The future of cricket August 11, 2010

ICC must focus on Tests and T20s - Martin Crowe

  shares 251

Former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe has said the ICC must settle on two formats - Tests and Twenty20s - to secure the future of the game and market it better. Crowe said attempts to make ODI cricket more appealing would lead to confusion. Instead, he added, the way forward was to provide context to Tests through an annual knockout Test Championship while consolidating the popularity of Twenty20 cricket.

"I don't believe three forms will work, I think it is confusing," Crowe said on Cricinfo's fortnightly audio show Time Out, hosted by Harsha Bhogle. "I think new formats, tinkering with rules like silly split innings will only see the global game become another fun park with different rides and attractions. That will just dilute the market and create confusion and chaos.

"They [ICC] have to consolidate the two forms, like we sort of had it in the 70s and 80s with 50-overs cricket and Test cricket. Settle on Twenty20, just see out the life of 50-over cricket and therefore give Test cricket the chance to stand on it's own as one strong pillar alongside Twenty20."

Crowe, who is part of the MCC Cricket Committee, had, in September last year, unveiled plans - which he had presented to the ICC - to make Test cricket more competitive. He proposed a yearly Test Championship comprising seven six-day knockout games, with the top four ranked teams hosting the bottom four in quarter-finals within the Future Tours Programme (FTP) starting 2012 and eventually leading to a title winner.

"We have to get to a point where we are hosting a Test Championship final, and those seven games will become the great focus throughout the course of the year for all the media, the fans and the teams," Crowe said. "It also gives all eight teams a chance, over six days, to win that Test match and progress forward. This way we are also using the FTP and the existing schedule. So, not a lot has to change but just the case of marketing the knock-out format within the FTP."

The Championship, while giving all teams an opportunity to win the title, would also make Tests more relevant, Crowe said. "It firstly gives the worst team a chance to possibly dream that it could make that final. And obviously it gives all the other teams a chance to be crowned every year. That gives Test cricket a meaning, which I think is very important.

"At the moment, you have World Cups, Champions Trophies, World Twenty20, the IPL, the Champions League, all these shorter formats are up and running, dominating the landscape, and they all have a meaning and they all crown a champion. But Test cricket, which is the pinnacle, is the purest and the best form of the game, doesn't have anything."

Crowe also backed the concept of day-night Tests and the use of pink balls to make Test cricket more attractive and draw more fans. "Test cricket needs a lot more work from the marketing point of view, and that's where day-night Test cricket must be trialled soon," he said. "I believe that this will be an exciting part of Test cricket that somewhere along the line within the FTP, somewhere in the world there will be a day-night Test going on. It won't suit every country and the conditions in some countries won't allow it. But I certainly think that in some places it will be wonderful for the local market.

"The MCC has nearly nailed it with the pink ball. It nearly lasts up to 70 overs, and that's pretty close to what you want in a Test match. It's time we tried it, because people will be surprised as to how good it is."

Sanjay Manjrekar, the former India batsman, felt Test cricket needed other tweaks, such as lifting the ban on bouncers. "The two bouncers per over ban has to be lifted. Because then, Test cricket will provide something that Twenty20 cricket and 50-over cricket doesn't provide," Manjrekar said on the show. "When you see bouncers, and fast bowlers intimidating batsman at the other end, it's a spectacle that I have seen people enjoy and I am sure even modern audiences will also enjoy that spectacle."

Siddhartha Talya is an editorial assistant at Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sportsscientist on August 17, 2010, 3:27 GMT

    slugworth - the problem if relegation is a serious one....and you have good reason to show concern. Indeed had we seen a world test championship in the 80's maybe this would have happened, with possibly West indies and Pakistan contesting a final....if this would have happened, thenI am sure both cricketing boards would have to raise their game to compete.....so the competition itself can breed self suficiency. Also, as I have said, a longer cycle would allow for series like the "ashes" to be played in a non championship setting. In english football sheffield utd vs sheffield Weds still attracts great interest although niether side is in the premiership, the same was for birmingam vs aston villa, & portsmouth vs southampton. Also with my idea of a 4yr cycle the ICC could pick a rest of the world to play the test champions which will create some interest.

  • Markus971 on August 16, 2010, 2:49 GMT

    How do We (at the I.C.C.), plan for, Test Match playing countries, to play the Iconic Test Match Series & the new planned Test Match World Championship (TMWC)?? How hard can it Be?? --Seriously ... This ' is ' what the people want! Well.. Who's planning these things? ... I came up with a format in 1 Hour sitting in my Shed!! 'Come On' I.C.C. " LIFT YOUR GAME "!!!

  • Sportsscientist on August 14, 2010, 21:29 GMT

    nik777 - what vipin.chaudhary2325 fails to realise is that the success of T20 is of the back of test cricket. How many T20 specialist can you name, who excel at T20 & not tests, who can consistent out perform good test players in the T20 formatt?? Not many...yet still no T20 specialist can outplay a good test player in a 5 day game. To add how many memorable games can you recall?? on the other hand great test matches/series are never forgotten. will people really remember T20 matches 20yrs from now?? like botham's ashes ?? WI 5 - 0 "blackwash"?? the 2005 ashes test series ??? Ind vs AUS when VVS laxmann batted right through day 4, after following on. I accept T20 is hear to stay. It is exciting, creates new audiences, and allows cricketers to earn the types of salaries other sports stars have been earning for years....but it MUST learn to work in cohesion with test cricket as it can NEVER SURPASS it as the SUPERIOR form.

  • mwaseems on August 14, 2010, 12:36 GMT

    In my opinion, each year let every country play 2 test with other nations, one at home and one at the home of the respective country , and base on the results put the best 4 team into the champion ship games. The countries can play the ODIs and T20 at the same schedule.

  • slugworth on August 14, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    @ gracegift Sounds good in theory but the major flaw in a 2 teir system is what would happen if say england dropped to the bottom and australia stayed in the top teir, what happens to the ashes that seem so important they have never been suspended at any cost. On another note a like the idea that the icc and people invovled with the game are thinking about a system. However some sought of mechanism to remove a chance of a draw. My idea is that the 2nd innings only has available to it 7 wickets. thus principally the second innings is entirely made up genuine batsmen.

  • JobeWatson on August 14, 2010, 8:15 GMT

    ODI are just as good as Tests/T20s. Keep ODIs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Nik777 on August 14, 2010, 8:11 GMT

    I strongly support sportscientist's suggestion of a cycle greater than 1 year. We are already in cricket overload mode.

    Whether it is a 4 year cycle, a 3 year cycle or perhaps even a 2 year cycle is a matter for discussion.

    I also disagree strongly with vipin.chaudhary on changing the rules of test cricket. Test cricket is unique in sport in that TIME is something the captains of each team can use as a weapon. Scoring big but too slowly, or trying to score big and getting out too quickly opens up strategic opportunities for the opposing captain.

    I don't mind the limited overs formats, be it ODI, T20, or something else. But please, please, please, don't take away from test cricket one of the most important weapons in its strategy.

    I am happy for changes to be considered that *reduce* the likelihood of draws, and I think test cricket fans the world over are tired of sub-standard or non-competitive pitches - so test cricket can certainly be improved without surgery to its rules.

  • on August 13, 2010, 21:56 GMT

    I do not agree removing one day cricket is not wise to focus one one long boring game like test cricket and one four hour excited game like 20/20. One day cricket puts the balance, not to long and not to shot with excitement to be satisfied with.

  • vipin.chaudhary2325 on August 13, 2010, 19:38 GMT

    all talk about Test Cricket, the charm of test cricket, but how many people are there who watch whole test match from day one to day five. I think no one, Test Cricket is real cricket, but how many people like to see real cricket, how many people want to see boring test draws, why are test matches stadium are empty now a days, why is t-20 stadium jam-packed, those u talk about test cricket, why dont u go to the stadium to see test cricket, now its time to change some rules in test cricket, don't make flat pitches, make a panel for pitches around the world, dont make a test match draw, delete DRAW from cricket rules, we can use substitute in tests, as 4-5 bowlers get tired on flat pitches, or make test match of 3 days, 2-2 innings, 50-50 overs per innings, u will sure get a result, don't let a draw, let a team wins or a team loose, why should rain or bad weather decide a draw.

  • revelationme on August 13, 2010, 16:51 GMT

    the bottomline is that all these changes are pretty pointless unless there is competition between the teams and not an overkill of such competition. I say dont bother with changing the rules...just make sporting wickets unlike those in ssc and chennai. Also, make the teams play more against those of their level...i'd reather watch zim v ire than zim v aus. the idea of a test championship does sound right.

  • Sportsscientist on August 17, 2010, 3:27 GMT

    slugworth - the problem if relegation is a serious one....and you have good reason to show concern. Indeed had we seen a world test championship in the 80's maybe this would have happened, with possibly West indies and Pakistan contesting a final....if this would have happened, thenI am sure both cricketing boards would have to raise their game to compete.....so the competition itself can breed self suficiency. Also, as I have said, a longer cycle would allow for series like the "ashes" to be played in a non championship setting. In english football sheffield utd vs sheffield Weds still attracts great interest although niether side is in the premiership, the same was for birmingam vs aston villa, & portsmouth vs southampton. Also with my idea of a 4yr cycle the ICC could pick a rest of the world to play the test champions which will create some interest.

  • Markus971 on August 16, 2010, 2:49 GMT

    How do We (at the I.C.C.), plan for, Test Match playing countries, to play the Iconic Test Match Series & the new planned Test Match World Championship (TMWC)?? How hard can it Be?? --Seriously ... This ' is ' what the people want! Well.. Who's planning these things? ... I came up with a format in 1 Hour sitting in my Shed!! 'Come On' I.C.C. " LIFT YOUR GAME "!!!

  • Sportsscientist on August 14, 2010, 21:29 GMT

    nik777 - what vipin.chaudhary2325 fails to realise is that the success of T20 is of the back of test cricket. How many T20 specialist can you name, who excel at T20 & not tests, who can consistent out perform good test players in the T20 formatt?? Not many...yet still no T20 specialist can outplay a good test player in a 5 day game. To add how many memorable games can you recall?? on the other hand great test matches/series are never forgotten. will people really remember T20 matches 20yrs from now?? like botham's ashes ?? WI 5 - 0 "blackwash"?? the 2005 ashes test series ??? Ind vs AUS when VVS laxmann batted right through day 4, after following on. I accept T20 is hear to stay. It is exciting, creates new audiences, and allows cricketers to earn the types of salaries other sports stars have been earning for years....but it MUST learn to work in cohesion with test cricket as it can NEVER SURPASS it as the SUPERIOR form.

  • mwaseems on August 14, 2010, 12:36 GMT

    In my opinion, each year let every country play 2 test with other nations, one at home and one at the home of the respective country , and base on the results put the best 4 team into the champion ship games. The countries can play the ODIs and T20 at the same schedule.

  • slugworth on August 14, 2010, 12:29 GMT

    @ gracegift Sounds good in theory but the major flaw in a 2 teir system is what would happen if say england dropped to the bottom and australia stayed in the top teir, what happens to the ashes that seem so important they have never been suspended at any cost. On another note a like the idea that the icc and people invovled with the game are thinking about a system. However some sought of mechanism to remove a chance of a draw. My idea is that the 2nd innings only has available to it 7 wickets. thus principally the second innings is entirely made up genuine batsmen.

  • JobeWatson on August 14, 2010, 8:15 GMT

    ODI are just as good as Tests/T20s. Keep ODIs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Nik777 on August 14, 2010, 8:11 GMT

    I strongly support sportscientist's suggestion of a cycle greater than 1 year. We are already in cricket overload mode.

    Whether it is a 4 year cycle, a 3 year cycle or perhaps even a 2 year cycle is a matter for discussion.

    I also disagree strongly with vipin.chaudhary on changing the rules of test cricket. Test cricket is unique in sport in that TIME is something the captains of each team can use as a weapon. Scoring big but too slowly, or trying to score big and getting out too quickly opens up strategic opportunities for the opposing captain.

    I don't mind the limited overs formats, be it ODI, T20, or something else. But please, please, please, don't take away from test cricket one of the most important weapons in its strategy.

    I am happy for changes to be considered that *reduce* the likelihood of draws, and I think test cricket fans the world over are tired of sub-standard or non-competitive pitches - so test cricket can certainly be improved without surgery to its rules.

  • on August 13, 2010, 21:56 GMT

    I do not agree removing one day cricket is not wise to focus one one long boring game like test cricket and one four hour excited game like 20/20. One day cricket puts the balance, not to long and not to shot with excitement to be satisfied with.

  • vipin.chaudhary2325 on August 13, 2010, 19:38 GMT

    all talk about Test Cricket, the charm of test cricket, but how many people are there who watch whole test match from day one to day five. I think no one, Test Cricket is real cricket, but how many people like to see real cricket, how many people want to see boring test draws, why are test matches stadium are empty now a days, why is t-20 stadium jam-packed, those u talk about test cricket, why dont u go to the stadium to see test cricket, now its time to change some rules in test cricket, don't make flat pitches, make a panel for pitches around the world, dont make a test match draw, delete DRAW from cricket rules, we can use substitute in tests, as 4-5 bowlers get tired on flat pitches, or make test match of 3 days, 2-2 innings, 50-50 overs per innings, u will sure get a result, don't let a draw, let a team wins or a team loose, why should rain or bad weather decide a draw.

  • revelationme on August 13, 2010, 16:51 GMT

    the bottomline is that all these changes are pretty pointless unless there is competition between the teams and not an overkill of such competition. I say dont bother with changing the rules...just make sporting wickets unlike those in ssc and chennai. Also, make the teams play more against those of their level...i'd reather watch zim v ire than zim v aus. the idea of a test championship does sound right.

  • Sportsscientist on August 13, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    Gracegift has come up with the best idea...and I agree with Itchy that a annual competition will only cheapen test matches. ....have a 4 yr cycle starting/ending with the 50 over ODI World Cup. Yr 1 & 2 run the test chamionship. hold the T20 at the end of yr2. Yr 3 & 4 is for "non-championship" series to be organised against any opposition, and the "Marquee" series, like the Ashes, Ind vs PK, etc...... also yrs 3 & 4 the IPL can have a proper window. fit ODI's around the test series, & they have to be agreed by the boards. at the end of yr 4 after the T20 and ODI world cups, start the test championship again. Why try to squash everything??? why can a test championship last over a period of time??? the top players can be rested also when the test championship is not on, and play "less" cricket. the IPL won't clash with a test championship, and the series like the ashes can be fit around the IPL, T20 and ODI world cups via arrangement.

  • Ashu123 on August 13, 2010, 14:36 GMT

    i really do not see how a pink ball will make test cricket more attractive. but im up for something like a knockout test championship.

  • rajkul_r on August 13, 2010, 13:40 GMT

    I think its too early to discard the 50 over format when the world cup 2011 is due in few months. I think if you want to put glamour and new face to cricket then some of the basic rules have to be changed. I suggest the number of balls in a over to be reduced from 6 to 5 and the present 20 over format be kept as 25-25 overs of 5 balls each, so also the 50 overs game be changed like this and in test cricket also instead of present 90 overs a day would be changed with new 5 balls over.

  • RajuSalvi on August 13, 2010, 13:06 GMT

    Planning has to be such that each team gets a chance to play with all the other test playing nations during a calendar year, it may only be a one test match with all the other nations.

    Also the matches should be planned in those countries or during such season that the test match will not get affected on account of bad weather in terms of rain or fog.

    After all the results, it is the most easy way to judge all the teams in terms of their performance. Since number of test played during the year for all the teams will be same and also each test playing nation must have played with all the other test playing countries so it is the most easy way to judge accurately the team's win & loss percentage.

    AM SURE THIS IS THE BEST IDEA OF TEST CHAMPIONSHIP OR ANY FORMAT OF GAME TO JUDGE THE BEST NATION IN THE LOT OF TEST PLAYING NATIONS AS THE BEST NATION WOULD HAVE PERFORMED AGAINST ALL THE OPPONENTS !

  • gracegift on August 13, 2010, 10:18 GMT

    people will come to watch an intense contest. that's why we need a 2-tier system where the top 6 play each other(tier 1) as do the bottom 6(tier 2) over the course of 2 years. At the end the tier 2 winners take on the last placed tier 1 team for a place in tier 1. That way the contests are more evenly matched. the pitches need to be such that there is an equal contest between bat and ball. These can be played over 3 tests and points can be allotted similar to the county championships. Top 6 and bottom 6 can be decided on current ratings. we could still use the red cherry and play day cricket.

