Domestic Four Day Cricket - Why Four?

[scaly_piscine]

So why is domestic cricket typically four days? This goes for much of the world. NZ and Australia stuff is happening now, this is also 4 days.

Australia's domestic cricket looks absolute garbage for four day stuff. Mostly drawn matches, frequent declarations, often after ~120 overs in the first innings and scoring not more much more than 400, too much revolving around bonus points and draws. In NZ barring an abandonment and a heavily shortened forfeited innings match, those games have completed but the scores are typically much lower and it's much more bowling friendly.

Those two nations are exhibiting both ends of the spectrum - if the pitch is flat you typically don't get a result and you get all sorts of contrivances to try and force one. So instead teams will often contrive results wickets that mean dobber bowling and high risk batting prevail more than they should.

Such cricket is focused around developing fundamental skills (as opposed to being a big commercial attraction like 20 over stuff), ideally where the best players can go on to play Test cricket. Test cricket is 5 days. This length of time allows games played on a much wider range of pitches to reach their more natural conclusion without the contrivance. Besides scheduling and making Test cricket more 'special' at the expense of domestic cricket I can't see any good reasons to shorten domestic cricket to 4 days. It seems to me something that's a hangover from the past that exists because of the status quo. It produces lower quality cricket with more contrivance.

We are seeing knock-out matches typically being 5 days, ironically this usually involves some rule about the team with a first innings lead which often makes the match a bit of a farce in a different way.

Most people on here would be against reductions in Test cricket, or even reducing domestic cricket formats by ~20% (40 overs or The Hundred) and would see it as silly. I can't think of any other professional sport that would do this. They don't play shortened games in professional football, rugby etc. they don't make it the 80m and 320m in athletics or give you a smaller javelin to chuck. So why is First Class cricket still four days?

 

[Bri]

For England moving from 3 to 4 days was an encouragement to batsmen to bat longer so that be better prepared for Test cricket. At the same time the league structre changed to 2 divisions.
I sounds like pitches in Australia need to be spiced up a bit if they can't do four innings in four days or they can use the Duke of course.

 

[Paddy O'Dors]

Surely the higher quality of players in test cricket means that 5 days is warranted, and the generally lower quality in county cricket justifies 4 days? Or am I missing summat? How often does a county game (that's not weather affected) last 4 days and not get a result? If you allocate 5 days and the vast majority of games end in 4 days or less then that could be a few days lost in what's already a congested fixture schedule.

I would add I'm talking about English cricket. Not really bothered about what they do overseas cos that's entirely up to them and of little interest to me tbh.

 

[scaly_piscine]

Just to update.

In Australia, of the 17 Sheffield matches 8 have had positive results.

1st Match - Western Australia declared at 481/5 and 215/2 to force a win.
2nd Match - No declarations, Queensland winning by an innings
7th Match - No declarations, NSW winning by 1 wicket in a fairly low scoring game.
8th Match - NSW declaring in their mammoth second innings (64 all out in their first).
9th Match - Queensland declaring at 496/5 & 105/3 to force a win
11th Match - No declarations, highest score of 200.
12th Match - Pretty ideal 4 day match scenario. No declarations, scores of around 300.
16th Match - Contrived result (3 declarations and a successful chase)

None of the drawn matches got that close to a result apart from a contrived match (14th). This is garbage preparation for Test cricket. Sure you're practising skills, but it's no more ideal than playing domestic 20 over cricket is an ideal way to prepare for ODIs. You basically get one-sided drubbings, low scoring shootouts, contrived results and once in a blue moon a competitive moderate scoring game that naturally concludes in a positive result.

New Zealand's Plunket Shield has a much higher proportion of results but they're typically very low scoring, which is at odds with their Test matches.

There's a huge gap between Test cricket and FC cricket precisely because of the shortened format. It lends itself to dobbers who are deadly on the results pitches provided - because the format of the competition invariably promotes positive results contrary to the duration (4 days) which does not. Or you get the matches where a natural result is difficult in the time, so you end up with more aggressive batting and contrived results. Obviously if you're preparing a results pitch then it tends to be pace bowling orientated. Taunton being the only real exception. You don't see many Test-style pitches because they don't often enough produce a result in 4 days. So finger spinners are basically peripheral or running through teams, with little in-between.

Of course good players will do well across 4 or 5 day cricket. But limited ones will only do well in the low scoring shootouts, it becomes a vicious cycle - dobbers do well so you get batsmen who will mostly can only succeed against dobbers. Then in England we prepare flat wickets for the Tests. Countries stick with 4 days domestically because everyone else does. That seems to be the only fundamental reason, because it goes against all logic otherwise.

 

[YES WE GYAN]

They play more overs in a day in the County Championship than test cricket, so it works out at over 4 days effectively.

 

[scaly_piscine]

Only +6 overs a day. It makes a little bit of a difference but not massive. You also have one fewer day to catch up on lost play. It's also arguable that it's another move that works against producing fast bowlers.

 

[brandon]

For England moving from 3 to 4 days was an encouragement to batsmen to bat longer so that be better prepared for Test cricket. At the same time the league structre changed to 2 divisions.

Not quite on the mark there Bri, 4 day Championship cricket was introduced in totality in 1993. The Division split was in 2000.

Only +6 overs a day. It makes a little bit of a difference but not massive. You also have one fewer day to catch up on lost play. It's also arguable that it's another move that works against producing fast bowlers.

I’ve long since been an advocate of giving Championship games a five day window, so that if Day 1 is completely washed out you can start on the second day as if it was the first and still have a chance of a full allotment of four days.

I also think that if a substantial amount of time is lost from the first couple of days, there could easily be an extra hour added to the final two days in order to minimise lost overs and therefore give more chance of a natural result.

Certainly when you consider our weather conditions and our long summer nights, there’s scope there to have play going on until 21:00 in order to catch up. Obviously it’s got to be within reason, you’ve still got to guard against completely exhausting players but I’m sure we’ve all been to days of cricket where the umpires sack it off in mid-afternoon when it’s raining only for things to brighten up and long after folk have got home there’s lovely cricket weather for three or four hours that very same evening.

More flexibility has been long overdue on county playing times IMO.
_
Although I do feel that 4 days of ‘play’ is more than enough for domestic first class cricket in this country. More so for the logistical aspects.

 

[scaly_piscine]

I agree with the idea of flexibility with regards to timings and that applies to Test cricket too. Weekdays having a generally later starting time would make a lot of sense, and using all those daylight hours to get the allotted overs in would help.

Logistically 4 days v 5 days is complex. I suspect with the 5 day format you'd get a higher ratio of cricket played versus rest days because the extra day of play doesn't really impact the number of rest days needed either side. Obviously it would reduce the total number of games played.

 

[TravellingMackem]

I agree with the idea of flexibility with regards to timings and that applies to Test cricket too. Weekdays having a generally later starting time would make a lot of sense, and using all those daylight hours to get the allotted overs in would help.

Logistically 4 days v 5 days is complex. I suspect with the 5 day format you'd get a higher ratio of cricket played versus rest days because the extra day of play doesn't really impact the number of rest days needed either side. Obviously it would reduce the total number of games played.

4 days was picked because you could play a game a week and it makes scheduling easier. Could play, for instance, Monday to Thursday then have 3 rest days and get back on it next Monday. 5 day tests are logistically a pain in the arse as every test match starts on a different day and 4 day tests would be easier for the casual viewer.