England v India: How can we put an end to one-sided Test series?

[chewy]

Interesting take from Mike Atherton

England v India: How can we put an end to one-sided Test series?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/england-v-india-how-can-we-put-an-end-to-one-sided-test-series-22kkvn5mm

 

Quote

 

On the morning of the third day at Lord’s, after the 35.2 overs of carnage we had witnessed the day before, I cast my mind back to my playing days. What, I wondered, would have been the outcome two decades ago, if today’s players had been transported back in time? Would there have been the same level of damage, ten wickets falling in virtually a single session?

The answer depended not on a calculation of whether the game has improved or regressed, or even changed in nature; not on whether bowlers such as James Anderson are more skilful now, nor whether batsmen’s techniques are less able to withstand them but on the conditions that allowed so much cricket to be played.

 

Ultimately, that — as much as the excellence of England’s bowlers and inability of India’s batsmen to withstand them — dictated why the innings ended so quickly.

I am certain that, 20 years ago, there would have been only 8.3 overs possible on that second day, given the torrential rain that fell.

In my day — not a phrase I intend to use too frequently in this column — there were no floodlights and the drainage system that has been installed at immense cost had not been put in. With the outfield a lake at mid-afternoon, we would have been in the pub by tea.

 

Instead, the miraculous drainage allowed for play to restart at 5.10pm; the floodlights and regulations allowed play to continue thereafter for longer than would have been the case before — a further 27 overs in what were chilling conditions for any batsman. The brilliant Anderson duly took advantage with another display of great swing bowling.

Rewinding the clock to our hypothetical scenario, let us assume for a moment that the quality of the players was (relative to each other) the same or similar. With the second day abandoned around mid-afternoon, India would have started the third day at 15 for three and would have had a day of sunshine ahead of them from which to recover from a disastrous start. Who knows what would have happened from there but what is certain is that the game would not have finished in, essentially, two days of cricket. The likelihood of a draw would have increased exponentially.

 

Before I move on to the point, let me emphasise that floodlights, drainage and anything that allows spectators to watch more cricket is a good thing. I bought a godson of mine some tickets for Lord’s for his 18th birthday so I know how ruinously expensive they are. I did not agree with the umpires’ decision to take the players from the field on Saturday evening for bad light, either, when the floodlights were on. Spectators deserve to see as much play as possible. This, though, is one of a number of factors that have significantly had an impact on the likelihood of a positive result; increased run rates for batsmen (the influence of one-day cricket), lower strike rates for bowlers, pitches that are more skewed to the home team, generally more attacking attitudes and DRS being others that make a draw far less likely now than before.

Using the statsguru service on ESPNcricinfo, you can chart the decline in the significance of the draw. Between 1960 and 1989, the chance of a draw hovered at around 45 per cent. It then began to decline for all the reasons stated: to 36 per cent in the 1990s and 25 per cent in the 2000s. Since the start of 2013, the incidence of draws has declined to 18 per cent, a significant shift.

At the same time as this trend, greater advantages have accrued for home teams. With so much money in the game and careers and salaries dependent on results, the pressure to win matches at home has increased, producing more “home” pitches. The cramped and condensed schedules allow for too few proper practice matches for visiting teams and too few games in between Tests to rediscover form. When a home team get on a roll, it is difficult to stop the momentum.

 

Take three of the principal Test nations, England, India and Australia. In the 1980s England’s win ratio at home was 23 per cent; it increased marginally to 30 per cent in the 1990s and 54 per cent in the 2000s; this decade, England have won 62 per cent of matches at home. India won 19 per cent of their matches at home in the 1980s; this decade they have won 70 per cent. For Australia those corresponding figures are 35 per cent rising to 67 per cent. Home advantage is clearly more significant than it was.

 

 

After Lord’s, Trevor Bayliss was asked whether India had given themselves the best chance of success with their inadequate preparation — just one 18-a-side game in Chelmsford that they cut short. His answer reflected that of a modern-day coach who has often been asked the same questions of his own team’s preparation abroad.

“The simple fact is teams like Australia, India and England play so much cricket,” Bayliss said. “I’m sure everyone would love to play more warm-up matches than they do. You simply can’t fit them in. Somewhere along the line the players have to have some sort of rest. Most will play all the games but to keep putting more practice matches in, it’s almost impossible.

“It’s just the way it is. We go away and it’s the same. We play the practice matches that we do and get asked the same questions: ‘Was your preparation right?’ Well, we’d love to have a few more games. But there aren’t ten days in a week.”