  • David47 on August 13, 2010, 9:04 GMT

    I agree, but wrong format Martin. Please, please get rid of T20 as an international format. If the Indians still want to play IPL then let them - the only reason their fans like it is because they've got short attention spans. Leave the purest form of the game, the REAL test, as it is. Do whatever you like with ODI - split innings, three lots of 15 overs - I don't care, as long as T20 gets the arse.

  • on August 13, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    knockout test championship. that is a wonderful idea. in fact the best idea since introduction of t20 internationals

  • on August 13, 2010, 6:13 GMT

    Good idea perhaps in draw situations they could have sudden death overs like in T20

  • MAPD on August 13, 2010, 5:21 GMT

    Cricket as a game was invented for a purpose. Village greens, lots of time at hand available, and so called princes nothing to do. Now time has changed. Land has reduced and cricket is competing with other sports for space, commoners dominate the game now, present lot of human race is addicted to drama, excitement, rush of adrinaline. To be relevant cricket has to adopt. To do that I would propose changes in 1-day format. Domestically, ODI should always be Friday evening game. It should have three innings of 15 overs each. Winner of two innings wins the match. Once abatsman is out, he is out for the match. each bowler has 9 overs in three innings, and captain can decide how he uses his bowlers. Bowler can bowl maximum of 7 overs in an innings. More tweeking can be done with further discussions so that the game becomes a challenge of skills, strategy, and temprament. The toss effect, weather effects can be neutralised. This way game is unpredictable and interest remains.

  • on August 13, 2010, 4:54 GMT

    This is the worst idea I have ever heard. Test cricket is unique and special because it is one of the only types of sport that doesn't involve a 'championship'. Plus if test cricket has been working like it has since last century why change it. T20 cricket is great for the game and really exciting but just because ut's a commercial succses dosen't mean you have to promote it all the time and play it more because if we play more T20's it will eventually become like ODI cricket; overplayed and un-popular. As for ODI cricket the competition needs to be 40 overs a side and have a minimum run rate sytem. This run rate system could be applied like a powerplay, the captian calls for it then there can be one fielder outside the ring and the batting team has to go at 6+ an over or else there will be a 2 run penelty per over they are under during a 8 over period.

  • Itchy on August 13, 2010, 4:50 GMT

    T20 is for people/players of limited attention span and even more limited intelligence. I liken t20 matches to watching the movie when you could read the book. T20 does have its place but only on a domestic or franchise scene

    I agree with kalyanbk that test cricket is best watched over a series, particularly on different style pitches. A knockout-style tournament would only cheapen the format and in all likelihood be influenced by one-off results. Better off to focus on more home and away test series of proper length (say 4 tests) between nations rather than a one-off match.

    ODIs are still relevant although not as memorable as some have made out - usually the matches are memorable for an individual performance not a team effort.

    T20s - good for a laugh (or giggle) and watching a few sixes being hit but need to be played on bigger grounds so that some meaining is given to a six. Small grounds do nothing to improve the standard of play generally.

  • Sheela on August 13, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    T20 is total risk taking by batsmen and if they are successful, then there is great entertainment. Wicket taking is not at all the main airm in 50 over and T20 whereas Test cricket is both restricting runs of opponents and taking 20 opposition wickets.

    Let us accept honestly that 50 over and T20 are mere entertainers favouring batsmen only.

    For Test cricket, improvement of quality of pitches in sub continent and few other places, improving the numbers of overs bowled each full days play within the allotted time, more stringent rules against negative bowling etc. Once good quality pitches sitable for both batting and bowling and good quality ground to enable good fielding will go a lot in gaining larger attendances in Test by paying spectators,

  • cricketislovely on August 13, 2010, 4:17 GMT

    I agree with Martin. One day cricket has had its day. I went to the Australia vs Pakistan T20 at the MCG last summer, there were 60,000 people there including lots of families and children. The atmosphere was wonderful. In contrast ODI crowds in Aus have been declining steadily. This summer for Aus vs Eng there will be 7 ODIs and only two T20s. Why do Cricket Australia keep forcing ODIs on us? I will vote with my wallet/feet and attend the T20 international and the test match but not the ODIs, other will do the same. I wonder how long until Cricket Australia catches on? Probably not until 2016!!

  • D.V.C. on August 13, 2010, 3:59 GMT

    A knockout Test Championship is not in keeping with the flavour of Tests. Test series are a struggle to maintain the right psychology over an extended period, at the end if you've won you know you really achieved something. Could the same be said of a knockout tournament? The best team doesn't always win a knockout, that's ok for ODIs and T20, we want some of that unpredictably and excitement in those formats. But Tests are the ultimate measure of who is best, in a Test championship I want the best team to come out on top. A League played over an extended period of time is the only way to get that.

  • Nerk on August 13, 2010, 2:51 GMT

    Top four teams battle out against the bottom rank teams. Hmmm. India vs Zimbabwe. South Africa vs Bangladesh. Yes, that should bring the crowds in. Crowe is quite right of course, test cricket is the purest form of cricket. So why on earth does he want to change it?

  • Rahulbose on August 13, 2010, 2:39 GMT

    All good ideas, but ICC is not a forum that can take such well thought out and bold decisions.

  • on August 13, 2010, 2:06 GMT

    one dai is the real form of cricket. reduce it to 40 overs.. play less 20/20 get rid of test. one day is the best form of cricket...

  • lucyferr on August 13, 2010, 0:59 GMT

    Agreed. The ICC willl need to work out how to deal with the ODI World Cup, as that is its main money spinner - should it just dump it and by default elevate the T20 World Cup to be 'the World Cup'? Should ODIs still be held, with each ODI effectively two T20s back to back (note: that's not split innings, that's two innings). Will the 'Test World Cup' (whatever it's called) make up the shortfall in revenue from getting rid of the ODI World Cup? I totally agree that ODIs need to go, but they're not going to go unless the next ODI World Cup or two suffers from bad viewing figures.

  • malharsire on August 13, 2010, 0:46 GMT

    How about apart from better pitches and relaxing bouncer rule:

    1. Limit the weight/thickness/size of bats (for tests) 2. Count 1st innings leads when determining the ultimate winner in drawn test series. 3. Disallow helmets for batsmen and fielders (only if point 1 above is accepted)

  • on August 13, 2010, 0:06 GMT

    Please kill T-20 instead ...

  • on August 12, 2010, 21:49 GMT

    A quick count has about 10-1 AGAINST Crowe's idea of killing T20 ( at time of posting there were 192 posts in all, 77 expressd a clear pref for getting rid of T20 or 50/50, of which 67 are in favour of getting rid of T20 and Keeping 50/50. A MASSIVE thumbs down for the most boring form of the game T20. ANd a vote of no confidence on a huge scale against Martin Crowe's views.. Good

  • Rake1 on August 12, 2010, 21:43 GMT

    I have to agree with Martin Crowe, a lot of unnecessary games are being played - like India vs SL every few months, a bit of overkill. The 2011 50 over world cup will have loads of useless matches unless 8 teams get to the Quarter finals, and we all know who those are going to be. I though would have test championship once every 2 years & T20 world cup every 2 years. I am not keen on day-night tests with pink balls.

  • on August 12, 2010, 21:00 GMT

    Dont agree with Martin Crowe on this one...ODIs have provided so much to Cricket. I look forward every four years to the World Cup. We would not have had seen the awesome talents of cricketers like Jayasuriya, Klusener, Gibbs, Greatbatch and more on display if it werent for ODIs. Bowlers do not get a chance to make their marks in just 4 stipulated 20/20 overs. Limited overs bowling might as well not exist...

  • Pak-cricket on August 12, 2010, 20:11 GMT

    KEEP THE SAME TREE FORMATS AS WE HAVE THEM TODAY... NO NEED TO KILL ONE DAYERS....TO MAKE TEST CRICKET MORE INTERESTING WE NEED TO CHANGE SUBCONITINENT PITCHES OR SKIP THE SUBCONTINENT TO HOST TEST SERIES INSTEAD, WE NEED TO HAVE TEST SERIES ONLY IN ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA,, AS WE SEEN IN CASE OF PAKISTAN,,, TEST SHOULD ONLY BE PLAYED IN ENGLAND OR AUSTRALIA. WE SHOULD HAVE NEUTRAL TEST SERIES IN AUSTRALIA AND ENGLAND...THEIR SPECTATORS SHOW INTEREST IN TEST COMARE TO SUBCONTINENT

  • anoopshameed on August 12, 2010, 20:00 GMT

    Now a days ODIs dominate the cricket calender. Now if it is being dropped there will be a lot of spare time. So why make the Test Championship a knockout tournament- make it a League Championship like the EUFA Cup. Let the 10 Test nations play each other both home and away and then let the best sides play the semis and final in one of the non-semi qualified countries or some place where there is a market for Test Cricket. Thus every country can be garuanted atleast 18 Test matches a year and plenty of T20 in between. I can already see Sangakkara's smug face contented by the fact that they are getting a match outside the sub-continent and why bother with Ranking if the best Team is selected through a Tourney! The whole thing can be completed in about 9 months and then Ashes, IPL, whatever etc... can be conducted!

  • SajidMirza on August 12, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    He is joking by cut off the ODI format, this is the most balanced format in cricket, peoples who dont want to see 5 long days of test cricket or peoples who dont want to see hours of t20 cricket are love to see one day matches. These all formats have their own respect. Yah i am agree on the marketing point of test cricket, ICC must take some serious steps to rebuild test cricket ........

  • kriskini on August 12, 2010, 19:26 GMT

    The problem we face in test cricket is in case of a draw the higher ranked team going to the next stage in knock out stages. So the higher ranked team can afford to play defensively and pile up a huge total. Setting the target also. Suppose a higher ranked team has 400 lead at the end of 5th day(thinking its will be 6 day test). Why will the higher ranked team will declare and go for a win. This causes more pressure on the lower ranked teams. We can put restriction in the number of overs in each innings. Then its not true test cricket.

  • souravkr on August 12, 2010, 18:57 GMT

    I think tests n t20 shud be the main priority, play odis only durin the WC like in football , where the natinonal teams rarely play each other except in friendlies. They only play domestic leagues.

  • inccricket on August 12, 2010, 18:45 GMT

    One way to make sure people watch Test Cricket (apart from sporting wickets ) is to make sure it's held at the right time of the year - for example winter in the subcontinent. To watch 5 days of great cricket, you should be able to enjoy it under the cool sun ! Also, people now-a-days think that it's no longer a gentleman's game that they used to associate cricket with and winning is everything - that must go !!

  • oppurba on August 12, 2010, 18:40 GMT

    I cant agree. I just love 50:50 and 20:20

  • on August 12, 2010, 17:08 GMT

    TEST CRICKET is the best form of the game. What test cricket brings us is unparalleled.

    TEST CHAMPIONSHIP - Agreed. Semis & Finals every 2/4 yrs would be the best format.

    FTP - No more 2 test series. Every home season should consist of just one series consisting of 5 tests.

    Remove ODIs - agreed. Perhaps play only the WC every 4 yrs along with maybe one tri-series for each countries home season.

    Restrict T20s to domestic stuff IPL, CL etc. Int. WC every 4 yrs with more games(40 days long).

  • aarpee2 on August 12, 2010, 16:37 GMT

    Even test ricket needs a fresh approach. All test series must be limited to 3 tests in different venues for example India Australia series can be played in Chennai, Sydney and Lords-the third will be a neutral venue all criticism of HOME advantage, heroes at home and zeroes abroad will be nullified and true TEST of character and temperament will prevail

  • LeScotsman on August 12, 2010, 16:06 GMT

    I think it's bleedin' obvious. It was 65 quid a head to sit in the last Test match for a day. Plus parking, plus food. Bring along your 8-and-10-year-old sons and you're forking out close to 300 pounds for the day! If you don't live in the area, and you need to stay in a hotel to catch the next day's play, gawd help you.... How many people can afford that (plus the day off work)? Knocking a tenner off the price won't make a dent. No wonder the stadia are empty.

    Compare this to 5 quid for a cinema ticket, 5 quid for the zoo, 5 quid for ten-pin bowling, 10 quid for laser quest, 3 quid for a dip in the communal pool, or squat to sit on the sofa and watch TV. This is what cricket is up against.

    Price is supposed to be set where supply and demand meet. Here's a hint - if the grounds are empty you need to recalculate. Then maybe you'd make some money and some people would actually get to watch cricket.

  • on August 12, 2010, 15:56 GMT

    According to me cricket is the best sport in this world.T20 can be compared to football,rugby,basketball etc because it is short and tests can be compared to games like teniis,golf because it is long and exciting.I agree with martin crowe on having a test championship every year and t20 world cup should be every four years.

  • Allan716 on August 12, 2010, 15:47 GMT

    Martin Crowe is absolutely right. He know what he is talking about and two formats are perfect. One-day cricket was great when it lasted. Now people don't have the time to go through a whole day and watch a game of cricket. We have to move forward. Purists will fall in line. A meaningful Test Championship and franchise based T20 with internationals only for friendlies and World Cup Qualifiers, World Cup Soccer style is the way forward. Getting more countries to play T20 cricket will make the game a truly global sport. Sanjay Manjrekar is talking rubbish. Removing the bouncer bans will lead to more injuries and make the game unsafe for play and will ruin the careers of professionals. Innovative thinking is the key, you don't go back to something just because the game is not competitive. You make sporting wickets and use the committee that is appointed to manage this ban the venues like the one in SL where 1000 runs were scored for no wickets

  • crikkfan on August 12, 2010, 15:39 GMT

    best article that elucidates the need to still have ODIs is one written by Peter Roebuck a few months back - google it to find it. In summary - the one thing that remains in my memory is that - just like Tests, ODIs identify GREATNESS. There are several GREAT knocks that anyone who is a follower of cricket can rattle off easily - for ex Sachin's sandstorm 143, Steve Waugh 99 semis, Bevan '03 world cup innings, Lloyd 75 finals ton, Richards 189* and 181, Kapil 175*, kumble hero cup 6/14, waqar, 7 wk haul, etc etc . Most people know what innings I mentioned - now honestly do you think you'll a T20 list like this even 10 years from now? From the recent T20 WC finals, Hussey innings comes to mind but that's it. We'd lose a lot there IMO if ODIs go away. It may be tough but we'll have to preserve all 3 forms of the game with needed tweaks - ICC should be committed to it.

  • Kumar_cricket on August 12, 2010, 14:51 GMT

    Annual Test championship sounds good but not for 6 days and dont kill one day cricket instead kill T20 cricket.But most important better pitches because it will produe better cricket irrelevent of the formats.

  • Hassan.Farooqi on August 12, 2010, 14:50 GMT

    People remember. Test started with unlimited days, and was reduced to six and five. Then came ODI that started 60/60 before becoming 50/50. Finally came 20/20. ODI had the money that test did not dream, thanks to Packer Circus. T20 has the money ODI did not dream, thanks to IPL. It simply means who are used to watching short and result oriented games like football and hockey, are willing to pay and watch T20. People who can pay and watch gold, can still enjoy test. ODI was popular due to absence of T20. It is still watched because T20 is not in full bloom. Once T20 really kicks in e.g. gets played in non-test countries like USA, ODI will die its natural death.

  • kalyanbk on August 12, 2010, 14:47 GMT

    For all its criticism, ODIs are holding their own in terms of attendance. I expect a tremendous turnout for the ODI World cup. I don't believe in knockouts in tests. The whole beauty and challenge of test cricket is winning over a series, overcoming alien conditions. If tests are to be made more exciting, simply make the pitches more bowler friendly. It is a contest between bat and ball that will draw viewers irrespective of the format.

