India to blame for decline in Test cricket?

[lethal_raina]

In 2010 from january till now, India have played 7 tests and they will play 7 more before 31st december 2010 so thats 14 tests in total in a calendar year. so my question is why do people point fingers at india and BCCI when it comes to decline of test cricket. India's opponents in test cricket in 2010 calendar year were/will be Bangladesh, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Australia and New Zealand. These teams are number 2,3,4,8 and 9 ranked teams in Test cricket. only 1 test match was drawn out of 7 matches that india have played in 2010 calendar year so far, so 85% of the matches produced a result.

[hitman1980]

Money .. jealousy aur racism ..

[DomainK]

Some of my post in an Australia-English forum about a year ago when the familiar subject of "Save test cricket from India was being discussed. This post was inspired from an old post in ICF, cant remember whose post it was: I thought the topic was killing the match thread, so lets discuss it on another thread. I am really surprised to hear all this India is against test cricket theories. Because I had a perception that India was actually doing the opposite. Lets see some stats and see to what extent the accusations are correct. In the match thread ***** was comparing India to England, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. So lets keep the comparisons with the same teams. Lets see the number of test matches played in these countries and the results (especially draws over a period of time). Since comparing a few years does not actually show anything, lets see how things stand between when BCCI was not so powerful and when they really became powerful. in the 90s, India played 69 test matches. 31 draws and the rest produced results. In this decade so far, when BCCI really became powerful, we have so far (the decade is not over yet), played 102 test matches out of which only 36 were draws. So, in the past when we were a much weaker team, we actually played less matches and drew many matches. Now we play many more (an increase of 50% decade over decade) and we draw so less these days. Where exactly is the problem? In the 90s, England played 107 matches, 38 draws. in 2000s, they played 127 matches, 36 draws. There was no significant rise in the number of test matches, not much change in how many produced results either. In the 90s, Australia played 108 matches, 29 draws. In 2000s, 111 matches, 17 draws. They ruled in this decade, so naturally there were more results. No significant rise in the number of tests played. Now, as far as the number of tests rising in India in this decade is concerned, one can argue that it's because BCCI has started playing too much cricket, especially ODIs for money and the number of tests have increased proportionately. So, lets see what is the rise in ODIs- in the 90s India played 257 ODIs. In this decade so far, 302 ODIs. Significantly low compared to the rise in the number of tests. Proves that in 2000s, BCCI has concentrated on tests more than on ODIs. In the 90s, England played 257 ODIs. In 200s, it has already reached 302. The decade over decade growth of ODIs is higher that the DOD growth of tests. In the 90s, Australia played 225 ODIs. In 2000s, it has already reached 283 ODIs. Again, the DOD growth of ODIs is much higher than the DOD growth of tests in Australia. So, India has actually significantly increased playing tests compared to ODIs and have significantly reduced the draw rates delivering more results than before. Also, unlike before, India has started winning many tests matches and series abroad. Compared to that both England and Australia have increased playing ODIs more than tests, and their draw rates remain more or less the same. So where doe this theory come from that test cricket needs to be saved from India. That tests are under such attack from India that ***** goes to the extent of proposing isolating India to save test cricket? Another post of mine from the same discussion: In the last five years, for every 2.4 test played in India, there has been one draw. For every 3.18 matches played in England, there has been one draw. I don't think difference has been so drastic where India could be accused of killing test cricket. Another post of mine from the same thread: In the beginning when T20 cricket started, BCCI was against it because they thought that it's not a serious form of cricket. In fact, In I remember right, BCCI was the only board to vote against the T20 WC. At that time the cricket community criticized BCCI saying that it was blocking the growth of the game by resisting the natural changes. The same theory of save cricket from India had surfaced then. At that time India had not played a single T20 match. Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa were the main participants in this format. Then the T20 WC happened, India entered the competition with zero experience in the format and ended up winning it. Then IPL surfaced and the same critics immediately changed their tone now claiming that BCCI is killing traditional cricket by promoting T20. The same teams who were busy promoting T20 earlier now have become the savior of test Cricket. So, whatever BCCI does, there is a group that start criticizing it. We are doing well in every format. We are leading in tests, We are no2 in ODIs and we were the defending champions in T20s. What exactly are we killing? All I can see is that we are contributing immensely to world cricket.

[anish233]

T20 to blame. IPL to blame. Meaningless ODI matches to Blame. Money to Blame. Terrorism to Blame. Pakistan to Blame. Poor Pitches in Sub-Continent to Blame. " New Age " Cricketers to Blame. " New Age " ( Not understanding Cricket) Fans to Blame. Test Cricket is the only form I watch.. ( I have started sort of watching ODI's cuz WC is coming up)... and its sad to see the best format being the last choice... for both Players and Fans.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Domaink, good stats. But IIRC, we didnt get to play many tests in the 90's was not because of greed from BCCI but from the then ICC bosses, Aus and Eng. We know how a series works. One team tours another and the host gets the money. Before FTP and even during the 1st FTP, the tour was extremely biased such that Eng, Aus not only played more than others but also played more at home which resulted in more money for them compared to the rest at the expense of the other teams. IIRC, Sachin has played something like 40% of tests at home while ponting 55%. Only since BCCI has wielded more power has the unfair means of Aus and Eng has been controlled. Now even though BCCI doesnt like to tour smaller nations, atleast they still reciprocate a tour which nets the other nations good profits or in other words we dont use the smaller nations, we just dont care for them.