Hats off to Test Cricket

[sensible-indian]

Test matches of course bring more variety. Even objectively. The same test match may witness a close match, or a match in which one team gets a 500 and the other getting bowled for 100, one team making more runs than both innings of the opponent combined, or both teams getting mauled in both innings and so on. In a T20 match, I already know the first batting team would be making 130-160 with a high probability and even though matches are often close, there is no variety in the style of play or the runs scored. With test matches, no one can predict what the team would score - it could be a mammoth 500 score, an decent 350 score or a paltry 150 score or even a sub 100 score. The range of runs scored in a test match is so high that each game looks different from another. The manner in which the runs are scored in a test match is also quite varied - one team may get 500 in 120 overs, another in 150 or even 180. Predictability is not the characteristic of a test match - the match may swing from session to session if the teams are competitive.

Great post. But sadly good test matches are rare.

[kruiser]

I enjoy all sports where I have a team that I am supporting. be it tennis, Kabaddi, badminton or test matches. As long as my team is doing good, i enjoy it. I do not watch it for the "Quality of Cricket" but for the vicarious pleasure of winning the game. So you may call T20 a different sport - tricket and i would still enjoy it as much as I do test cricket when India is doing good!

[fineleg]

Meanwhile in thoothukdi circus: there is a trundler called S. Aravind who is getting wickets at 120 speed! This is like Jogi 4-fer or 5-fer :facepalm: Only in circus can these Malcolm Marshall like trundlers "harass batsmen"! Mitchell Starc and Wasim Akram must be watching in awe at S. Aravind.

[Gollum]

Test matches of course bring more variety. Even objectively. The same test match may witness a close match, or a match in which one team gets a 500 and the other getting bowled for 100, one team making more runs than both innings of the opponent combined, or both teams getting mauled in both innings and so on. In a T20 match, I already know the first batting team would be making 130-160 with a high probability and even though matches are often close, there is no variety in the style of play or the runs scored. With test matches, no one can predict what the team would score - it could be a mammoth 500 score, an decent 350 score or a paltry 150 score or even a sub 100 score. The range of runs scored in a test match is so high that each game looks different from another. The manner in which the runs are scored in a test match is also quite varied - one team may get 500 in 120 overs, another in 150 or even 180. Predictability is not the characteristic of a test match - the match may swing from session to session if the teams are competitive.

Very different way of looking at things, never thought of it this way. :two_thumbs_up:

[sensible-indian]

Marut brings these gems from time to time. Brilliant poster. Love his posts.

[Sachin=GOD]

No other form of cricket (or for that matter any other sport) can beat a good, well fought test match. There is time for so many mini battles and so much of build up (a batsman slowly building up his inning or a bowler applying pressure consistently for 7-8 overs or a captain setting a very aggressive field for a particular batsman/bowler) that its just a joy to watch.

[NareshK]

No other form of cricket (or for that matter any other sport) can beat a good' date=' well fought test match. There is time for so many mini battles and so much of build up (a batsman slowly building up his inning or a bowler applying pressure consistently for 7-8 overs or a captain setting a very aggressive field for a particular batsman/bowler) that its just a joy to watch.[/quote'] But the fact is Test cricket has always been and will remain an elite sport that a few will enjoy and the vast majority simply dont give a rat's @ss about. Also, have to say test cricket between two poor sides or an one sided contest or a game which is played on flat pitches is excruciatingly boring. There can be nothing more boring than that.

[Precambrian]

Test cricket is like art movie. There are more people who hail it than actually watch it. I just wish this money drainer and a true remnant of the colonial era just dies a quick death.

[Yamaha]

Test matches of course bring more variety. Even objectively. The same test match may witness a close match, or a match in which one team gets a 500 and the other getting bowled for 100, one team making more runs than both innings of the opponent combined, or both teams getting mauled in both innings and so on. In a T20 match, I already know the first batting team would be making 130-160 with a high probability and even though matches are often close, there is no variety in the style of play or the runs scored. With test matches, no one can predict what the team would score - it could be a mammoth 500 score, an decent 350 score or a paltry 150 score or even a sub 100 score. The range of runs scored in a test match is so high that each game looks different from another. The manner in which the runs are scored in a test match is also quite varied - one team may get 500 in 120 overs, another in 150 or even 180. Predictability is not the characteristic of a test match - the match may swing from session to session if the teams are competitive.

Superb post this. Fresh perspective.

[Sachin=GOD]

But the fact is Test cricket has always been and will remain an elite sport that a few will enjoy and the vast majority simply dont give a rat's @ss about. Also, have to say test cricket between two poor sides or an one sided contest or a game which is played on flat pitches is excruciatingly boring. There can be nothing more boring than that.

Of course the audience has always been very limited. In fact with the advent of shorter formats and seeing that today's youngsters are more impatient than ever, test matches will see a decline in audience. Add to that the fact that ICC has done nothing to promote the game in new countries. Agreed. That's why I said a well fought test.