  • vpisipati on August 12, 2010, 13:42 GMT

    I used to imitate Martin Crowe in his batting and even his walking style a sa kid and respect him hugely for his style and talent in cricket, but I get the feeling that his views and the publicity it is receiving are just an attempt for his time under the spotlight. Can't really believe that he really thinks this is th eanswer. I would let the public in itheir infinite wisdom (only partially sarcastic) decide the future of ODIs. I personally think the 2 inning ODIs have a lot of merit. They would ressemble a limited over, one day test match , with all the attributes and sexiness of a 20-20. The only idea I like of his is the day-night test matches. Of course, the powers that be have to take into account the weather etc very carefully. I sincerely hope these unsavory ideas die down soon and a very comopetitive world cup 2011 will rejuvenate ODIs. I would like to see all 3 formats survive, but restrict the no. of 20-20s to a minimum and only in the IPL. No 20-20s in bilateral series!!!!!

  • on August 12, 2010, 13:33 GMT

    i am agree with martin crowe .he is always great thinker of game of cricket.he revolutionise the game of cricket by openinng the balling with deepak patel.it is cofusing hard core fan cricket folloowing three formets.in football fans wait 4yrs for world cup and they celebrate when world cup comes.in crcket whole value of world cup is dimnished in which sports we have two world cup.it is frustrating that next year is world cup but there is not much interst in 50 over cricket it is dimnished after 20 20.test cricket will always be there but one day shuld go because cricket will loose it world cup interst.we shuld have only one world cup its now 20 20 so fans can feel that is main tournament which there team shuld won and shuld feel rejovient when time of world cup comes close.at last i want to congratulate martin crowe he was first who introduce max cri in newzeland a cricket match of in which first two team play 20 over each in their first innings then 10 10ovreach.20 20 born.

  • vpisipati on August 12, 2010, 13:30 GMT

    Test matches and KNOCKOUTS do not go together. The very allure and attraction of Test cricket to the purists is the battle of wits and attririon that occurs between two country teams over a test series. Having a knockout involving 8 TEAMS completely defeats the purpose of a test match. The only way it would make sense is to have the TOP 3 or 4 teams (I prefer 3) every year compete in a round robin series where each plays the other either once or twice and the points system that already is in place is continued to be used to rank them. NO KNOCKOUT. This will only provide an opportunity for the 2nd, 3rd and possibly the 4th placed teams to either overtake or close the gap for the next year. This will also ensure that the test playing nations are competing to finish in the top 3 or 4 every year.

    If all 8 make it, the whole year there is no real reason to win and it will encourage too much experimentation with the team to find the right 14 for the "finals".

  • maysunaneek on August 12, 2010, 13:26 GMT

    tests will always survive it might be more interesting with the test championship though, we should look at ODI's and reduce it to 40ov like the Clydesdale Bank 40 in the county cricket and keep T20 cricket only for franchises.

  • on August 12, 2010, 12:53 GMT

    As a West Indies fan for (two) many decades, I'd like to see a revival of test cricket because to me it's the most enjoyable form of the game. I think that trying new things is warranted but essentially gone are the days of great competition between teams that everyone looked forward to. The bar for players and teams needs to be raised much higher and grudges encouraged rather than smothered. Bring back bouncers and you'll see great competition between batsmen and bowlers. Make players succeed in the longer format if they want to compete in the T20 for the quick $$$ and glory. Too many teams now have T20 specialists that couldn't make it into a test squad from the 70's or 80's. There's little consistency in test cricket because truthfully few of the modern players know how to play it.

  • on August 12, 2010, 12:47 GMT

    @jackiethepen - Getting rid of ODIs would not suit NZ - it is their best format. This is just a silly opinion from a man who should know better.

  • on August 12, 2010, 12:46 GMT

    I think there is no need to have one format eliminated. Just play Test or t20 lesser as compared with ODI's or work out a combination in which 2 forms of cricket are played in a balanced manner.

  • Luke77 on August 12, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    If there weren't so many tweaks in ODI's then there wouldn't be so many issues. Let cricket breathe it's natural beauty by removing all the bowling restrictions, push boundary ropes back out, more grass on the wicket, less fielding restrictions. Imagine a battle between bat and ball on a lively pitch, very fast bowler, 3 slips, 2 gully's needing 5 an over with more available overs to bowl for the bowler. This would compliment Test cricket because the pressure would be constant. There are many more exciting low scoring games than big scoring games because of the quality of attack and conditions. STOP RUINING OUR GAME ICC !!!!

  • on August 12, 2010, 11:58 GMT

    A World Test Championship is a great idea but it will be difficult to schedule more than once every four years. Can I suggest the following: 1) The tournament is hosted in the country at the top of the Test Rankings; 2) The hosts get an automatic place in the Final; 3) The teams who are 2nd & 3rd in the Rankings play-off for the right to meet the Host Nation in the final; 3) The Final is a "Best Of 3 Matches" Series; 4) In the event of drawn series, the side who were higher in the Rankings are deemed to have won. This is a bit similar to how other First Class series like the Sheffield Shield are decided. It would also mean the entire tournament could fit into one calendar month instead of lasting forever. Also, all existing test series would retain their relevance as qualifying series and every country would still need to play each other to get their qualifying points. Its not necessary for every country to be at the Finals - it doesn't happen in other sports.

  • enigma77543 on August 12, 2010, 11:56 GMT

    ICC should seriously stop DREAMING that Cricket will ever be a global sport like Football & I see nothing wrong with it being a sport played by only a few countries but they're just TOO GREEDY & only care about the money & not about the game. So since Tests aren't getting audiences, should that be scrapped as well Mr.Crowe? & lets just play T20s which sn't even Cricket in the first place, in fact, in essence its closer to Baseball than Cricket & while we're at it, why not just rename the game to "Crickball" or something! Obviously, Crowe doesn't understand that you don't actually save a sport by changing it because you're destroying it when you change it to something completely different I agree with observations here that T20 need to be scrapped from International arena & it should only be limited to new nations & at school level, etc to gain popularity but playing T20 at International level will kill this great game about STYLE, ELEGANCE & GRACE , not JUST about smacking the ball

  • enigma77543 on August 12, 2010, 11:40 GMT

    I'm all for Test Championships but it should be done every 2-4 years, doing it every year would lessen its importance. Plus, there should 2 (or more) divisions in Tests with Div1 comprising of top 5 teams & Div2 comprising of the remaining Test-nations & Div1 teams can only play tests among themselves & Div2 teams can only play among themselves & at the end of each year or may be two years, 5th ranked team from Div1 gets kicked to Div2 & the top Div2 team gets promoted to Div1, this'll make Test cricket very competitive & get rid of the boring one-sided Test series like to name a few recent ones, Aus-Pak, SA-WI & Eng-Pak which is going on right now. I think there're TOO MANY ODIs being played & it gets boring with its set format so split-ODIs where the teams CARRY ON from the 1st inns will be useful. I think ODIs are sort of a golden middle between Tests & T20s, not to mention,they give associate nations a feel for longer version of the game without resorting to actually playing Tests

  • on August 12, 2010, 11:34 GMT

    Take out meaningless triangular 50-50 tournaments. Have a test championship around 2 tests and 3 ODI per tour, all countries play each other once at home and once away in a two year cycle. Crown an ODI no 1 team once a year and no 1 test team once every two years. To add to this add a 5050 world cup once every 4 years and 2020 world cup once every two years. Leave rest of the time for 2020 leagues. I think this will work better for cricket retaining public interest the game.

  • enigma77543 on August 12, 2010, 11:26 GMT

    If you want to scrap something THEN SCRAP THAT T20 BS, that's just not Cricket, enough said. ICC says T20 gets cricket "new audience" from non-cricketing countries, well, if they're watching cricket because of T20 & all they like is a ball getting smacked around for couple of hours then sooner or later they'll realize that they're better off watching BASEBALL & give up on Cricket. About getting more audience, since always, great Cricket has always been about a CONTEST BETWEEN BAT & BALL which we don't get to see anymore because of overdose of limited overs cricket & powerplays & pitches getting flatter & flatter even for Tests & all people are made to believe that "more runs= more fun" which is completely against the essence of this game. So let there be an equal contest between bat & ball by creating more bowler-friendly pitches & by putting penalties for making bad pitches, take away the powerplays & make 2 bouncers legal in ALL formats & see the audience flock the grounds.

  • visualdp on August 12, 2010, 11:26 GMT

    @AndrewWI : If you are saying No test cricket for Sri Lanka, India should be banned from the entire formats of the game of cricket because of their lifeless (totally dead) pitches. Please be kind enough to analyze stats & make comment . Cheers. By the way Martine Crow was dead right I guess

  • on August 12, 2010, 11:24 GMT

    I agree completely with Martin Crowe.

    As much as I agree with some people here that 50-over cricket is by no means dead; the format may not be helping cricket in general. If it is confusing us about what each format provides us (which i believe it is) then leaving 50 over cricket behind us will strengthen both 20/20 and Test cricket; which I believe are the most entertaining and successful formats of the game too.

    Test cricket is going through a very very bad patch at the moment; we've seen very low audiences across the world and i believe this may be contributing to a lot of uncompetitive cricket we've been seeing too. I think Crowe's right that these new changes, primarily making Test cricket more relevant, having a 'point' to it by giving it constant fixture (maybe an annual competition or maybe alittle longer) will give the competition more context, something that 20/20 has done so successfully.

  • kpradyu060 on August 12, 2010, 11:21 GMT

    icc should take opinion of viewers what they like to see and how tests can be made more exciting.this should be made immediately otherwise difficult path for test.

  • kpradyu060 on August 12, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    completely agree with crowe.cannot be a better method.hope this will be implemented.

  • chandsin on August 12, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    As a viewer, I don't think that any form of cricket is dying. We still enjoy each type of cricket but the ways you BIG players are talking about cricket future, it will definitely creates the panic in viewer's mind (what to see or what's not). Earlier, only tests are there, ODIs came but it didn't replace tests. Same should be the case with T20s. Let all the formats prevails in its own zone of excitement.

  • on August 12, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    @wade i see where your test championship falls down there arent 12 test teams theres 10 teams with test status when zimbabwe come back in zimbabwes summer (northern hemosphere winter) so it would be 5 teams of course the 5 in each would be a huge gulf the top division would be india, sri lanka, south africa, england and australia the bottom division would be pakistan, windies, new zealand, zimbabwe and bangladesh you wouuld lose the rivalries of australia vs new zealand and india vs pakistan

  • kpradyu060 on August 12, 2010, 11:13 GMT

    ODIs should be scrapped and champions trophy world cup should be scrapped.test championship should be introduced and should not be conducted every year.it should be conducted two years once and t20 world cup 4 years once.meaningless matches must be stopped.amount of cricket has to be reduced.the icc must think abot this immediately.as far as t20 is concerned champions league and ipl are good entertainers.it should be carried on.if any of these arent possible atleast champions trophy must be scrapped it has no meaning at all.i wish to see these changes

  • on August 12, 2010, 10:45 GMT

    Not sure if I would agree with Martin Crowe here. Tests matches are too purist and T20 too commercial, what about people who like watching and playing a balanced game, a mix between the two extremes. It could be a missed opportunity. The want of the hour is to experiment with a more exciting format for the 50 over game, 30 over and 20 over innings, may be.

    Its like economics you just don't have monopoly or perfect competition or both. There is something called monopolistic competition as well.

    And you would not know if it is confusing unless you give it a fair trial. The proof is in the pudding and not in what Martin Crowe says. T20 had its fair share of criticism when it started but it has stood the test of time.

  • on August 12, 2010, 10:12 GMT

    test will always survive. people love the game but not all people love that game as they would like. the question is not why are the ground not sold out but instead why are we not getting as much money.

  • on August 12, 2010, 10:06 GMT

    Believe me, I really LOVE test cricket, but truthfully, in this world of money this format is dying, which means cricket itself is dying. ODIs are very popular, so why scratch them out? As for knockouts, not really the best way to tackle this SERIOUS problem because it seams to me that they don't uphold the traditions of the game.

  • 8ducks on August 12, 2010, 10:02 GMT

    Nobody seems to be doing the logical thing to find out how how to reinvigourate test cricket. Research the potential mrkets of spectators, what do they like and what so they want to see. A bunch of old and current players, captains and administrators won't come up with a solutions that work because they don't know what is wanted. They understand the product, not the market, and understanding the market is far more important. The ICC needs to do some market research.

  • on August 12, 2010, 10:00 GMT

    REASON OF POPULARITY LOSS OF ODI INRECENT TIMES

    Gifted Players like Sachin Dravid Ponting Kallis and earlier LARA Murali Mc Grath Shane Warne Wasim Waqar Ambrose are the SUPER STARS and the real advertisers of game.

    Of late these super stars have been playing only test cricket and others have retired therefore people have started losing charm in ODI and cricket at large too.

    Even today any ODI match in which SACHIN TENDULKAR is playing you will hardly find a vacant seat....and peple at home are glued to TV so long as he remains on crease.

    The game needs SUPER STARS. Unfortunately none of the young players with the exception of only Sehwag and Devilliers are gifted and hence cricket doesnt have super stars and crowed is losing interest in game................

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:57 GMT

    yeah Mr. Crowe is right. ODI format should have been abolished soon after the arrival of T20 format to globalize the game. There are not many people who would favor the ODI format due to its length spanning on a whole day before we can see the result. Usually people only enjoy to watch the first and last 10 overs of the each innings. The middle 30 overs are the most boring part. So more or less it ends up being a 20/20 thing. So why not just go with the 20/20 format?

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:50 GMT

    Unbelievable that they think the problem with test cricket is solely the need for a championship. Surely the problem is that the pitches aren't up to it and bowling is a thankless task particularly fast bowling which has too many demands placed on it by terrible scheduling.

    Prime example: 4 back to back tests in august because in June/july a stupid number of poor county twenty20 games were played to half packed stadia.

    I believe the answer for cricket is a merged approach to cricket series and international rankings as follows: A cricket series should comprimise of a number of t20s, ODIs and test matches and be regarded as a whole, not three separate competitions (except the ashes). The T20s and ODIs should be partially before the test series, but there should also be a break in the middle of the test series where the rest are played Thus allowing squad rotation, resting of bowlers, chance to get back in form etc. A team should be awarded a number of points in increasing amount for

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:49 GMT

    this is so dumb, the real world cup is 50 overs it tests the ability of every player, it is the perfect balance in cricket. T20 is just bang and lame asian teams are good at it. Test is too long, ODI is the best format of cricket, highly unpredictable and things change at a good pace

  • jackiethepen on August 12, 2010, 9:40 GMT

    So the whole direction of cricket is to be guided by Martin Crowe - ex captain of NZ? The trouble with cricket there are too many guys sounding off like this. It might suit NZ but that doesn't mean it would suit countries where 50-over cricket is very popular. To think Twenty-20 is the answer is quite ridiculous. Even in England it was recently exposed as too much when it went on for too long. NZ is not the best place to judge Test cricket. They built shells of stadiums and had low flat pitches. When they went back to smaller attractive grounds and more lively pitches interest in Test cricket returned. Meanwhile in England we continue to build shells of stadiums. Oh dear.

  • piyushsa on August 12, 2010, 9:33 GMT

    A knock-out test championship is really a great idea and it will definitely be as popular as T20 world cup and IPL are. But discontinuing ODI doesn't sounds good at all.

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:22 GMT

    Yes, ODI are boring. only good for the once watching the game in the ground. icc should stop this format and as craw sad, should focus on T20 and test cricket or remove test cricket altogether. so cricket would remain a big competitor for the soccer / football.

  • IPL_is_Thrash on August 12, 2010, 9:21 GMT

    Twenty20 is an evil 100 times more dreadful than ODIs. Tests is an ultimate sport event on seaming / bouncy / cracked dust bowls, which stretches ones cricketing skills to the full. Team India and BCCI is madly obsessed with Stupid, Rubbish, Non-Sense, Obsolete, Betting & Commercial event IPL, which is selling 6s and 4s on Lifeless Pitches. IPL-Mad Team India is losing Skill, Inspiration, Motivation, Hunger, Determination, Committment and Fitness to play International or Test Cricket on lively Pitches. Curators, Commentators and BCCI Officials are working for IPL growth rather than Cricket growth. Until IPL is not thrashed, Team India is not going to perform well in International Tournaments. Test, ODI & T20 Cricket is great to watch at International level on lively pitches, unlike IPL Teams which looks like club cricket and played on lifeless pitches.

