Five Day Test Matches



Mainze

Striker
There was never really a debate for starters. Make it 4 days you might as well just scrap Test Cricket and play endless T20's. I'm sure the BCCI would love that mind, so I wouldn't rule it out.
 
Just like at the turn of the century when Pakistan were told in the darkness that their time wasting counted for nothing and the test would be played until there is a result one way or the other.
 

Khukuri

New Member
Unpopular opinion:

test match cricket was not always 5 days so the ‘purity’ of this length is historical hogwash

Does it matter if it’s played over 4 days if the number of overs per day is upped? With floodlights becoming ubiquitous these days what’s the difference in extending the playing day by an extra hour so the net loss in number of overs is 30? I’d argue that in most cases, with floodlights being an option, you’re likely to see more overs being played in 4 than you do today with 5.

There’s an excellent piece on cricinfo about how test matches are a money pit unless you’re England or Australia or you’re playing against India, and how decreasing duration by one day you could drastically reduce operational costs for a lot of boards.

I think one valid solve for ICC is to define a test match in terms of minimum expected overs and then leave it to the individual boards to decide the number of days it’s played over
 
Last edited:

Bri

Striker
Unpopular opinion:

test match cricket was not always 5 days so the ‘purity’ of this length is historical hogwash

Does it matter if it’s played over 4 days if the number of overs per day is upped? With floodlights becoming ubiquitous these days what’s the difference in extending the playing day by an extra hour so the net loss in number of overs is 30? I’d argue that in most cases, with floodlights being an option, you’re likely to see more overs being played in 4 than you do today with 5.

There’s an excellent piece on cricinfo about how test matches are a money pit unless you’re England or Australia or you’re playing against India, and how decreasing duration by one day you could drastically reduce operational costs for a lot of boards.

I think one valid solve for ICC is to define a test match in terms of minimum expected overs and then leave it to the individual boards to decide the number of days it’s played over
Floodlights won't work with a red ball. The pink ball trial didn't work apparently.
 

Struts

Midfield
Floodlights won't work with a red ball. The pink ball trial didn't work apparently.
Was it me or did the pink ball always sound like it was made of plastic when it got hit?

Went to NEPL finals day one year and they used an Orange ball which sounded fine and was easier to spot.
 
Unpopular opinion:

test match cricket was not always 5 days so the ‘purity’ of this length is historical hogwash

Does it matter if it’s played over 4 days if the number of overs per day is upped? With floodlights becoming ubiquitous these days what’s the difference in extending the playing day by an extra hour so the net loss in number of overs is 30? I’d argue that in most cases, with floodlights being an option, you’re likely to see more overs being played in 4 than you do today with 5.

There’s an excellent piece on cricinfo about how test matches are a money pit unless you’re England or Australia or you’re playing against India, and how decreasing duration by one day you could drastically reduce operational costs for a lot of boards.

I think one valid solve for ICC is to define a test match in terms of minimum expected overs and then leave it to the individual boards to decide the number of days it’s played over
Losing a full day to the weather blows that idea completely out of the water.

However I’d actually be in favour if there was a provision for a fifth (reserve) day in such an example.

So in the calendar 5 days would be set aside and if any one of the four days is lost, it’s added onto the end.

Regarding the players though, I can’t see them agreeing to an extra hour per day, 105 overs in a day at Test level would be too much I think. Especially considering things like burnout and injuries. Harder for bowlers for certain.
 

TheRey

Midfield
Unpopular opinion:

test match cricket was not always 5 days so the ‘purity’ of this length is historical hogwash

Does it matter if it’s played over 4 days if the number of overs per day is upped? With floodlights becoming ubiquitous these days what’s the difference in extending the playing day by an extra hour so the net loss in number of overs is 30? I’d argue that in most cases, with floodlights being an option, you’re likely to see more overs being played in 4 than you do today with 5.

There’s an excellent piece on cricinfo about how test matches are a money pit unless you’re England or Australia or you’re playing against India, and how decreasing duration by one day you could drastically reduce operational costs for a lot of boards.

I think one valid solve for ICC is to define a test match in terms of minimum expected overs and then leave it to the individual boards to decide the number of days it’s played over
I read that article to be fair, by the Zimbabwe lad? Did make a few good points.

My thoughts on the sanctity of 5 day Tests have been well documented, but I'd not be against a cash strapped nation playing a 4 day Test if it makes it more viable for them.

For me, as long as the major series are all five dayers, I don't have an issue. I didn't mind the Ireland Test being a four day, for example.
 

Aidan11

Winger
I think 5 days is right for a test match. The idea of 4 days with 8 more overs would struggle in some countries where the light fades quickly. For example here we have 6 pm scheduled finish times. This becomes 6.30 under 4 day rules. The day almost always extends by half an hour due to slow over rates. The finish gets even later if there is a rain break in the day. Add to that the possibility of a side claiming the extra half hour for a possible result in that time and it adds up to a finish of around 8pm.

That can be done in England where the light holds. However there are some countries where they would play in darkness if that happened. Floodlights don't work with a red ball so that's not an option.

It's easy to say allocate 4 day tests to minor test nations but a couple of days ago Zimbabwe played Sri Lanka over 5 days and it still ended in a draw.

Rain is also a factor. If an entire day's play was washed out you'd have 3 days to get a result similar to the old county championship games. Potential for a lot of bore draws or declaration bowling and I'd hate to see test cricket go down that route.
 

Bri

Striker
Losing a full day to the weather blows that idea completely out of the water.

However I’d actually be in favour if there was a provision for a fifth (reserve) day in such an example.

So in the calendar 5 days would be set aside and if any one of the four days is lost, it’s added onto the end.

Regarding the players though, I can’t see them agreeing to an extra hour per day, 105 overs in a day at Test level would be too much I think. Especially considering things like burnout and injuries. Harder for bowlers for certain.
Even having a reserve day would mean you'd still have to provide for playing on all five of the days so you'd still get 5 days of the costs even if you only had 4 or even 3 days play.

My inclination is not to give an inch on this. The Authorities (see how I avoided criticising the ECB :lol: ) have damaged Test cricket enough, I won't encourage them.
 

Top