[f.b.m]

Meanwhile in thoothukdi circus: there is a trundler called S. Aravind who is getting wickets at 120 speed! This is like Jogi 4-fer or 5-fer :facepalm: Only in circus can these Malcolm Marshall like trundlers "harass batsmen"! Mitchell Starc and Wasim Akram must be watching in awe at S. Aravind.

As opposed to Ranji trophy where only lejunds like Vinay Kumar and Joginder Sharma got wickets and L. Balaji opened the bowling in the final.

[fineleg]

Test matches of course bring more variety. Even objectively. The same test match may witness a close match, or a match in which one team gets a 500 and the other getting bowled for 100, one team making more runs than both innings of the opponent combined, or both teams getting mauled in both innings and so on. In a T20 match, I already know the first batting team would be making 130-160 with a high probability and even though matches are often close, there is no variety in the style of play or the runs scored. With test matches, no one can predict what the team would score - it could be a mammoth 500 score, an decent 350 score or a paltry 150 score or even a sub 100 score. The range of runs scored in a test match is so high that each game looks different from another. The manner in which the runs are scored in a test match is also quite varied - one team may get 500 in 120 overs, another in 150 or even 180. Predictability is not the characteristic of a test match - the match may swing from session to session if the teams are competitive.

Very well said, Marut :hatsoff:

[Laaloo]

Hey finey, be honest in the past five years, how much test cricket have you watched at the ground or at home?

[govinda]

Test matches of course bring more variety. Even objectively. The same test match may witness a close match, or a match in which one team gets a 500 and the other getting bowled for 100, one team making more runs than both innings of the opponent combined, or both teams getting mauled in both innings and so on. In a T20 match, I already know the first batting team would be making 130-160 with a high probability and even though matches are often close, there is no variety in the style of play or the runs scored. With test matches, no one can predict what the team would score - it could be a mammoth 500 score, an decent 350 score or a paltry 150 score or even a sub 100 score. The range of runs scored in a test match is so high that each game looks different from another. The manner in which the runs are scored in a test match is also quite varied - one team may get 500 in 120 overs, another in 150 or even 180. Predictability is not the characteristic of a test match - the match may swing from session to session if the teams are competitive.

gr8 post:hatsoff:

[Precambrian]

Hey finey, be honest in the past five years, how much test cricket have you watched at the ground or at home?

:hysterical: ask this to any test kirkut fan - and the reply will be the same : how does it matter I had asked the same question, how many of you will permit your children to watch test cricket all 5 days and 7 hours a day? Or would you prefer to take them out for the weekender 3.5 hr t20 gala?

[Marut]

:hysterical: ask this to any test kirkut fan - and the reply will be the same : how does it matter I had asked the same question, how many of you will permit your children to watch test cricket all 5 days and 7 hours a day? Or would you prefer to take them out for the weekender 3.5 hr t20 gala?

I think a test match is followed with a mix of 1) live action on TV (and occasionally on the ground) 2) On cricinfo and other sites 3) Radio commentary/News on the roadside 4) SMS/other alerts For many years now I find the time to watch entire test matches on TV because I work from home, so there is no one objecting while I watch a match in the middle of my work time. But when I was at school I used to follow most matches on radio. I would take a pocket radio to school on match days and if I forgot someone else at school definitely did. There was always the worry that the school teacher would catch us with a radio in the class though...:haha: Things were more difficult while I was at college. The only place you could watch a match back then was at the college hostel. During my early job days, cricinfo was perhaps the only means of following cricket on work days. It was risky to browse a cricket site at office but then everyone used to do it. Test match fans may typically follow only some portions of any given match, and this is a given. Watching an entire match live has always been a luxury for a test match fan.

[Pagalpanti]

Meanwhile in thoothukdi circus: there is a trundler called S. Aravind who is getting wickets at 120 speed! This is like Jogi 4-fer or 5-fer :facepalm: Only in circus can these Malcolm Marshall like trundlers "harass batsmen"! Mitchell Starc and Wasim Akram must be watching in awe at S. Aravind.

Why waste your time and energy watching this circus when you can watch the series between Pak-Bd. I'm sure the cricket there must be of very high class, because its test cricket.

[DarthSimian]

I think a test match is followed with a mix of 1) live action on TV (and occasionally on the ground) 2) On cricinfo and other sites 3) Radio commentary/News on the roadside 4) SMS/other alerts

That's not how sports work or should work. Sports are competitions, as well as for audience to be entertained. That's why, even cricket administrators, focus on the formats which give them gate revenue.

[Precambrian]

I think a test match is followed with a mix of 1) live action on TV (and occasionally on the ground) 2) On cricinfo and other sites 3) Radio commentary/News on the roadside 4) SMS/other alerts

Do you follow movies by reading their plots in wikipedia? just asking.