  • Yassar on August 12, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    The problem with focussing on just seven games a year would be that it would diminish the remainder of the test calendar. People would only focus on these knock out games which will mean games before this will still have the same problem. Test cricket popularity as a whole has to be increased. The problem area is the sub-continent. England & Australia certainly always fill their gorunds in their respective summers.The sub-continents love for limited over games coupled with dead pitches means no one turns up for test cricket. The pitches is the single biggest problem. If they were such that the contest between bat and ball was more even i am sure popularity will rise as will standards. The other big problem in the sub-continent is stadia facilities. The ICC need to govern this and state if a ICC recognised match is to be played at a particular venue then that venue needs to be up to standard for spectators.The attraction of the venue nowadays plays a big part as well as who is playing

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:15 GMT

    ODI is the greatest ever format of Cricket game because it tests player's all skills and full potential.

    ODI tests batsman's both skills i.e. defensive as well as attacking. Whereas in tests you don't need to attack good balls and t20 is all about slogging where you don't need to preserve your wicket.

    It is only the ODI that requires players to have SAFE ATTACKING TECHNIQUE which is possessed by only the world finest batting maestros like TENDULKAR, VIV RICHARDS. In ODIs the effective players are the ones who have higher strike rate to go with high avg.

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:14 GMT

    Guys like Sangakara and Dravid who have impressive test record but have pathetic ODI record because they succumb to pressure of maintaining high strike rate.

    At the same time we clearly see that players like AFRIDI who don't have a sound technique fail to do the job in ODI… but such players can be very effective in T20 because even if an average batsman with poor technique connects 4/ 5 miss-hit or top edged fluke boundaries before being held up somewhere he has done his job but in ODI 4/5 boundaries in quick time are not good enough. ..

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:13 GMT

    Coming to bowling we see legends like Ambrose who wouldn't give any runs in his first spell by bowling all good balls and bowlers like Waqar, Wasim who would just run through average batters with their fiery spells. ………….In tests if you r a containing bowler like Ambrose you are merely wasting your time and in T20 even if you manage to get 2 3 batsmen with your fiery spell in you very limited quota of 4 overs you haven't done enough damage. Such great bowlers are therefore underrated in these two formats. But such great bowlers have full opportunity to display their full repertoire and art in ODI. Therefore ODI is the form of game that differentiates Great players from merely good players whereas T20 is just a fluke for both bowlers as well as batters and Tests do not test batsmen's attacking potential and bowlers containing potential.

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:10 GMT

    RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ODI

    First: During ODI middle overs batsmen just milk the spinners and medium bowlers which requires little skill bcz there are hardly any fielders in inner ring so anything that touches pads or bat produces single virtually every ball and this is not at all a test of skill. So there should be a restriction of keeping 5/6 fielders in the ring during these overs.

    Secondly: Once the ball goes old after 30 overs bowlers are left with no option but to ball full and virtually removes an aspect of game i.e. rising ball. Consequently the batsmen, who cannot play rising ball at all, make marry during this period. So during the course of 50 overs there must a mandatory new ball taken after 25 overs.

  • on August 12, 2010, 9:08 GMT

    This is probably the most fluke article I've ever read. It's surprising really, not to say disappointing alone, that a player of Martin Crowe's caliber is making such statements. Whatever is going on right now is perfectly fine; except that there should be a little less matches that give no electricity. How many times have India and Sri Lanka played each other in the last year? 20? That's WAY more than enough. Look at Pakistan and England; even though Pakistan lost both tests, look at the excitement in the series. Do an Indo-Pak and look at the excitement there. There's no real need to scrap any form. All three are great forms of cricket and if played between two correct teams (who don't play each other extensively and are playing on good pitches), all forms will work. If not, like the current India - Sri Lanka series, none of the forms could attract the market.

  • vinodkannan on August 12, 2010, 9:03 GMT

    Scrap 20 over format which is just a killer of the real cricket. It has taken out the passion of real cricket from the players and spectators! ICC has to take a step for keeping the test cricket alive! Test Cricket is the real game and real test for players! Dont abort 50 Over format! The younger generation players should think about the game and not benefits and keep marching towards representing their country in Test cricket!

  • umeshu on August 12, 2010, 8:52 GMT

    Though ODIs are not like tests, they still test out the talented cricketer in you. Its about building an innings in the ODIs at a good pace, while T20s is all bang bang with the odd class innings.

    Lets play T20 on seaming pitches or spin-webs and then say we dont want ODIs ...

    ODIs will definitely stay !!

  • cheeseburgers on August 12, 2010, 8:52 GMT

    "Test Cricket will always remain a main course" - first said by Sir Sachin Tendulkar and then by poor me:)

  • on August 12, 2010, 8:47 GMT

    DISAGREE...3 FORMATS CAN WORK...too much of T20 would not be acepted by fans and 50 over game has it's own variety and interest..only thing 50 overs shud be split so toss wont decide the match as it's happening in most of the games..test championship is a must

  • FastLegTheorist on August 12, 2010, 8:33 GMT

    Wow - Howe is living proof the too much T20 (and money) rots the brain: "we musn'nt tinker with a fairground of different formats - here how about 6 day tests?! He adds that by spreading a test match over 6 days this will mean that every team will have a better chance to win the league? How? It pretty much rules out any attempt to force a draw - gasp! Oh no - the dreaded 'draw' word. We don't want those - our rich sponsors want results just like the yanks do, never mind the fact that the draws in the last Ashes series and England's ensuing tour of South Africa provided some fantastic drama. No, the cricket-loving public don't want to see that again, do we? What rot. It's quite simple - 3 cups: 5 day Test Championship over 2 years, each team plays home and away series, encompassing The Ashes (e.g. England v Australia fixtures are The Ashes, just like the Calcutta Cup was absorbed into the 6 nations). 40 over ODI league (2 years); T20 World Cup. Done.

  • DavidNorman99 on August 12, 2010, 8:30 GMT

    MRLED said "The reason most people avoid test cricket is mostly they end up in a draw.".

    In what way? In the last 5 years (07 Aug 2005 - 06 Aug 2010), there have been 211 tests played. 156 (74%) had a result, 55 (26%) were draws. (Source: statsguru - http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=07+aug+2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate)

    Of course, this varies depending on where the match is played. Tests in Australia get a result 90% (26/29) of the time, and South Africa 88% (23/26). On the other hand, in Pakistan it's only 46% results (6/13), and West Indies 52% (10/19) (Source: statsguru - http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=07+aug+2005;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate;view=host).

  • zn264 on August 12, 2010, 8:17 GMT

    Just a reminder that Mr Crowe doesn't speak for the majority of New Zealanders who love the 50 over format. For one thing, we aren't to hot in the test arena at the moment (really? I hear you say)...and our T20 record isn't very flash...not the best move if your a New Zealander that's for sure!

  • on August 12, 2010, 8:16 GMT

    I think Martin Crwoe's wig must be too tight. FFS get rid of the T20 version at international level and focus on Test cricket and ODIs. Leave the T20 stuff to domestic teams. There has been nothing wrong with ODIs for more than 30 years - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

  • cartier on August 12, 2010, 8:00 GMT

    I fully agree with Crowe. The 50 over game is dying. The game becomes extremely boring during overs 20 to 40.

  • on August 12, 2010, 7:57 GMT

    MR. ANdrewWI,

    Why do you think Sri Lanka should not be allowed Test cricket?I dont know where you coming from prbably from West Indies which is the worst team in the world if so. Do you know the Test record Sri Lanka has in Sri Lanka?Whats wrong with the pitches and every now and then there will be a pitch which will be one sided.World's No1. spinner is a Sri Lankan and he has taken most number of wickets in SL and if you take one of the best batsman in the world Mahela Jayawardena who has most number of centuries in Sri lanka.I hope if you are from WI you are lucky to be given 3 Tests in Sri Lanka as I suggest Sri Lanka Cricket Board should have considered Bangladesh as they are far more better than ur team. Thank You

  • Ayan_11 on August 12, 2010, 7:43 GMT

    I don't believe three forms will work, I think it is confusing, I think new formats, tinkering with rules like silly split innings will only see the global game become another fun park with different rides and attractions. That will just dilute the market and create confusion and chaos. i think that in all over world no other game have more formats just like hockey, football and many other game have only one format but only cricket has three formats that create too much confusion on weavers mid some teams are very good in test some like Pakistan is very best in shorter format specially T20 i think Test and T20 is a best Format to watch. i agree to martin crow that FTP must include test on yearly and play all test playing teams in two groups Knock out matches and after one year may be lowest ranking team is test Champion and test will be meaning full game now only two teams to play each other for wining the series i hope it will be discussing during ICC M eating

  • crickstats on August 12, 2010, 7:34 GMT

    i think the idea is good other than 6-day tests

  • on August 12, 2010, 7:28 GMT

    lift the ban on bouncers.....if a batsman can hit 6 sixes in an over.... bowler should be allowed to ball 6 bouncers....it will make it even... and we ve better protective gears...

  • ashok16 on August 12, 2010, 7:08 GMT

    A test championship the way Crowe proposes will only add to the confusion. Will first innings lead decide a winner if there is a draw? Very funny. The World Test Championship should be decided by the ladder system as is played in countless clubs for tennis & squash. Teams ranked 2,3,4 will take turns getting a shot at team ranked 1. Winner will take the spot of the loser. Each team will compulsorily have to play two levels up and down in turns, while the champions will have to play 3 levels down. Traditional series like England - Australia or India - Pakistan can be played within this format in that if a team wants to play outside of their compulsory teams, they will do so at their own risk. In a way this will be similar to heavy boxing championship. There will be a challenger and a champion, with about two championship series in a year.

  • on August 12, 2010, 7:06 GMT

    I am tired and sick of yet another talk about Test cricket being 'pure and best form of cricket blah blah blah'. This 130 year old form of 'sport' brings a third result called draw which means teams have fared equally when they have actually not. I don't see any sport which gives this result, the draw in football can be equated to a tie. And now when 50 overs game is not doing well, these jealous 'experts' are asking to scrap it up. Why has there been no talk of scrapping test cricket when it has miserably failed to promote cricket in any way. And the test championship? Knockout? Man, how reflective are these knockouts? And then there will be other factors like toss, pitch etc. Why cant ICC think of making the silly old form better? Why not 112 overs per innings as MRELD rightly stated out. Tomorrow when some new format say 10-10 comes ICC will scrap t20 leaving the wretched tests unchanged calling it pure leaving cricket to 10-15 nations. And then they say 'go global' BAH!

  • JustAGame on August 12, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    @T20I Good one bro, at least you care to think unlike few who just either bash or love something. Having said that what you are suggesting has some down points:1) if you combine all 3 teams, the pool of players will be quite large to take care 2) changing from one form to other is way to difficult for players 3) one game each is not a great measure to judge.

    I'm in favor of scrapping ODIs ( though I'm a huge fan of ODIs and not so big fan of T20- I think that best for the cricket). I also think that instead of yearly champion there should be a champion every two years. Also, ICC should play a bigger role, from keeping close tab on type of pitches to schedules and from proper ranking system to channeling money.

  • on August 12, 2010, 6:19 GMT

    I suggest a Test league - two divisions of six teams, all play all in one country over 6 weeks and then a final between the top two. Every 2 years. One up and one down, also between the 2nd div and the Intercontinental Cup.

    Other Tests like the Ashes and Inida vs Pak in the alternate years.

    Also suggest an official year that all stats conform to, starting Septemberr 21 annually. No series to cross the divide of that day.

  • on August 12, 2010, 6:13 GMT

    Agree with everything except the dropping of ODIs love that form of the game. Crowe has excellent ideas and definitely want to see the Day-Night tests developed.

  • on August 12, 2010, 6:10 GMT

    I hate T20s for this very reason. I wish England had never come up with this game. Beach cricket is more interesting than it is, and as soon as people notice how repetitive and boring it gets after watching 20 in the space of a couple of weeks the wheels will fall off the idea for gaining profits from it. And then what will be the ICC's answer to that? They won't bring back ODIs, instead they'll add wacky rules to T20s until finally only one format can stand.ODIs have lasted for 40 years, there is no reason to get rid of them now. Get rid of T20s before cricket looses all the respect it once has. It's being laughed at by other sports simply because of it.

  • Hoggy_1989 on August 12, 2010, 6:04 GMT

    @AndrewWI: Your solution of only letting the lesser sides play T20 until they're 'good enough' is the whole problem to start with. T20 pitches have nothing to do with bowlers, and everything with having batsman belting everything for six and four; so these so-called 'young, explosive' batsman get found out at Test level when bowlers are allowed to bowl bouncers, and bowl on pitches that actually GIVE ASSISTANCE to a bowler, as opposed to denigrating their abilities to that of a bowling machine. I say scale back T20 to an 'exhibition' format, where you play one or two at the start of a tour series to get everyone interested in the players (and so the organizations can make the money), then have a 3 Test series (with added sanctions to the country for poor pitch making that gives a draw), with 3 ODIs at the end of the tour. All three can survive, but we need to start using T20 for what it is; entertainment and not a legitimate strategy game or it'll go the way of the ODI and die out.

  • jayrkay on August 12, 2010, 6:02 GMT

    The best for the survival of the cricket is ODI's, compact,mostly day/night game- this form will show form before large audience as well as on tv. I certainly disagree with Crowe- I have watched cricket for over 68 years and played in school and college cricket. I wish we had ODI's instead then. Tests are not as thrilling, there is grace, but audience are lacking. T20 is like little children playing, stadium being far away. Few will continue to watch, if the other two are not there, nobody will attend. with out the audience in the grounds, games will die. Football game thrives well in America, the Baseball is taking Toll.

  • Anish_krsna on August 12, 2010, 5:52 GMT

    I would better of watch Beach Cricket than T2Os..ODIs & Test should be given priority no matter what..

  • vipin.chaudhary2325 on August 12, 2010, 5:40 GMT

    cricket is a great game, but now a days, some of the cricket boards are playing for only money, BCCI always want to play against Srilanka, so that they can retain their Number 1 spot. Cricket should be played in a limit, because all the things out of limit are not good, their should be 10 Test, 18-20 One day and 6-7 20-20 in one year, that should be enough, India, Africa, England, Australia, Pakistan & Srilanka should play regularly with each other so that they create an electrifying atmosphere, Ashes is being played in every two years, but in last 10 years India-Australia matches are being all great matches, so they should played against each other, India-England is a good contest, picthes are batting friendly, All the Asian players are having average 50+, not because they are briliant batsman, but they are playing on flat pitches (Sachin Tendulkar Average 37+ in Africa & nearly 60 in Asia), so pitches should favour both batsman and bowler.

  • rohitcbs on August 12, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    No way.. dont scrqap 50-over games. My suggestion wud be to scrap T20Is and keep T20s only at a league level. That way the sanctity of other two formats is preserved since they are the ones wich will have international fixtures as a part.

  • kriskini on August 12, 2010, 5:33 GMT

    Why cannot they consolidate all into one and call it as cricket championship. Eg . Top 8 teams should qualify for this to play quarter final,semifinal and final. A team will play one test match, 1 ODI and 1 T20I against the other team. A test match win should give 4 points and ODI should give 2 points and a T20 1 point. The order of play is T20, ODI and then test cricket. In case a side loosing both T20 and ODI they can still win the test match to go to the next stage. This way test match must be played. In case of a tie the higher ranked team will proceed to the next stage. With this all formats of the game will remain.

  • MRLED on August 12, 2010, 5:33 GMT

    If the tests need survive why not just change 112 overs an innings, results are bound to come in 5 days. The reason most people avoid test cricket is mostly they end up in a draw. It has enough overs to prove the batsmen and bowlers skills.

  • wisefxx on August 12, 2010, 5:25 GMT

    I can't say I agree with that. He is saying it won't work having 3 forms..... but what is going on at the moment? I personally feel twenty/20 has slightly ruined cricket... I am bias as ODI cricket has always been my favourite form, although as I have begun to understand the game more test cricket is neck and neck. please don't axe ODI's.. i will cry

  • Cricfan27 on August 12, 2010, 5:24 GMT

    All three formats must go hand in hand. If some people do not like all three formats it does not mean that Martin Crowe should force his opinion upon the cricket fans worldwide. May be a two innings ODI could be more interesting to watch.

