ESPNcricinfo for Cricket Summit August 20, 2013

'Restore Champions Trophy, restrict bilateral ODIs'

  shares 115

Nasser Hussain and Rahul Dravid, former England and India captains, have called for the restoration of the Champions Trophy and the severe restriction of bilateral limited-overs series to reinvigorate Test cricket. While Hussain believed the Champions Trophy, where the top eight teams clash, should replace the 50-over World Cup, Dravid felt cutting down on bilateral ODIs and Twenty20s would help accommodate more Tests.

Hussain and Dravid were speaking during a panel discussion on "The future of Test cricket in the modern age" at the ESPNcricinfo for Cricket event held at The Oval in London on Monday, part of a series of events to celebrate the website's 20th anniversary.

"A lot of five-match or seven-match one-day series don't seem to have a context about them," Dravid said. "The Champions Trophy had a context. Some of these meaningless bilateral one-day games, do they serve the purpose?"

Although Dravid wanted the World Cup to co-exist with the Champions Trophy and the scheduled World Test Championship starting 2017, he felt T20s should be largely restricted to franchise level. "I would play one-day cricket only as preparation for the 50-over World Cup and the Champions Trophy so you can remove a lot of one-day cricket teams are playing nowadays and fit in Test matches that are required," Dravid said. "Have a Test Championship that culminates into something once every two years. The World Twenty20 should be every two years. T20 cricket should be franchise cricket except for the major competitions."

If context was important for Dravid, contest was key for Hussain. Although he was skeptical whether countries like India might allow a clampdown on ODIs and T20s, Hussain agreed with Mark Nicholas, the former Hampshire captain and the event moderator, that the lack of a contest needed to be addressed. "Restore the Champions Trophy and call it the World Cup," Hussain said.

But what to do with Associates such as Ireland and Netherlands who have been part of recent World Cups and added to the romance of the game with their own stories, Nicholas wondered. Hussain said only the best eight had the right to contest a World Cup. "You got to qualify to sit at that table. You got to be good enough and I'm not sure some sides are," Hussain said. "There might be one and they should get there through a play-off. Whoever is ranked eighth at a certain point should have a play-off with Ireland (or the Associate nation that comes through the World Cup Qualifiers) in a three-match ODI series or whatever and they will qualify if they are good."

"I would play one-day cricket only as preparation for the 50-over World Cup and the Champions Trophy so you can remove a lot of one-day cricket teams are playing nowadays and fit in Test matches that are required. Have a Test Championship that culminates into something once every two years. The World Twenty20 should be every two years. T20 cricket should be franchise cricket except for the major competitions."
Rahul Dravid

The panel, which also had former England batsman Ed Smith and Richard Verow, commercial director at Sky Sports, agreed that administrators had got it wrong by allowing two-Test series. Two matches, Hussain argued, killed a contest rather than building one. "As we have seen throughout this Test series [The Ashes] and it happened a little bit with the England-New Zealand series, there is nothing worse than a two-match series. Because if a contest does develop between players like Broad v Clarke now, if you get that for just two Test matches, Clarke can just go away and smash someone else. So as things develop and you get to the fifth Test and are waking up in the morning, you know that he has gone against Stuart Broad first up and you know what is going to happen. So you need the contest."

Hussain was the only cricketer on the panel who felt that rumours of Test cricket dying due to the rise of T20 were "exaggerated". However, he did say there was no denying the lure of lucrative leagues like the IPL, which had the power to seduce both veterans as well as youngsters.

"If someone is offering me a couple of million to go and work for six weeks than stand around all year and work for a tenth of that, you are going to be very, very tempted as a young or old player," Hussain said. "So you are diluting both ends. At the end of your career if you are Kevin Pietersen and you are looking and you find a good deal, the IPL is there, as it was for the Warnes, Gilchrists and Haydens. So you are losing the top bit of the cake. At the bottom, youngsters are coming in (and thinking), 'shall I work my butt off, play for Essex down at Chelmsford on a nibbling one in April-May or should I go and play six weeks? Not everyone gets a million dollars in T20 but good cash will do really well so that someone might spot me.' So you are losing that (youth) as well."

Hussain felt it was crucial to succeed in the longer form of the game and playing the IPL could not teach you to perform in first-class cricket. He pointed to the pair of Owais Shah and Eoin Morgan, players popular in the IPL but who could not perform consistently on the county circuit. "Cricket is about rhythm of the game," Hussain said. "And a lot of these guys that go on the T20 treadmill lose the rhythm of the game and not many come back better first-class cricketers. You look at Shah, you look at Morgan, they don't suddenly come back and start smashing hundreds and double-hundreds for Essex, Middlesex because you lose the rhythm of batting. Test match cricket is what it is all about - the main course you look after."

"Should they (the ICC) be looking at new markets, as in America and China, and trying to spend all their cash there, and having these ICC tournaments and trying to sell it to these people who don't really know the game or want to know the game? Or should they be looking at Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who are desperate to play the game, do well and get better and sit down, have a chat and ask them what can they do to help?"
Nasser Hussain

The point of governance also came up for discussion and all felt the ICC needed to be empowered while being given more autonomy and liberty to perform its duties. "They (the ICC) worry far too much about small stuff," Hussain said. "They worry about markings on pads. 'Put tape on that. You have got too many Gray Nichols stickers on your pads.' People are running on and off the field willy-nilly and you can let them do that. Since 1978 we haven't had 15 overs an hour around the world. We are not doing anything about that. Just be strong with players."

