brollies around the boundary? Once covers are on, it's likely to take longer to remove them, than it takes to get from the changing rooms to the boundary edge. Not every game is about "rush" and "action" and test cricket's one of them.

Of course dealing with conditions is part of the game. I said that myself. But keeping it as equitable as possible for both sides should still be the goal.

As for the notion that Test Cricket is going to die, Test attendances in the UK have been increasing steadily since the 1980's and increased every decade since. Of course there are larger grounds now, and I doubt anyone is going back to 1970's and before when they used to cram folks on the outfield round the boundary rope. Test Matches were generally over-subscribed anyhow. I'm all for having alternative forms of the game, although they don't appeal to me. Surprisingly enough, probably the ground that has the highest liklihood of wham, bam results cricket (Headingly) - the trend has been downwards. I doubt many "youngsters" would understand "Test Cricket" if they played 15 hours a day in all weather. If I was trying to get a youngster interested, I wouldn't take them to a Test Match.

Attendances in grounds or even English watchers is not really the issue AFAIK worldwide TV audiences are declining. And thus the economy to support test cricket is also declining. Its of course not all about breaks or delays but the game does need to look at what it can do - especially around the pace its played at without fundamentally changing the format.

The thinking that you wouldn't take kids to a test match to get them into cricket for me sums up the problem. In India I've heard many kids - cricket is 20 over matches. That's their only reference now. IPL and international T20. They probably don't even know India are playing in a test now. I grew up on test and first class stuff. I like all formats but I feel that the line of thought that T20 is the entry to moving up to test matches in terms of interest levels - I'm not at all convinced. If the baseline is T20 I think you're effectively taking away most of the understanding of what makes a test match great and from there I suspect you are in many cases past the point of no return.

There are so many things to go on - scheduling tests at beginning and end of summer - refusing to start earlier than 11am - slow overrates - length of weather delays. You can do somethings to make the game more friendly for audiences on TV and in the ground. Why wouldn't you? Loads of ex pros are saying this so it isn't just me. I understand reticence for materially changing the game but most of this wouldn't impact the game.

I think your first point is difficult to get a "like for like" comparison in over time, and there's the factors around it being on subscription service vs terrestrial. But the figures that are generally out there, are not showing declination in many cases, although this varies by Country. There's also radio. I quite often prefer to listen to TMS, than actually watch it - especially the Ashes, down-under, say. 103m viewers watched the India v England test series. 26m watched the first test. That's no declination.

https://www.crictracker.com/wtc-final-b ... orts-barc/

As to the economy supporting Test cricket, it's very difficult to pick the bones out of the TV deals as to how much of them are related to rights to show the shorter forms of the games vs test cricket, but figures tend to suggest around £3m - £5m per test is probably in the ball park.

Kids cricket was 20 overs for as long as I can remember in England - and certainly when I was a kid...So not quite sure where you're coming from with that line of thinking. You don't get kids playing timed or day-long cricket, generally. It's not really healthy for them. (I know having played in the seniors since being about 11)

As for making the game "more friendly" - remember when US were talking about roll-ins at football, playing in quarters so people can get a break etc. Not universally accepted. Most of the gripes are just that. I don't expect a bowler who might have to bowl for two days to shunt through them as quick as one bowling 5 overs in a limited overs thrash. I think slow over-rates aren't great. You're probably not going to do a shit ton about weather delays, unless we start putting roof's over the stadia. Why not start football at 9 in the morning, to leave the rest of the day free for people? Spectators often have long journey's for their day of test cricket. Sure if I'm going to OT, 10 in the morning isn't an inconvenience, but if I'm off to Edgbaston or Trent Bridge, then that would be a pretty early start. To achieve what, exactly?