  • AndrewWI on August 12, 2010, 5:23 GMT

    I am heartily sick of the following three test sides : WI , NZ , Pak. These sides should be penalised by being made to play only T20 cricket until they can put together teams that COMPETE properly on the test level. Test matches should be banned at all venues in India except Mohali and Brabourne stadium in Mumbai where the pitches aid fast bowling and spin. Sri Lanka should be allowed NO test cricket till they get all their pitches in shape. We want competition in this game. Whether it's between teams or between batsmen and bowlers. The last competitive test series that were played were Eng-SA and the Ashes. South Africa's hammering of the West Indies in the West Indies is as bad an advert for Tests as there ever was. Similarly Aus- Pak in Aus and Aus-NZ in NZ. One day cricket is the only form in which all can more or less compete with some sense. Dispense with it? Martin Crowe , you're losing your grip.

  • thenkabail on August 12, 2010, 5:23 GMT

    Quality and not quantity: We need people like Martin Crowe and Ian Chappell- real thinkers of the game. There are few like them. Get such people into ICC rather than useless people like Sharad Pawar etc. What cricket needs is quality. This means: 1. test cricket (with test championship like Martin suggests) once 2 years, 2. 20\20 with bi-yearly ICC championship and once in 4 yr world championship; 3. IPL with all countries making it (there ought to be time reserved for it- 2 months a year), and 4. regular test series between countries. IPL teams should allow 5-6 foreign players in the team to increase quality.

  • Farce-Follower on August 12, 2010, 5:16 GMT

    I agree with Mr. Crowe...ODIs need to be discontinued ASAP...Especially in India, it has just become a source of statistics and meaningless achievements. The so-called 'good' ODI players have been miserable Test players...with no work ethic or skills.

  • Satwikrossbones on August 12, 2010, 5:02 GMT

    IF IT AINT BROKE, WHY FIX IT! Bravo good sir, Mr Chrishan. This attitude to world cricket that you bring is the need of the hour. Donot try to perfect things, just let them evolve. Let the chips fall where they may!

  • mysecretme on August 12, 2010, 5:00 GMT

    I believe Martin is wrong here. On one hand he says don't tinker with the ODI format and let it die. On the other hand he says there should be all sorts of changes in the tests. There is a separate audience for all sorts of games. The old/retired crowd for test cricket, teenagers and people who can spare a weekend or an odd day in the week for ODI and working class for the T20. Also, a schedule with a bit of imagination for tests unlike this- every match of the India Srilanka series was on weekdays, saturday and sunday, the players rested- is the need of the hour.

  • JoeyBaxter on August 12, 2010, 4:59 GMT

    When you think about it, the death of ODIs started when people began to create new formats to try and replace it. 40 over games, split innings games - how many new formats will there be? Soon the once great game of cricket will become a murky wash of a million different versions. There are two formats that are currently working - tests (and these will be enhanced by a test championship) and T20s. Let's stop mucking around with formats and stick with those that work. Good job, Martin.

  • Raja1991 on August 12, 2010, 4:53 GMT

    test is the best ....then after odis......no garentis for t20.........keep scilence mr.crowe

  • chris223 on August 12, 2010, 4:51 GMT

    yah who want to see a match that takes 6 days and 7 of them huh? We have to think practically. Everyone is liking shorter formats like 2020 because then they can see real talents and skill and they are getting entertained always but in test they have to think as if it is a short format and a long format so people will start getting confused and us Indians will start hating the sport and that won't gain any support and then cricket will never be the second best

  • Raja1991 on August 12, 2010, 4:51 GMT

    I couldn't disagree more. Mr. Crowe has obviously taken leave of his senses! How can you put aside a format which has been around for 40 years in favour of a format which has emerged quite recently? I was born in 80s, and to this day I still find ODIs fascinating. I would like to meet the people who think this format is boring and want to see it scrapped. Playing a T20 require no skill. Objective: thump the ball as hard as you can! Let's be realistic, no matter how hard the ICC tries there is no way cricket will ever be a global sport. Can it really secure a bigger fan base than soccer? If the colonials didn't introduce us to cricket we probably wouldn't have taken a liking to the sport either. I say "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"test is the best................

  • ramesh-roy on August 12, 2010, 4:38 GMT

    ZERO50 format should replace ODIs to save time and attract viewers. This was published in S Lanka recently: This format has only one innings played chasing other side's average score over last 10 innings (called the Z score). Team A, after toss BOWLs to defend its own Z average score. B team have 2 aims- to win also to raise its Z ave by high scoring over its full 50 overs. Toss is rotated after each match in a series and so in Match 2, Team B bowls to defend its own Z average Changes can spice up the Z50 game: Time wasting such as No balls and Wides= five runs. Slow over-rate= ten runs per over. A broken wicket after a throw is a dead ball. The 3rd umpire has a half minute to give his decision. Whole innings will be under powerplay conditions to speed up run scoring in the midovers. The Z50 format can replace 50/50 ODi and attract more interest as this 50 overs game will not be much longer that T20s.

  • Taz786 on August 12, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    The ICC need to scrap the 50 over Champions Trophy, and replace it with this Test Championship. 10 years or so ago they trialled an Asian Test Championship and look how well it was received. The reason that didn't continue was down to India not wanting to play Pakistan for a number of years after getting beat by Pakistan on their home turf in one of the matches and they had to clear out the ground of spectators as they were throwing things on to the field and setting fires to the stands as the Pakistan win was drawing closer. Shame that for a cricket loving nation, but things haven't changed on that front, happened against South Afirca on tour in India in an ODI more recently.

  • on August 12, 2010, 4:34 GMT

    What!!!!? this is silly. they always forget the people who are already fans of this great game when they make their decisions. Why should we die hard cricket fans should miss out on the 50 over format simply because ICC are more focused on their pockets. 50 overs is the basis of cricket for most cricketers these days. it's the format we play for our clubs. if ICC desides to remove it then i believe that club cricket will also suffer a loss. (if our cricketing heroes arent doing it why should we want to do it...?) and quite possibly club criket will be shortened to 20 over format. A great loss in my mind. 50 over fromat is where batsmen learn good, steady technique, bowlers have to be consistent in line and length, and fielders have to have good concentration through out. If we no longer learn these skills the number of players willing to play tests will suffer and ultimately everone will miss out if test matches are no longer played. Icc need to think of the impact this could have!!!!!

  • howizzat on August 12, 2010, 4:29 GMT

    NO, Martin. All three formats should be retained and will survive. But basis fabric of each format should be intact and sanctity of each format should be maintained. Like tweeking the ODI into two T2Os is one of the ugliest move. Then its better as you said to have only 2 formats. On the other hand Odi can be made shorter by 10 overs. We can have natural play in first 5 and last 5 overs and powerplay of 20 overs in between to reduce midddle overs boredom.

  • XooX on August 12, 2010, 4:28 GMT

    Killing ODI is not the right option. So what if test cricket fails to pick up traction even then? Scrap that one as well and just go ahead with T20?

    You want to know what will lure the audience? Here it is - strike the right balance between demand and supply..Today there is a lot more supply of ODIs than it should be..that makes the format routine..There is a far too little supply of tests than it should ideally be and that makes the format meaningless...

    Streamline the whole FTP calendar and make the onus of scheduling matches on ICC and take it away from the boards. ICC should bring meaning to every series that is being played by countries by making it part of a larger cause - Say for a 4 year FTP, every country must host every other test nation at home and abroad and play a series that consist of tests, ODIs and T20. and make the test victory count towards a test finale that will be conducted every 4 years between teams ranked 1 and 2.

    Scrap all these meaningless tri-series

  • isuruwj on August 12, 2010, 4:26 GMT

    we shouldn't scrap ODI's Its true... 50 over game has deteriorated over time caus T20 has taken up the market We have to be realistic... should convert the one day game in to two 20 over innings per each side but with only 10 wickets for all 40 overs it will cut across the advantage that teams get in the toss Ex- Tri Series In Zimbabwe = all teams won the toss batted 2nd and won the game So we have to convert this format a bit and let the team who has performed better to win the game, not the team who wins the toss

  • on August 12, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    Spot on! ODI,s time is over. and to (thair9999), if Pakistan insent doing well it doesnt mean we cant playtest cricket. Give these kids some time, result will come.

  • ipspunjabi on August 12, 2010, 4:21 GMT

    i agree...test championship is a possibility...to make it feasible...just make it aTtri nation world championship instead of a knockout tournament...by saying that what i meant was..only top three teams in the ICC test rankings should be eligible to play in the championship...this will make sure that all teams fight for the championship by performing harder and harder in the tests format...and teams will fight for their survival in the rankings as well...this also give a meaning to the test rankings and test match era can be relived AGAIN..!!!

    no need to eliminate any format..!!

    because the main idea is to keep the test format alive and make the national cricket boards of all the countries, to take the test format seriously...not just a gone by era..!!

  • AIRkris on August 12, 2010, 3:49 GMT

    i have followed cricket for 20 years and i have never watched a T20 match, and still have no urge to watch one today...

  • ElGerrardo on August 12, 2010, 3:47 GMT

    Personally not against a test championship though more details are still needed, such as relationship to iconic series like the Ashes? However, dropping one day cricket for that load of crap called Twenty20? You've gotta be joking! Twenty20 cricket is not real cricket. Never has been, never will be. It involves no skill & no talent; just plenty of luck. It's fine at the lower levels to get people interested in the game, but for anyone who has any knowledge/ real interest in the game it is purely & simply a waste of time. If you concentrated only on test's & Twenty20's, the sport would very quickly break in two as half the good test players aren't much chop at Twenty20 & half the 'good' Twenty20 players are rubbish at tests. Concentrate only on Tests & ODIs & have Twenty20's in primary schools & as appertisers for nations that don't play cricket; where it belongs. If only John Howard had been made ICC vice-president he would never have allowed such an outrage to even be suggested...

  • dibbu on August 12, 2010, 3:44 GMT

    Despite the fun that I have had watching IPL, I say dump that format- it does not belong at the international level. Keep it for IPL-kind of tournaments- it's fun and good time-pass, but come on, it does not require even 1/87th of cricketing skills! PS: I watched the first edition of T20 World Cup and that was it. It's fun, but cannot be called cricket. Hope better sense prevails among those milking cricket and cricketers.

  • Chrishan on August 12, 2010, 3:41 GMT

    I couldn't disagree more. Mr. Crowe has obviously taken leave of his senses! How can you put aside a format which has been around for 40 years in favour of a format which has emerged quite recently? I was born in 80s, and to this day I still find ODIs fascinating. I would like to meet the people who think this format is boring and want to see it scrapped. Playing a T20 require no skill. Objective: thump the ball as hard as you can! Let's be realistic, no matter how hard the ICC tries there is no way cricket will ever be a global sport. Can it really secure a bigger fan base than soccer? If the colonials didn't introduce us to cricket we probably wouldn't have taken a liking to the sport either. I say "if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

  • on August 12, 2010, 3:38 GMT

    Completely disagree. I thought Martin Crowe had more sense than this. I'm not a purist by any means but I do not really like Twenty20. In my opinion some of the best cricketing moments of all time have come in ODIs (and of course Tests). Just because T20 is drawing in new crowds doesn't mean the time is now to dumb ODIs. Surely the popularity of the other cricket forms is influenced positively by the success of T20?

  • Adeel-Mathematician on August 12, 2010, 3:36 GMT

    ICC is trying hard to make ODIs entertaining. They have gone to the extent that now they are left with only gimmicks. (i)free hit (ii) powerplay (iii) change of players like soccer (iv) One batsman can bat twice etc. How long can it survive merely on gimmicks????..........

  • on August 12, 2010, 3:29 GMT

    I'm in favour of scrapping the 50 over format. But day-night tests will be boring. Will be great to get some sleep!

  • Adeel-Mathematician on August 12, 2010, 3:29 GMT

    So Imran Khan suggestion founding its supporters. Imran's primary concern was fast bowlers in that address. Michael Holding another past great second Imran's view regarding fast bowlers. This should be now taken well established fact that too much cricket is harmful for quality fast bowling. In this vein, it seems natural that ODI should not here any more, or very little.

    The choice that we are now forced to make is that: Do we want to see quality fast bowlers in the cricket or not? ODI future should be decided in the light of that answer.

  • ALAM-G on August 12, 2010, 3:17 GMT

    In my openion I don't go with Crow statement instead it ICC should continue to make Even Test cricket more attractive for example there must be result in test match and no draw and each inning should contain 100 overs after completion of 100 over bowling team should be invited to bat their innings. This way test cricket become more attractive.

  • Pathiyal on August 12, 2010, 3:15 GMT

    well, i believe strongly that if at all test cricket has a sanctitity over the other formats its due to the lack of commercialisation and the lack of over 'competitiveness' to an extent. looking from a distance, i find that the opinions of martin crowe (with due respects) impractical or too much for the asking just like the uneven pitches in the sub continents.

  • Blackcaps-Supporter on August 12, 2010, 3:14 GMT

    This idea of changing the set-up for cricket has been around for a while now. I really don't think its an issue. The main problem seems to be How the ICC/ Cricket boards are scheduling games. There should be one World-Cup for each fromat( Yes eliminate the Champions Trophy) and these should be the pinnacles of each fromat. Then Countries should be able to organise tours within this set up keeping in mind that we don't want to be cricketed out. Thats just my opinion though.

  • vimalan on August 12, 2010, 3:12 GMT

    this is such a ridiculous thoughts by Martin...if you want to scrap a format, do it to T20 and not to ODIs..ODIs should be preserved.

  • thair9999 on August 12, 2010, 3:06 GMT

    We should drop Test (Yes, I am from Pakistan)

  • Chatla on August 12, 2010, 3:06 GMT

    DON'T KILL 1-DAYs PLSSSS. FOCUS ON ALL. "STOP THINKING ABOUT KILLING ANY FORMAT". WE (FANS) ARE ENJOYING ALL FORMATS OF GAME. TRY TO FOCUS ON QUALITY OF PITCHES, HOT SPOT Method etc.

  • TheBigFatFlapjack on August 12, 2010, 3:04 GMT

    Oh, no no no!! No, no, nooooooo!! Mr Crowe, please dont ask the ICC to get rid of 50-over games!! *sighs* (as if martin crowe is gonna read all these comments)

    but seriously, seriously, getting rid of 50 over games is not the viable option. seriously. the 50 over game is still the most popular version of the game in most part of the world and its probaly the only format *that can* contan and balance most aspects of the game, provided that we dont have pointless run fests. even test cricket has a lot to thank for the advent of the 50 over game - from batsmen playing all kinds of flamboyant attacking shots, teams setting attacking fields, going for results and now even day-night test matches... come on!!

    as major fans of one day games, if the ICC decides to wipe out the 50 over game we would have no other option other than to start playing fantasy 50 over matches over the internet using fictitional players to satisfy our 50 over cricket needs. thank you.

  • rtmohanlal on August 12, 2010, 3:03 GMT

    Absolute rubbish !!! - your suggestion, Mr: Crowe.All the 3 formats generates different kinds of skills, challenges and spectator thrills.Just imagine as to what skill is involved in mishitting balls to boundaries as it is in 20-20. Do you feel players can shift between tests & 20-20 ? Never..A 20-20 player can never give the excitement that was seen in the final day of india-sl 3rd test.One day cricket is the correct link between test & 20-20, i feel.Getting a proper balance between the count of all 3 formats is the correct way, i feel.For eg: the garbage going around in SL at the moment after the tests is utter waste.50 over cricket has its own excitement.Can 20-20 bring the thrill that Sachin gave when he singlehandedly got Pakistan out of the match in 2003 WC ?no...A 20-20 WHACKER can never play an inns like that.It requires skill to survive class bowlers and yet to find scoring oppertunities.So pls leave 50 OVER format alone.

  • on August 12, 2010, 2:53 GMT

    Twenty/20 cricket should not be played at International Level. It should be left as a tool to get people interedted in the State/ County/ IPL etc level of competition. Both Test and International 50 over games should be seen as the ultimate goal of a professional cricketer.

  • NZ_Cricket_supporter on August 12, 2010, 2:50 GMT

    No no no no no. This is a terrible idea. The only people who are sick of 50 over cricket are the casual watchers anyway. Why should they be driving the future of cricket? Those driving cricket should be the people who play, follow, watch, listen and read about cricket... i.e the people who actually care.

    The test championship is a good idea, but hardly a new idea.

  • Gupta.Ankur on August 12, 2010, 2:49 GMT

    I really don't know why NZ,Aussies are so hell-bent on seeing the death of ODI's....It is the T20 which is useless and is just a entertainment thing...