It is always dangerous to overplay conclusions from one match and we should not underplay just how well England played, how bad India were and how favourable the conditions were to the home team from day to day — and the series is not yet done. This piece is about longer-term trends. Over the long term, two things are clear: in Test cricket, the draw is now far less significant than it was; at the same time, the advantages to the home team have been increasing. The result is a greater number of very one-sided series.

The question to be asked is whether supporters are bothered by this? A reader comment under Monday’s match report said this: “Perhaps it is media hype but the England team seem to change from absolutely useless to world beaters with increasing rapidity. As a result I have lost all interest.” Another wrote: “Imperious at home; rubbish away. That sums up all Test-playing nations right now.”

I’d be interested to hear views. England’s numbers man, Nathan Leamon, has made the point that the draw has been an important counterpoint to home advantage in the past but no one (I assume) would advocate a return to draw-laden cricket.

I would certainly not advocate a return to flatter pitches, either. But if one-sided series are detrimental to the spectacle, how could the authorities tackle this imbalance?

 

 

[zen]

Just have a no dead rubber clause. If Eng wins the next test, the series is over w/ the clause 

[velu]

31 minutes ago, zen said:

Just have a no dead rubber clause. If Eng wins the next test, the series is over w/ the clause 

considering the financial losses , they will prepare roads and rohit can make a comeback  

[ShankarShailendra]

12 minutes ago, velu said:

considering the financial losses , they will prepare roads and rohit can make a comeback  

There is already an army of fans asking for Rohit's comeback by stating he can't do much worse than our specialist batsmen. 

But Rohit is an once in a generation talent, if Vijay gets a pair Rohit will get a King's pair. 

[Trichromatic]

5 hours ago, zen said:

Just have a no dead rubber clause. If Eng wins the next test, the series is over w/ the clause 

And who will pay for losses?

[R!TTER]

Just now, ShankarShailendra said:

There is already an army of fans asking for Rohit's comeback by stating he can't do much worse than our specialist batsmen. 

But Rohit is an once in a generation talent, if Vijay gets a pair Rohit will get a King's pair. 

Maybe he needs to grow a pair first?

[zen]

36 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

And who will pay for losses?

If the clause is there, the economics would be worked out accordingly proactively so there would be no losses 

[Trichromatic]

13 minutes ago, zen said:

If the clause is there, the economics would be worked out accordingly proactively so there would be no losses 

Test matches are already loss making affair.

 

Channels lose money for any day cricket is scheduled and not played. How can they work it out? Boards are not only entities involved in organizing the event. They have to pay to govt and other organizations for bookings and no one will be ready for no payment in case of cancellation.

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Test matches are already loss making affair.

 

Channels lose money for any day cricket is scheduled and not played. How can they work it out? Boards are not only entities involved in organizing the event. They have to pay to govt and other organizations for bookings and no one will be ready for no payment in case of cancellation.

It is simple. You have a 5 test match series but schedule is as a 3 test series. And then add a test match if the status is draw. We used to have the best of 3 final in triseries in Aus. Similar concept would apply 

[Trichromatic]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

It is simple. You have a 5 test match series but schedule is as a 3 test series. And then add a test match if the status is draw. We used to have the best of 3 final in triseries in Aus. Similar concept would apply 

Channels will still have to pay for remaining 2 tests - 10 day of cricket. How much margin a business can expect from 15 days of cricket to recover loss of 10 days? 40% reduction!

 

In case of 3 final - boards lose gate money and channels lose operational cost. They followed that for some time and then discarded the idea.

 

In 2003 WC, ICC wanted to keep additional day for matches affected by rain. Channels pressurized them to change it as in the end channels had to pay for extra day and there was no return in case matches aren't washed out. For boards it wasn't big loss as they had to organized the match next day in same stadium.

[zen]

11 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Channels will still have to pay for remaining 2 tests - 10 day of cricket. How much margin a business can expect from 15 days of cricket to recover loss of 10 days? 40% reduction!

 

In case of 3 final - boards lose gate money and channels lose operational cost. They followed that for some time and then discarded the idea.

 

In 2003 WC, ICC wanted to keep additional day for matches affected by rain. Channels pressurized them to change it as in the end channels had to pay for extra day and there was no return in case matches aren't washed out. For boards it wasn't big loss as they had to organized the match next day in same stadium.

they would only pay for 3 test matches. Once the status is confirmed after 3 tests, they will pay for the remaining 2 games 

 

[Trichromatic]

19 minutes ago, zen said:

they would only pay for 3 test matches. Once the status is confirmed after 3 tests, they will pay for the remaining 2 games 

 

Why would anyone agree to such arrangement and how will anyone arrange everything within 4-5 days or max 1 week?