    ODI and Tests are real form of cricket.....whereas T20 is just waste of time with only money & glamour.

  • on August 12, 2010, 2:46 GMT

    I prefer 3 formats t20 is not real cricket its just making the game popular cos it takes short time to watch basically t20 is just entertainment not cricket

  • on August 12, 2010, 2:45 GMT

    I totally dis agree with Martin Crowe; Tests, One-days, T20s should definately exist. If u look at other sports n games, every sport has different formats. Ex: Shooting 100m, 200m, 400m etc etc.. Running Marathon, 100m, 200m, 400m etc etc, Tennis Singles, doubles, Mixed doubles, in Chess also we have different formats... Don't Kill One-Days...Better stop thinking about killing any format. Every Player as per their potential should try to excel in all formats.

  • Vasum on August 12, 2010, 2:24 GMT

    Test Championship is good idea, but don't drop 50 Overs, may be in different format, One day cricket is very important that keep lots of cricket momentous rolling.

  • D.V.C. on August 12, 2010, 2:18 GMT

    We need ODI cricket for Associate development. A lot of people seem to forget the vital role the slightly longer limited overs form plays in developing cricket outside the Test playing nations.

  • on August 12, 2010, 1:54 GMT

    I think there is a place for all three. All three suit different attitudes, I think we just play a bit too much of one dayers and T20s. I love all three, but there is a place for all three too. I still want to watch and play, as well as coach.... T20 (or 22) allows me to play in the evenings or watch and not take up a lot of time. Each has its own skill set. I would really suggest playing less five match one day series and meaningless one dayers unless they count towards something.... like a champions league. Main thing is not to overdose on any format!

    Where does indoor cricket come into this as well. (good winter sport for cricketers..... ? )

  • crictonite on August 12, 2010, 1:50 GMT

    @jupiterlaw, That is an excellent point. The emergence of Twenty20s has exposed the fundamental flaws that have always existed in Test cricket. Most Tests are played 8 hours a day from 9am-5pm for 5 days. That completely alienates the biggest sports demographic, i.e. 18-60 year-old males. On the other hand, a 3-hour Twenty20 under the lights at 7:00 in the evening makes for a good date.

  • Uomur on August 12, 2010, 1:47 GMT

    Well I cannot disagree more on this one. Killing ODIs is just ridiculous. I do agree though that the market of ODIs have been affected with the advent of T20s but T20 cricket is just not enough. T20s with all its entertainment buzz has its own package of drawbacks. You cannot fulfill your potential with T20. The boom of T20 will saturate sooner or later. T20s do attract public including people with little understanding of the game but in the long run you cannot wipe out the fact that T20 matches most of the time reduces to a one-man show. Also, introducing 2 innings in ODIs is not gonna work at all. It might spice up ODIs initially but the whole system is flawed especially the concept of super-striker and will burn down eventually just like the 12th man concept introduced earlier. I believe ODIs will resume its fan following in time by itself and introduction of some interesting tournaments just might do the trick.

  • on August 12, 2010, 1:43 GMT

    What rubbish, I manage to disagree with him completely. T20's are the McDonald's form of cricket; its fun with bright colours and is wonderfully mindless but you immediately feel unfulfilled and unsatisfied after. They need to get rid of it at an international level because it's meaningless, always tacked on the end of tours, and has little strategy other than batsmen bludgeon, bowlers contain. The Champions league needs to be promoted heavily instead. Tests need a tournament that lasts two year, and needs context. ODI's are truely the beautiful medium between the fireworks of T20 and strategy of Test cricket. What really needs to happen is less cricket overall for more context, more rivalries created, and more jostling for position for a purpose. Give people a reason to watch and to play before mucking around with rules.

  • ToMegaTherion1986 on August 12, 2010, 1:34 GMT

    I couldn't disagree more with Crowe on this issue. I think all three formats can work. Frankly once the gloss disappears from T20 cricket over the next decade, then T20 cricket will be no more or less popular than ODI cricket. Remember that the public had the same reaction too ODI's when they were first introduced in the 1970s. Massive crowds huge following and lots of money lead to break away leagues and talks of the death of Test cricket. The same think is occurring now with the introduction of T20 cricket. Perhaps set tour itineraries to fit into the FTP. For example a full tour could consist of, 4-5 tests, 5ODIs and 3 T20Is, scrap 7ODI tours, its a waste of time. parhaps have an alternate half tour system of 2-3 tests, 3 ODIs, 1-3 T20Is. It can work but the ICC and everyone else needs to get behind ODIs again, as well as all the other formats. Because once the gloss is gone on T20I there will be a massive gap if ODI cricket is dumped. I urge the ICC to try to make it work.

  • on August 12, 2010, 1:28 GMT

    Hi all, I like & respect Mr. Crowe as a player & professional of the game we all love. But in my humble opinion a test championship is a good idea and all teams should be playing the same number of matches then some playing more or playing the same opponent again and again. It is also that points need to be split in case of draw not on first innings lead as it again means batting side have advantage. And please have more bowling friendly pitches as well. But where I disagree with him is on the basis that 1days need to finish I think 1 days should be left as they r. If split innings r required they should be made in test so in a day of 90 overs each team bats 45 and 1day out of 5 days can be rest as it used to happen till 70s and 80s. Pink ball can be tried and day/night tests can be a good idea but do not split 1days rather split tests innings to keep both teams fans interested. And keep 2020 also. So all forms can go together.

  • Woody111 on August 12, 2010, 1:16 GMT

    Talk about confusing - 6 days! So teams play 5 day tests some of the time and 6 days other times. If this is to ensure a result it won't work as it can still rain for a few days and since captains don't seem to believe in sporting declarations to get a result it still won't work. I hate the thought of day/night tests with pink balls. Talk about gimmicks! Test championships are worth looking at but it's not test cricket's relevance that's the problem - it's ODI cricket. Any player will tell you every test win is valued - just look at the Sri Lanka vs India series; who play each other once a week it seems. They still value the contest even if they'd rather the contests were less frequent. I agree with Raunaq because I hate 20/20 as it's not cricket at all but the reality is that the masses love it because it's over quickly and simply involves 6s. 20/20 has killed 50 over cricket. You can tinker with it all you want but it won't make a difference. But leave test cricket as it is.

  • haroonalvi on August 12, 2010, 1:03 GMT

    The only form of cricket that needs to be eliminated is Test match cricket. Apart from England, Australia and India, everywhere in the world, test cricket is played infront of empty stands. ICC is pumping the money earned from T20 and ODI to Test cricket. My prediction is that as soon as cricket hits its first economic crisis, Tests will become history. And as for day night tests, well, most of the people sleep during the boring stage of test matches, in the case of day night tests, i guess they are going to wake up the next morning

  • mark135 on August 12, 2010, 0:56 GMT

    OMG no way... too extreme of a difference between the two. Must keep a middle length game even if modified... but not like a double T20... Tests are the ultimate challenge and must be kept... T20 is for light entertainment... keep a middle length format for sure... don't reduce to two extremely different forms of the game... no way Crowe

  • on August 12, 2010, 0:53 GMT

    well,i dont think too many formats is an issue,poor organising and marketing is an issue. Icc must conduct only the following tournament champions league-t20,test and odi(involving domestic teams ofcourse),champions trophy,asia cup,and a test championship these must the annual events and ofcourse the t20 and 50over world cup. Make international cricket mean something,stop the meaningless honda cup,pepsi cup etc. And also make your own pitch curator teams and only they must be allowed to prepare piches for test matches,so that the chances of drawn test matches be minimized as much as possible. Also the knockout test doesnt sound a good idea instead one test at home and one away test must be played between each team,and from 8 teams,4 will go to semis and then grand finale,exiting!

  • Test_Match_Fan on August 12, 2010, 0:49 GMT

    Right on Martin Crowe on the test championship every year. Great idea. But please.......no pink ball or day night. They are already making tonnes of money in TV rights instead of stadium receipts. Keep test matches pure as they were meant to be played. Maybe use lights at the end of the day to extend the day a little bit in case of fading light. But that is where the tweaking to existing rules must stop.

  • georgeF on August 12, 2010, 0:49 GMT

    50 over cricket was a cheap and nasty money making exercise started in the 60s to susidise test cricket. T20 is also a cheap and nasty money maknig exercise fopr the same purpose, but it is a superior product, more entertaining, and more family friendly.

    The only true form of international cricket is the test match. I have long since given up watching 50 over cricket...it is dull and formulaic. The beauty of T20 is that an inferior team can more easily win with a stand out perfomance from an individual...this brings more uincertainty to the result and therefore more interest. Junk the 50 over game...it started dying some 10 years ago and is now in its final throes. Good riddance.

  • tfjones1978 on August 12, 2010, 0:49 GMT

    T20 isnt real cricket, whereas ODI is. There is a reason why Test (over 125 years) and ODI (about 40 years) has survived. It is because they are interesting and showcase the best side.

    T20 is just a slug fest. There is no real opportunity to showcase the best talent, it is all about luck. The team with the most luck usually wins.

    The best side wins in Tests about 80%-90% of the time, ODI 70%-80% of the time and T20I about 50%-55% of the time. It shouldnt be called 2020, it should be 5050, as too much is determined by the toss of the coin.

    If you have 2 formats, it should be either (my preference) Tests and split-innings ODI OR (lesser preference) Tests and two-innings T20I.

    At least a two-innings T20I would give the stronger team a better chance of winning, whilst being played over 6 or 7 hours.

    Still I prefer a split-innings approach of 50 overs (no 40 like CA want).

  • on August 12, 2010, 0:44 GMT

    I think we should have T20's, Test matches and the 50 over game should become 2 innings of 25 overs each? I would hate to see the end of 50 over cricket. Without that we won't see some of the great innings we've seen over the years, it will be an end to batting carefully and building a score and then saving wickets to attack at the end.

  • Desihungama on August 12, 2010, 0:39 GMT

    How about radicalize the whole game of Cricket? Play only 2 formats, Test and Twenty20 and hold the World Cup every 2 years in a ODI format?

  • Desihungama on August 12, 2010, 0:36 GMT

    Three formats can work but there should be a rule that a player can only play in 2 of the formats. It ensures all players have more fair opportunities and will avoid player fatigure. And of course there should be then 3 Title Cup games.

  • on August 12, 2010, 0:27 GMT

    I Think ODI Is More Interesting Than 20-20 Because Its More Over And Showed The Skills Of Players But 20-20 It Takes Some Players Very Old To Play A Bit!!!

  • Ozcricketwriter on August 12, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    I love the idea of a test championship, though I think 5 day matches would do and there should be a points system in case of drawn matches. So what if it isn't definitively the best team? Nor is the World Cup definitively showing the best team.

    As for getting rid of ODIs, well, T20s are better so I can see the idea of it. I still think that ODIs should exist but I think that we should go with what the fans want and perhaps have less of them than we do now. It is important to have something in between T20 and tests as if you just have those 2 extremes then there is a world of difference. We could even do with a 4th format, between ODIs and tests.

  • on August 12, 2010, 0:22 GMT

    Like test championships, we can also have one-day championhips. Or we can have reduced one-day tournaments. Let go of all bilateral series and have only world cup and champions trophy. Day-night test would be great.

  • on August 12, 2010, 0:20 GMT

    Leave 50 over alone. Am i th eonly one who is already getting bored of T20. I still enjoy 50 over, but 20 over is getting so dull. T20 games follow about 3 or 4 different patterns for the whole game Bat first low score, opposition low score but win Bat first high score, opposition lose a ton of wickets in the first 6 and crowd goes home Those 2 make up 90% of the games I see - and they are both very dull. Then there is the rare "high score chased down" game and the even rarer "low score defended"

    There is no innings building, no attacking bowling, no partnerships..no point. T20 - great for 5-6 years, but SOOOOOO dull now.

  • the-anti-mule on August 12, 2010, 0:19 GMT

    hear hear.

    people who despise T20 cannot seem to come up with a good reason to do so. The only reasonable one i heard is that it doesn't provide an opportunity to build an innings. Surprise! that is what tests allow you to do. Not every format needs to do the same. T20s serve a different purpose- fast, entertaining, short games. The only thing wrong with T20s is the imbalance between bat and ball due bad pitches, short boundaries. ODIs just suck nowadays.

  • kesavramesh on August 12, 2010, 0:07 GMT

    Very simple. Allow players to choose a maximum number of T20 say 15 per calendar. This includes World T20, IPL, CL T20 etc., and even domestic T20 matches. But once they exceed the minimum number of T20 matches that's it, they cant play anymore. But minimum they need to play couple of matches in World T20.Staright Similarly place a maximum on the one-day too. But on the contrary they have to play min 6 Tests in a calendar year(2 per quarter). If they don't meet this criteria, then they cannot play in any other formats. This will give head aches to selection committee as there will not be any regional bias after some time.

  • Indunil76Shantha on August 11, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    Mr. Crow, 50 over game is a real cricket game where only cricketers can play. T20 can play by any mad bull, Hitting the ball all over, if he hit, he is a hero, if he get out, try again in d next game. So, dont bother to remove the 50 over game. If someone dont wanna play that, then it is ok. That's mean they cant play the real cricket. Classic cricketers will cherish the 50 over game always nd forever. We got to understand one thing. A cricket game is not a well planned movie. It is a game where can happen the unexpected. Players cant entertain anyone. Players are competing in the ground. We have to enjoy that. This cant be always a thrilling contest. Sometimes this can be one sided nd one can find this BORING. That's the way this game goes. Can we find every soccer game thrilling? Can we find every 100m U. Bolt run thrilling? No way. So leave the game alone. There r people who really love this game. If anyone wanna play it with 20/20 r 10/10 it's ok. But some want 50 & Addicted to dat

  • redneck on August 11, 2010, 23:49 GMT

    no way! dont agree with only two formats of cricket, and dont agree that a test championship should be knock out! firstly ODI has a place, it still get crowds and tv dollars! and like other comments have said twenty20 isnt a valid form of cricket, no substance whatsoever! and a test championship needs to be so much more than knockout!!!! i like the thought of having the current FTP as a guide for a test championship but with a league table, make it spred over 4 years to allow all teams to play home and away fixtures against all other test nations. have semis and a final after the 4 year run which could replace a champions trophy type event. test crickets the highest standard of the sport and should recieve a championship format of high standard not some knockout crap, slapped together at the last minute in desperation!

  • on August 11, 2010, 23:49 GMT

    Only T20 ?????? It will surely kill the spirit of the game .......... :@

  • BillyCC on August 11, 2010, 23:48 GMT

    I agree with many of the points in the forum. John Price's comment about longer Test series (minimum three matches per series), a Test championship format which can accommodate many scenarios including draws, less ODIs and T20s (maximum number imposed on all Test playing nations every year; let's say 5 T20s and 10 ODIs in a non-World Cup year; this will allow more calendar time for the Test championship), and a minimum number of Test matches imposed on each country if the Test championship fails to get off the ground. I also support the continuation of T20 as a club championship format, like the IPL and the Champions League and so on. That is where I believe T20 has its place on the cricketing stage.

  • on August 11, 2010, 23:30 GMT

    Test championships - yes, good idea. Phase out ODI's - undecided on this, it gives players a chance to build up their innings, for bowlers to work out batsmens weaknessess. It is good preparation for the Test matches. But it is less popular with the crowds. T20 - horrible skill-less games. I don't bother watching them. Suitable only for mindless idiots who just want to slog the ball. Too Americanised and Baseballish. Yet apparently popular.

    When it comes down to it, the individual Cricket Clubs are in a business. They need to make money to pay their players and other staff. They will go where the money is regardless of what makes a good game.

  • on August 11, 2010, 23:29 GMT

    I agree that Test cricket needs some context and the Test Championship can go some way towards achieving this. However, I don't agree with doing away with ODIs in favour of T20. If the ICC is going to go with a 2 format approach, then ODIs and T20s should be consoliated together into one format, i.e. 35 overs, or, pending the success over the Australia summer, the proposed format there of two innings of 20 overs each. T20 is all about money and attracting the crowd, and less about the cricket. In terms of players, if there were only Tests and T20s, then there become much more specialist cricketers, which means less cricket and less chance to see the big names in action- and, for the players, less money. For example, teams see certain players as either Test or T20 specialists (i.e. David Warner, Tim MacIntosh) - not many cricketers play both, but Test and T20 players have a chance of making the ODI team. Consolidating T20 and ODIs means that there is still a chance for these players.

  • Markus971 on August 11, 2010, 23:28 GMT

    20/20 Cricket ?? Yes! -- 50 Over Cricket (2x25 over split inn'gs)?? Maybe! -- Test Match Cricket Day/Nght?? No! A Test Match World Chmp's?? Yes! -But over a 2 or 3 Yr period, with a points system rewarding Wins not Draws...& its Time we had 4 Day Test Matches 100 Overs a Day!!

  • RUQQ on August 11, 2010, 23:27 GMT

    Cricket is good as it today.... No format can take over of any other format. Test is ultimate and pure form of cricket which should have to be stay as it is. 50 and 20 overs cricket have their own identity now and at the moment they are doing good to make business.

    Only one thing can keep all formats alive which is fair distribution of the matches. A series between two nations should have at least 3 tests, 3 to 5 - 50 over matches and 3 - T20 matches. In some series we have 2 tests, 7 one days and 2 T20 matches or teams are travelling to play only one day series which is not justified with players and rankings.

    Idea of test championship or ranking of teams are foolish idea. Some teams are playing 15 tests in a year and some are 5 or 6 only. Pakistan only can play cricket abroad from now on. All other Asian teams are in danger of security as well.

    I would like to see a test match at night with pink ball and black screen.

  • Adeel-Mathematician on August 11, 2010, 23:19 GMT

    So Imran Khan suggestion founding its supporters. Imran's primary concern was fast bowlers in that address. Michael Holding another past great second Imran's view regarding fast bowlers. This should be now taken well established fact that too much cricket is harmful for quality fast bowling. In this vein, it seems natural that ODI should not here any more, or very little.

    The choice that we are now forced to make is that: Do we want to see quality fast bowlers in the cricket or not? ODI future should be decided in the light of that answer.

  • tga2 on August 11, 2010, 23:18 GMT

    You have to really think about it, what direction do you want the game of cricket going in the world? Forward or backwards

    By elminating the One Day format you also get rid of a highly strategic game. T20 matches are brainless versions in the shorter form of the game built on the basis of pleasing those who dont really give a hott about cricket.

    In 20 overs it is basically a marching order to go out there have a wog if it comes of it comes off if you fail ohwell back to the dressing room for you. It also is a game that favours batters and makes good bowlers look less than average

    Knock out is nota good format for a test competition. so many other factors affects tests and many are draws. You then bring in the need for increased aggressive play and we will see ridiuclous things happen to the most pure form of the game

    Basically it sounds like you MR Crowe are putting this in the too hard basket.

  • HaVoKry on August 11, 2010, 23:16 GMT

    Completely agree regarding a Test Chamionship, and utterly disagree on killing off ODI's. The problem does not lie within the formats, but is due to bad scheduling and horrible pitches. ODI's are essential, as they combine the best elements of Test cricket and T20's, with both building of an innngs, and a some big hitting at the end. T20's are good for expanding the cricketing horizon, but quickly loses its charm. Worst case scenario, I say get rid of T20s, not ODIs, however due to the big money involved, I really doubt that's going to happen.

  • on August 11, 2010, 23:12 GMT

    Martin is simply talking from a marketing point of view - and that is not necessarily a revenue gaining view either, it is a strategy to gain more interest in every game played. I will be very sad if ODI's do diminish and stop all together, but I love all cricket. He's right there are so many championships going on these days, who really is the top team anyway? We have all wanted a test championship / world cup to be played, it's been talked about for years. Now is the time to do it.The ICC have trialed other failed ventures e.g. ICC World XI vs Aussie in 2005, come on lets try it - there's nothing to lose. Martin Crowe knows what he is talking about he is after all the true architect of 20/20 cricket when he invented max cricket over a decade ago.

  • PremZtalks on August 11, 2010, 23:04 GMT

    Surprise! surprise! People of Martin's caliber says to close 50-over cricket for the sake of T20. HOW DO YOU DEVELOP CRICKET GLOBALLY IF YOU HAVE ONLY T20s? A t20 winning minnow nation can never compete with a regular test playing nation and the GAP will increase drastically...One positive thing in having all 3 formats is the globalization of cricket and the gradual deveopment of minnows to regular test/50-over nations... Personally I feel T20 should be a format for OLYMPICS, Commonwealth etc... and there should be no ICC worldcup for T20s.

  • Sportsscientist on August 11, 2010, 22:38 GMT

    The situation is only the way it is because of the FTP anyway. if we have the stupid FTP, ODI's, T20's and test series then it will be cramped. if you only play the opposition as part of a test championship, then whats the problem??? only India will complain if things clash with the IPL and ENG vs AUS may suffer because of the ashes.....besides if you scrap the poxy FTP, then cricket boards wont have to cram so many tests to meet their obligations. if you organised 3 test matches with 2 of them back-to-back, you could have a test chamionship in 2 years/18 months. next test chamionship. over the next 2 years/18 months you could fit in an ashes series, IND vs PK, SA vs WI & either/or a T20 or 50 over ODI comp, or boards could organise other test series' before you start play offical "championship" test cricket. also there would be a clear IPL window with only non-championship tests being played. why cramp everthing and try to squeeze 50 over cricket??

  • topspeed55 on August 11, 2010, 22:32 GMT

    Please stop this 20/20 cricket its taken away all the grace off the cricket as a sport. This one initiative has created more problems for cricket. Its good for cricketer who have just retired. It looks more like as if I am watching a baseball game. If I miss a live 20/20 game I don't even bother to watch a highlight. But I would never ever like to miss a test match or a 50 over game. Test championship is a good idea but you will have to limit the overs per innings in test cricket or not every match will produce a result.

  • MinusZero on August 11, 2010, 22:30 GMT

    20/20 has never grown on me and i dont think it will. It should be the one to go

  • KAIRAVA on August 11, 2010, 22:26 GMT

    With all the talk of waning of test cricket and the need of a test world championship tournament in place by 2013, I also have a different suggestion and format. Grant test status to Ireland and one of Kenya/Netherlands by 2011. Divide the teams in two groups of 6 based on rankings at the end of 2012. Get the teams in elite division to play a 3-test series on home and away basis with each other for the next two years. The top two get to the finals whereas the bottom team get relegated to division 2. In this way, each of the elite group teams get to play 12 test match matches a year, which they deserve. In the Plate division, the teams should play 2-match test series on a home & away basis with each other with the top two getting to the plate final and the winner to get promoted to elite division. In this way, each of the plate division teams get to play 8 test matches in a year. In this manner, we can have a new world test champion for every 2 years.

  • KAIRAVA on August 11, 2010, 22:26 GMT

    With all the talk of waning of test cricket and the need of a test world championship tournament in place by 2013, I also have a different suggestion and format. Grant test status to Ireland and one of Kenya/Netherlands by 2011. Divide the teams in two groups of 6 based on rankings at the end of 2012. Get the teams in elite division to play a 3-test series on home and away basis with each other for the next two years. The top two get to the finals whereas the bottom team get relegated to division 2. In this way, each of the elite group teams get to play 12 test match matches a year, which they deserve. In the Plate division, the teams should play 2-match test series on a home & away basis with each other with the top two getting to the plate final and the winner to get promoted to elite division. In this way, each of the plate division teams get to play 8 test matches in a year. In this manner, we can have a new world test champion for every 2 years.

  • VMKA on August 11, 2010, 22:24 GMT

    How about the mixed format??? Try this.. It will be successful. Its a MIXED format. Total 5 days of match, 2 and a half day test match like, 1.75 days time to each innings/ team. Then one day innnings... and finally the T20 innings. Whichever team gets highest total runs from 3 formats is the winner. If not now, for sure it will be there in future... Thanks

  • Sportsscientist on August 11, 2010, 22:10 GMT

    why have a test chamionship every year???? how stupid is that??? what happened to a 4 year cycle, or bi-annual tournament?? your going to cramp a test championship in such a short space but have a 50 over ODI every 4 years?? T20 WC every 2 years???......ridiculous. Scrap the FTP because it has to be the most stupid idea the ICC ever come up with & and have a longer test tournament, over 2 or 4 years.

  • BiSONN on August 11, 2010, 22:08 GMT

    Game is just fine as it is right now. Everyone talking about "saving" it is ridiculous - and a bit funny now. No need for Day/Night Test Matches. No real need for a Test Championship, I think longer Test Series are what are required with the ICC ensuring pitch quality in every country, if one isn't sporting (favors the batsmen too much), penalize the ground. The Test Ranking gives us a an OVERALL test champion, don't really think a test series is one which needs a tournament, a ranking system gives every match importance.

    As for scrapping ODI's .. PLEASE! There is nothing like a well contested ODI! If anything needs scrapping it's T20. I think all three can .. and are .. coexist and there is no problem at all. No need for changes when none are required .. at all, seriously.

  • regofpicton on August 11, 2010, 22:07 GMT

    In my opinion there are only two forms of cricket being played - Tests and ODIs. This other game, known as Twenty20, at least has the courtesy not to use the word "cricket" in its title. I concede that T20 is enjoyable inn its own right, but it sure ain't cricket. As for ODI's having "outlived their utility", they were never meant to be "useful", they were meant to be a condensed form of cricket, with its wonderful ebb and flow. They have been achieving that for many years, and i hope they continue to do so. As for a test championship, yes please, but" home and away" in each round would be a lot fairer. That would make five day games more practical too. As for seedings, is it meant to be 1vs5, 2 vs6, etc in the first round? That works for me!

  • on August 11, 2010, 22:02 GMT

    Don't get rid of ODI's! It involves some thinking and strategy that is lacking in T20.. after all, is that not what cricket is about? As for the IPL, well that is commercialised and hyped up to the point of being completely retarded. After hearing things like "City moment of success" and "Carbon Command catch" I had to stop watching. It is tacky!

  • ElPhenomeno on August 11, 2010, 22:01 GMT

    For once, a smart and thoughtful man has spoken. I don't like the idea of retiring one day format for T20 which I consider to be extremely inferior product. But seeing as how things are, somethings gotta give. You cannot sustain all 3 formats and make them profitable while giving all of them some context. No other sport has so many flavours of the same thing. Its just not sustainable.

    Totally agree with Martin Crowe.

  • on August 11, 2010, 21:59 GMT

    Graeme Swann is the only attacking spinner in the world. Eng, Pak and SA are the only countries who have fast bowlers who know how to attack the batsmen without relying on pure pace or containment. Test bowling standards have dropped dramatically in the last few years and Twenty20 has a lot to do with this. Twenty20 leaves bowlers with containment their only option, and skill sets are being lost.

    The biggest disappointment of the Eng Pak series is the lopside results have hidden some of the best Test Match bowling in years. On the other hand the 2nd Test between Ind and SL (without Murali & Malinga) probably fielded the 2 worst bowling attacks ever in Test cricket.

    Twenty20 obviously is a big money maker due to its accessability, so keep it around, but not at the expense of ODIs.

    And for all those who think ODIs are predictable and boring. Watch the recent ODI between NZ & Ind and the 190 run-a-ball parthneship between Styris and Taylor in the middle overs.

  • cheesemethod on August 11, 2010, 21:55 GMT

    Martin mate, Your ideas are as bad as your TV Commentary. 3 forms is not confusing. ODIs don't need tinkering or split innings. The most recent change with the batting powerplay has added to the excitement and needs nothing more.

    t20 is a good novelty but with the pace and innings buildup of an ODI it can lead to very intense exciting finishes. The main problem is the quantity, ie when last season Australia played 10 ODIs straight against 2 lackluster sides, Pakistan and West Indies.

    Instead of 5 ODIs + 2 t20s for a tour, make it a 3 ODI series and 3 t20s

  • akill33 on August 11, 2010, 21:55 GMT

    I like the idea of a test championship, but there has to be a way to settle a draw. It does not replace a hard fought 5 match series, but would be interesting to see it happens once every 4 years similar to the world cup. As for doing away with ODI's, I tend to agree. The format is quickly becoming monotonous with the growth of 20/20.

  • kiwimike on August 11, 2010, 21:54 GMT

    This is the same Martin Crowe who gave the world 'Cricket Max', not that the world wanted it from him (for those who don't know that game let just say 'silly split innings' was its basic design). In terms of ODIs my view is that 20/20s and ODIs have almost totally difference audiences so if you cut that form of the game you would reduce your fan base, not something I think the ICC should be looking at doing. The way things are going is 2020 fans in general are just that, 2020 fans not cricket fans. If Crowe's idea happens in a few years all we will have is 2020, which would be the end of cricket.

  • Swampy5 on August 11, 2010, 21:53 GMT

    There's no need to scrap 50-over cricket. It needs to be played less and balance to the game itself needs to be restored so that its a legitimate contest between bat and ball. The three forms of the game need to be administered and scheduled properly. T20 is the new 'golden boy' on the scene, but lets see what it's like 5-10 years from now when the novelty wears off a bit - 50-over cricket may well rise in popularity again.

  • on August 11, 2010, 21:52 GMT

    what about replacig both 20-20 and 50-50 with 30-30

  • currie_I_G on August 11, 2010, 21:47 GMT

    another anti ODI post

    daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

    i think people must ignore these posts. but if the ICC do something drastic as terminate ODI cricket it would be a joke. i hope they don't tinker too much with the ODI format either, such as split innings etc

  • forzaps on August 11, 2010, 21:46 GMT

    I fully support the idea of having only two formats (Tests and T20). Though, while personally I don't watch ODIs any more, there may still be a market for it. I think having a true test championship is mandatory and I cant understand why we don't have one. The only point I'd disagree on is having it be a knockout tournament. I'd prefer a full home and away league that's played over 2-4 years.

  • unclelen on August 11, 2010, 21:37 GMT

    One problem with a Test knockout tournament is that so many games are decided by who wins the toss. Wearing pitches,overhead conditions,green wickets. Many matches are decided by a team winning the toss and batting first (unless you stuff up the decision like Pakistan did at Edgbaston)

  • Fan_Of_Indian_Cricket on August 11, 2010, 21:34 GMT

    Bad idea to have only two forms of game....ODI has its own charm so as test. T20 is just club cricket - if only two forms needs to exist then its T20.

  • on August 11, 2010, 21:33 GMT

    Seriously , how many of you have played test cricket ?

  • pianofan on August 11, 2010, 21:32 GMT

    The trouble is that there is no room now for more than the odd five tests series. A one or two even three test series does not lead up to any drama like in the old days. Too bad but I think test cricket may be doomed. T20 is not really cricket, it is just a slog fest. Baseball is better to watch if you want a two hour thing. Test cricket has the build up factor, but its problem is that few working people have the time and money to watch over five days especially week days. And as the money is leaving test cricket i fear for its future. So nice to have lived during my period when Tests were supreme.

  • on August 11, 2010, 21:32 GMT

    Why not get rid of test cricket ? I know it is the greatest form of cricket and you require concentration,stamina,technique and all to survive in test cricket. But, the reality is no one plays test cricket except 1st class and international cricketers. No one watches test cricket except for real cricket enthusiasts like me and other folks who are commenting on this site.

    To make the game popular and make it a truly global sport, just have T20 and T40 formats.

  • Mannix16 on August 11, 2010, 21:30 GMT

    ODI is fine. Throw it out and what of tendulkar, jayasuriya, kallis, gilchrist and all their careers in ODI? All that hard work will be forgotten. ODI's are really fine now, especially the World Cup definetely means something. The 2020 world cup doesn't mean anything since its a lot of luck involved as well (australia was undefeated until the final where they slipped just like last times Sri Lanka). A test championship would be cool. You could have it like series. Every country has a series with every country over the span of 4 years and gets points from that. Then the top 2 meet in neutral ground and battle it out in a series as well (seeing a test championship game at lords would be unbelievable). If series is tied or drawn then they are joint winners. That way you solve all the problems- all countries play outside their home as well and get to play a large amount. this would definetely spark interest as well with a championship since the test rankings don't mean anything now

  • Re3UBCS on August 11, 2010, 21:23 GMT

    ODIs are the balance between Tests and T20s. You look stupid as hell if you talk about phasing out ODIs because its the greatest form of cricket for a lot of people who don't bother to come to the internet. Case in point, India vs Pakistan T20 WC finals 2007 didn't even generate as many viewers as Australia vs India 2003 World Cup finals.