 

Satellite bookings are paid fully Why will govt keep slots open for them to decide according to outcome of result?

 

Pitches are supposed to be prepared much earlier.

 

For a match at Eden and crowd of 60k, 10k police officers are deployed. Can they ask govt to reserve those policemen and decide after 3rd test whether those will be used or not. Is it possible to assign duties of 10k policemen in 1 week gap between 3rd and 4th test?

 

Traffic planning has to be done much earlier. Volunteers are decided and assigned in England for matches. Those volunteers are trained to assist people. Training them costs money. 

 

Organizers contact vendors for grounds, there are tons of other operational costs. Hotel bookings, flights, buses, food arrangements, matches.

 

Add to that if any of those is cancelled people are left no alternative to earn money.

[jf1gp_1]

Wonder where all these articles were when they lost 4-0 in india last year and Nair was busy getting 300 ?

[Trichromatic]

3 hours ago, zen said:

they would only pay for 3 test matches. Once the status is confirmed after 3 tests, they will pay for the remaining 2 games 

 

 

2 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Why would anyone agree to such arrangement and how will anyone arrange everything within 4-5 days or max 1 week?

 

Satellite bookings are paid fully Why will govt keep slots open for them to decide according to outcome of result?

 

Pitches are supposed to be prepared much earlier.

 

For a match at Eden and crowd of 60k, 10k police officers are deployed. Can they ask govt to reserve those policemen and decide after 3rd test whether those will be used or not. Is it possible to assign duties of 10k policemen in 1 week gap between 3rd and 4th test?

 

Traffic planning has to be done much earlier. Volunteers are decided and assigned in England for matches. Those volunteers are trained to assist people. Training them costs money. 

 

Organizers contact vendors for grounds, there are tons of other operational costs. Hotel bookings, flights, buses, food arrangements, matches.

 

Add to that if any of those is cancelled people are left no alternative to earn money.

And add the work done by other security agencies. Intelligence agencies have to work and plan separately for such gatherings where 20k+ people are expected at one place. 

 

How much national resources would be wasted just to ensure that there is no dead rubber?

[express bowling]

13 hours ago, zen said:

Just have a no dead rubber clause. If Eng wins the next test, the series is over w/ the clause 

 

Neither the cricket boards /  ICC  nor the TV channel heads would agree.

 

It would be totally financially non-viable.

 

It would finish off test cricket.

 

What would I gain from this if I were the head of a cricket board or the head of a broadcasting TV channel  ?

[zen]

4 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

And add the work done by other security agencies. Intelligence agencies have to work and plan separately for such gatherings where 20k+ people are expected at one place. 

 

How much national resources would be wasted just to ensure that there is no dead rubber?

Again, you are delving into details that can be handled by professionals .... the series has to be prepared like a 5 test one but the remaining tests played based on status of the first 3 tests 

 

 

 

 

 

[philcric]

The teams are not travelling well.

 

One option to bring some parity is to do away with the toss and let the visiting team decide to bat or bowl first.

 

[zen]

34 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Neither the cricket boards /  ICC  nor the TV channel heads would agree.

 

It would be totally financially non-viable.

 

It would finish off test cricket.

 

What would I gain from this if I were the head of a cricket board or the head of a broadcasting TV channel  ?

If money is the main consideration, organize more test in a series   .... the idea is to curtail unnecessary uncompetitive games that could hurt test cricket in the long run

[beetle]

9 hours ago, zen said:

If the clause is there, the economics would be worked out accordingly proactively so there would be no losses 

That is getting too close to fixing results.

Economics guiding results will always end in dirty play.

[Trichromatic]

46 minutes ago, zen said:

Again, you are delving into details that can be handled by professionals .... the series has to be prepared like a 5 test one but the remaining tests played based on status of the first 3 tests

What type of handling they can do?

 

They have to plan in advance for sure. They can't do it overnight.

 

All tests are played in different venues. 

 

Take simple case of hotel bookings for 100 people (just players, staff and match officials). What type of professional planning can allow them to book the hotel till 3rd test and cancel it based on outcome of third test? This number will be higher if you include journalist and all other arrangements.

 

Same goes for flight bookings. In case remaining tests are cancelled, they will reschedule the flights for everyone. 

 

What about spectators who travel from different places to see the match, how is it fair to them? Will boards refund their expenses?

 

If all matches are in same city then govt can even plan for it. But for a different city why will govt arrange 10k policeman for a venue only to cancel it with week notice? 

 

It can be handled by professionals, but overall loss is not worth for idea of removing dead rubbers.