    ODIs> All.

    And if you hadn't noticed interest in T20s is dying a bit too. They don't generate as much hype as ODIs or Tests.

  • cricket_fan007 on August 11, 2010, 21:09 GMT

    All 3 formats can go together. Each format requires its own skill and caliber as well as its supporters. one day internationals should be there to know the skill and abilty of a batsmen. T20 is just a fun game for marketing the cricket.

  • on August 11, 2010, 20:48 GMT

    The death of one day cricket? I hope not, still the most enjoyable form of the game for me! The perfect summer game - hot sun, cold beers and the chance of an exciting result!T20 is just too short, and Tests too long...I think there is room for 3 formats.

  • manasvi_lingam on August 11, 2010, 20:45 GMT

    I think it's sad to see people asking for the end of 50 over cricket. The ODI format has produced some great specialists. People like Michael Bevan lack the power for T20 and the technique for Tests, and he was among the greatest ODI batsmen ever. In India Dhoni also falls under that category.

  • amieka on August 11, 2010, 20:45 GMT

    None can save test cricket - however exciting you try to make with new tournaments and formats - if you continue making flat track. The sort we see in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and to some extent, in Australia as well.

    Flat track is the main culprit. It produces boring match, assits below average batsman rule bowlers ....on such pitches, everyone seems like behaving like Viv richard ...Please save cricket by producing law that restricts these boards from making flat tracks.

  • kishan_cricket on August 11, 2010, 20:37 GMT

    I think that Crowe is spot on with his views. If you look at the mainstream sports like soccer, basketball, volleyball and others, you will see that they have only one format. So, why should cricket be any different. I strongly believe that the main motive of the ICC should be to globalise cricket. This can be accomplished by the twenty20 format which is both fun and entertaining. Now I know there will be a counter argument saying that twenty20 is not "real" cricket. That is why I suggest keeping tests which will still preserve the beauty of the game. This pretty much makes the fifty over format useless. It doesn't help to develop the game around different parts of the world (since twenty20 is much more exciting) and neither does it help to preserve the beauty of the game for the old cricket lovers (which is accomplished through tests). For all these reasons, I agree with Crowe when he says that we should remove the 50 over format.

  • on August 11, 2010, 20:31 GMT

    Give 50 over a cricket chance. There are players who suit 20/20, some are only good in tests and some inbetween

  • lekku on August 11, 2010, 20:25 GMT

    Sorry mate, can't agree with you. If you only have T20s and test, then the quality of the tests will go down as the quality of the new players will go down, as in T20, you don't really need a strategy/skill to play, all you do is hit the ball out of the park or get out. By doing that you will not be able to develop new players. For example, the quality of IPL Cricket is going down with every tournament, than what it started out as. That is because, all the good names in cricket participated in that.

  • allblue on August 11, 2010, 20:21 GMT

    The big problem with knockout Test matches is how do you decide the 'winner' of a drawn game? If it was to be decided on first innings lead, you would have to have no time limit on the completion of both first innings otherwise the team batting first would be able to bat slowly for three days or more guaranteeing their lead by the time five days was up. If you try to squeeze Test cricket into an unsuitable format, they will no longer be Test matches. We have to make sure we don't 'save' test cricket by destroying it. A league, consisting of home and away series of three games between the top eight ranked teams over a four year cycle would provide a fair, genuine, definitive Test match championship and give every single match context. re the pink ball: reports from the players who used it in the MCC v Durham match in Abu Dhabi in March said there were still problems sighting the old ball against a dark sky. Nearly there maybe, but not there yet.

  • NewYorkCricket on August 11, 2010, 20:18 GMT

    All three can coexist. If there is any format which has to go then it is T20. Nobody should touch the 50-over format. Split innings is a great idea and may be we can reduce the number of overs to 40. Test cricket championship is a great idea.

  • on August 11, 2010, 20:08 GMT

    Horrible,, people cheering for boundaries even if they come of edges or mistimed shots, is that skill is that the beauty of the sport? rubbish!!

  • zashrafi on August 11, 2010, 20:03 GMT

    Spot on Martin!! Twenty and Test matches will create intreset for people with both short and long station span.

  • John-Price on August 11, 2010, 20:01 GMT

    Knock out test cricket is a nonsense - what about the draw? What about the gradual build up of a really good series? What is needed are longer series, not one-off matches.

  • 2.14istherunrate on August 11, 2010, 19:54 GMT

    Please, for the love of God, leave the game alone. ODI's are different to T20 and satisfy a different mentality and a different audience. Personally I never look at T20's. I love ODI's. And tests.

  • on August 11, 2010, 19:53 GMT

    Mr. Crowe doesnt realize the importance of one day cricket. twenty 20 cricket is not a valid form of cricket for me. There is no talent needed to play 20/20. In a one day international you get a chance to build your innings. The best part of cricket which is the struggle when you have lost 5 quick wickets can be only tested in a one day international. The guts of batsmen and perseverance of bowlers are highlighted. You have to be out of your mind to even think of killing this form of cricket.

  • Saleel-XI on August 11, 2010, 19:41 GMT

    i fully agree on the test championship idea. it makes the most sense and having a test champion every year would add further value to that format. it would be great to see a direct knockout quarter finals; with say India v West Indies; South Africa v Pakistan; Australia v New Zealand; and England v Sri Lanka ... India v South Africa; Australia v England ... maybe, and hopefully an India v Australia final at Lords or even Eden Gardens or MCG ... the idea seems perfect ... and its no different to what football does either, they play numerous games, and the random ones throughout the course of the year lead to qualifiers for events such as euro cup and the world cup etc etc.

  • SaifQazi on August 11, 2010, 19:32 GMT

    i donno y ppl have taken it to ODIs as sumthin that is killin the game!? i am of the opinion that its T20 that is killin the game, stupid pyjama cricket where u dont have nethin like poise, strokeplay, strategies, akrams, tendulkars, pontings, laras n such gr8 players...!! its jus sloggin nethin n everythin that cums ur way n then bowlers ego r destroyed n so is there confidence. a small example, Ishant Sharma who started so well in 2008-09 n str8 afta sum success he was shoved into IPL where he was taken to cleaners n now he is as confused as a ne new bowler, who has no idea wat n where to bowl in the 3 different formats of the game. he is a bright bowler only to be sacrificed by T20. n 2ndly wont there b ne1 , if ODI dies, to challenge the records made by the legends of the game, tendulkar, akram, murali to name a few!? plzzz restrict the T20, make the game simpler (as in stop fiddlin with rules), have sportin wickets n stop worryin abt the future of the game! all will be fine..!!

  • inswing on August 11, 2010, 19:29 GMT

    Agree with Crowe. A test championship is a must. T20 is very popular and the way to expand cricket. Don't hold it back in favor of ODIs. People will be nostalgic about all the great moments ODIs have provided, but after you stop playing it, nobody will long for it in 6 months.

  • Indunil76Shantha on August 11, 2010, 19:17 GMT

    Wont it be better this way Mr.Crow? The top 4 test teams will play each other for the trophy. After the championship we can eliminate the bottom one and let them play to be qualify with the bottom 4. So the 1st of bottom four will get a chance to play for the champions trophy with top four. And 50 overs really we have to give away now or we have to restrict the number of games they play. But after all even how hard people try to explain all these subcontinant, we love any sort of cricket. We may be complain of too much cricket, but we still watch all the games. And we still get hurt when our team lost any sort of format. But somehow need to protect TEST cricket. And it is big TEST for ICC.

  • 9ST9 on August 11, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    Oh no not this debate again!! We've been through this too many times. Just a point about the test championship - on current rankings if a tournament were to be played the fixtures would read - IND vs NZ in IND SA vs WI in SA SL vs PAK in SL ENG vs AUS in AUS

    NZ will have little or no chance of beating India in India - however i dare say things could change if the game was played in NZ. Based on that it seems fairer to have a Home/Away format with Points - that however would turn this into a 14 game event.

  • HarinderJadwani on August 11, 2010, 19:14 GMT

    SPOT ON. There is far too much cricket going on these days and many people don't have the time or interest to watch or remember the results. Test cricket has been suffering and even the first ODI of the current tri-series in Sri Lanka had few spectators on the ground. Player injuries are also much worse than they used to be.

    T20 has proven to be a popular format, and the ODI should be phased out - ideally at the 2011 World Cup which should be the last one in the ODI format.

    Greed (I blame the BCCI in particular) is responsible for this overcrowded calendar. Cricket was much more interesting when it wasn't happening all the time. We looked forward to series, but now there is too much going on. The ideal solution is to scrap ODIs and maintain Test cricket which is far too important to be allowed to disappear.

  • loveyou_250 on August 11, 2010, 19:09 GMT

    According to my experience and knowledge of cricket, maybe i am not as knowledged as Mr. Crowe, but i surely can tell that TEST CRICKET AND 50-OVERS CRICKET can better represent the actual form and style of cricket. Cricket can never be a game to go in the field and start hitting the abll all ofer the field. Instead, cricket is well ovious to the world as a game of knowledge and patience. It is to show technique and style. how can we eliminate the format that can really challenge a team to put up a total that can never be determined from either side, who really might win? i will comment again........

  • Saim93 on August 11, 2010, 19:06 GMT

    Sorry Mr.Crowe you are wrong, the ODI's should stay. Only T20's as the limited overs cricket would make the game crazy and will lead a big inconsistency patch in the game just look at the Pakistan team, they just cant crack Test cricket because of the overload of T20's they have. ODI's are the barrier between craziness and sensible cricket.

  • ThKhan on August 11, 2010, 18:59 GMT

    I totally agree with Crowe'z point of view. 3 formats wont work, i think ICC should take the ideas of Legends like Imran & Crowe seriously and one day format should be finished (as they proposed) Introduce more T20 series among teams this will help players to focus on techniques (for tests and t20s separately) not like for all three when One day cricket was popular, it took its place and now its era of T20, so ICC WAKE UP and take the ACTION before it affect the game (and especially the players)

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:56 GMT

    Too Much Mess by three Formats .. One days should be Axed .

    Only T20 & Tests .

  • AHayat on August 11, 2010, 18:55 GMT

    Extremely well said by the Martin. I am in total favour to quit ODIz and to focus more & more on Tests and T20z. Moreover; there should not be extra changes in test cricket like day & night test cricket or with pink ball etc. Test cricket is original form cricket and it should be played in old typical style(in day light with white uniform, dark red ball etc) with positive changes of Technology. T20 is the best format of cricket in shorter version and it will create new horizons in coming days while ODIs will loose attraction soon as it can easily be assessed from the numbers of spectators coming to wath ODIs as compared to T20 where as Test Cricket is still in very good shape. Iinfact; it is getting better day by day.

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:55 GMT

    he is 100% Correct Too Much mess by three formats ... One day should be Cancelled

    Only T20 & Tests

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:54 GMT

    Makes absolute sense to chuck the ODI's. They have lost charm.

  • vichan on August 11, 2010, 18:49 GMT

    The best Test team is the one that performs best against all opposition, in all conditions, home and away. Moreover, it is usually over the course of a series where it becomes apparent which of two competing Test teams is the stronger. Reducing Test cricket to one-off matches to decide the best Test team is ridiculous. What if, for example, Australia beats England in one of these one-off matches but England wins the Ashes home and away? What if another Sri Lanka vs India tie ends up with 1500 runs scored for the combined loss of 9 wickets? Martin Crowe is quite right in wanting the congestion and confusion being cut to the two main formats of the game today - Tests and T20. But care must be taken in how these formats are presented. Following his suggestion, I can easily foresee a scenario where the weaker Test teams like Pakistan and West Indies schedule only one Test per year - their Test championship Quarter Final - and play two dozen T20s the rest of the time...

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    I agree with Crowe One dayers have outlived its utility

  • maxis_hap on August 11, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    I'm ALL IN for having just two forms, T20 and Test matches. But rather than going for a test championship every year, it could be scheduled once in two years. The test match teams should be split into two tiers based on their performance and ranking which can be revised every two years. This will make test cricket competitive and that is the most important aspect to look at, for marketing Test cricket, along with the pink ball. There could be more 3-4 days tournaments in domestic format to make the transition easier between T20 and Tests for new comers. People say players will be attracted to more lucrative T20 careers than Tests, but I say those rather are not going to become good Test players themselves. Test cricket will always have quality players and quality audience

  • Arthaurian on August 11, 2010, 18:47 GMT

    Can someone please explain to me, what the huge problem is with the 50 over version of the game please. Why is it scathed upon so much?

  • jupiterlaw on August 11, 2010, 18:42 GMT

    The test game cannot be left alone with the T20 game, the latter will kill it off. The 50 over game has got to be put in the mix as the 50 over game is where the test game would have to look for its survival. The T20 game has nothing to offer the test game. In fact they are sworn enemies.

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:37 GMT

    More dumbing down for the masses. Personally I don't want the masses anywhere near cricket grounds.

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:34 GMT

    I Completely Disagree with the Views OF Mr.Martin Crowe Twenty Twenty is not Cricket its just Kid games its better that ICC Reduces Twenty Twenty Cricket

    I have always disagreed with Martin Crowe's views he is one of the Duck Head's in World Cricket

  • CricFan78 on August 11, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    I have said this before and I will repeat. Tests and ODIs are meant for international cricket, T20s are meant for club cricket. Chuck out T20s from international cricket and play just one T20 WC every 2 yrs or so.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • CricFan78 on August 11, 2010, 18:29 GMT

    I have said this before and I will repeat. Tests and ODIs are meant for international cricket, T20s are meant for club cricket. Chuck out T20s from international cricket and play just one T20 WC every 2 yrs or so.

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:34 GMT

    I Completely Disagree with the Views OF Mr.Martin Crowe Twenty Twenty is not Cricket its just Kid games its better that ICC Reduces Twenty Twenty Cricket

    I have always disagreed with Martin Crowe's views he is one of the Duck Head's in World Cricket

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:37 GMT

    More dumbing down for the masses. Personally I don't want the masses anywhere near cricket grounds.

  • jupiterlaw on August 11, 2010, 18:42 GMT

    The test game cannot be left alone with the T20 game, the latter will kill it off. The 50 over game has got to be put in the mix as the 50 over game is where the test game would have to look for its survival. The T20 game has nothing to offer the test game. In fact they are sworn enemies.

  • Arthaurian on August 11, 2010, 18:47 GMT

    Can someone please explain to me, what the huge problem is with the 50 over version of the game please. Why is it scathed upon so much?

  • maxis_hap on August 11, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    I'm ALL IN for having just two forms, T20 and Test matches. But rather than going for a test championship every year, it could be scheduled once in two years. The test match teams should be split into two tiers based on their performance and ranking which can be revised every two years. This will make test cricket competitive and that is the most important aspect to look at, for marketing Test cricket, along with the pink ball. There could be more 3-4 days tournaments in domestic format to make the transition easier between T20 and Tests for new comers. People say players will be attracted to more lucrative T20 careers than Tests, but I say those rather are not going to become good Test players themselves. Test cricket will always have quality players and quality audience

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:48 GMT

    I agree with Crowe One dayers have outlived its utility

  • vichan on August 11, 2010, 18:49 GMT

    The best Test team is the one that performs best against all opposition, in all conditions, home and away. Moreover, it is usually over the course of a series where it becomes apparent which of two competing Test teams is the stronger. Reducing Test cricket to one-off matches to decide the best Test team is ridiculous. What if, for example, Australia beats England in one of these one-off matches but England wins the Ashes home and away? What if another Sri Lanka vs India tie ends up with 1500 runs scored for the combined loss of 9 wickets? Martin Crowe is quite right in wanting the congestion and confusion being cut to the two main formats of the game today - Tests and T20. But care must be taken in how these formats are presented. Following his suggestion, I can easily foresee a scenario where the weaker Test teams like Pakistan and West Indies schedule only one Test per year - their Test championship Quarter Final - and play two dozen T20s the rest of the time...

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:54 GMT

    Makes absolute sense to chuck the ODI's. They have lost charm.

  • on August 11, 2010, 18:55 GMT

    he is 100% Correct Too Much mess by three formats ... One day should be Cancelled

    Only T20 & Tests