Dravid said powerful member boards needed to "sacrifice" control to give the ICC freedom. "In an ideal scenario we want them to be stronger," Dravid said. "The ICC is the creation of the boards. The boards have to actually give it that power, that responsibility to be able to run the game. Some of the stronger and more powerful nations have to make a few sacrifices in terms of their power and control and hand over little bit of power to the ICC for it to be able to effectively run and monitor the game."

Hussain said the clear chasm between the top-tier and lower-tier nations was the "crux" of the whole debate surrounding Test cricket. "It is not about T20," Hussain said. "The gap is widening. There is no easy solution. But it is also unfair on some of these sides. I had an argument with the great Michael Holding about West Indies not playing (well) against the moving ball in England. He said which side does play the moving ball that well in April-May in England. Our boys will hate me for saying this, but send them to India or Sri Lanka for a five-Test series and that won't be easy. That is the issue. (Weaker countries) are at the mercy of sides like England and Australia. They don't have the cash so they are not sending their Under-19s on tours."

Smith said it was the duty of the richer countries to co-operate and help the weaker members. "It is crucial to Test cricket. If the games are good, if the product is good, we are a way towards solving the problem."

Hussain posed a question to the ICC. "Should they be looking at new markets, as in America and China, and trying to spend all their cash there, and having these ICC tournaments and trying to sell it to these people who don't really know the game or want to know the game? Or should they be looking at Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who are desperate to play the game, do well and get better and sit down, have a chat and ask them what can they do to help?"

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY DawnBreaker on | August 21, 2013, 7:35 GMT

    Well said Dravid! Cricket is having more than needed bilateral series between teams. The Champions trophy needs to be brought back, as it can serve as a major 'testing ground' for the teams for the world cup. Plus, the recently concluded Champions trophy has been successful. Big tournaments also adds excitement to the game. According to me, the ICC must be looking to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe first, before investing in new markets because, these countries have already been playing cricket for a long time and they are in urgent need of development and help. This can help in bringing out the best in both these sides. The number of bilateral series must be reduced to a minimum. In any bilateral series, my suggestion is 3 tests, 3 Odi's and 2 T20's. Tests should be encouraged and played more.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 19:13 GMT

    Rahul Dravid said what was exactly in my mind. Restrict T20 to franchises and a World T20 every two years. Restrict bilateral ODIs and play instead the triangular series (like VB Series of Australia, Sharjah Cup or Natwest etc) once a year OR Chapmions Trophy as Dravid mentioned. Play more n more five day games; every test series (between top eight teams) must atleast consist of three matches (very rarely of two matches if the situation is inevitable). And smaller nations (Zim, Bang) should also play test series comprising of atleast two tests. There should b no one-off test match. There is zero attraction in cricket when we see a nation hosting other to play a bilateral series consisting of all Test, ODI and T20 formats simultaneously. Hasnain from Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • POSTED BY VJGS on | August 20, 2013, 16:31 GMT

    Brilliant article! No other sport has so many bilateral series, and I don't understand why Cricket has so much of those. Multinational Tournaments are much better for the game and for the viewers as well. ICC needs to cut down these useless ODI and T20 Friendlies and put more emphasis on Test matches.

  • POSTED BY on | August 23, 2013, 9:18 GMT

    Well said Dravid! Cricket is having more than needed bilateral series between teams. The Champions trophy needs to be brought back, as it can serve as a major 'testing ground' for the teams for the world cup. Plus, the recently concluded Champions trophy has been successful. Big tournaments also adds excitement to the game. According to me, the ICC must be looking to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe first, before investing in new markets because, these countries have already been playing cricket for a long time and they are in urgent need of development and help. This can help in bringing out the best in both these sides. The number of bilateral series must be reduced to a minimum. In any bilateral series, my suggestion is 3 tests, 3 Odi's and 2 T20's. Tests should be encouraged and played more. There is lot of Theories + doom & gloom for Test Cricket, but no practical actions proposed by either Dravid or Hussain. My suggestion is for having 2 parallel paths: 1. For Test format 2. For Shorter F

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | August 23, 2013, 5:28 GMT

    People are mistaking T20 cricket replacing Test Cricket as something more deeper. Nobody cares about T20 cricket. It is the whole franchise system that makes people fall in love. The fact that you can have superstar teams filled with international players playing against each other. Who watches bilateral T20 series? Even the bilateral ODI series is more interesting than the bilateral T20 series. It's these franchise tournaments that is what is getting popular. Imagine if all the same players in the IPL played a 5 day first class match against each other. It would be widely popular. Not because it's T20 cricket, but because all the top notch international players bundled up into super teams. People want to see Sangakkara, Dhoni, and Kallis batting side by side. Take the foreign players out of the IPL and I guarantee you the IPL will be dead in 2-3 years. We must address the problem of growing (getting very numerous now) Franchise Premier Leagues, not T20 cricket itself

  • POSTED BY Nampally on | August 22, 2013, 18:43 GMT

    There is lot of Theories + doom & gloom for Test Cricket, but no practical actions proposed by either Dravid or Hussain. My suggestion is for having 2 parallel paths: 1. For Test format 2. For Shorter Formats, both Test & Shorter format can flourish. There is too much focus on T20 IPL because it is providing luxurious livelihood for all Cricketers from test players to above average province level cricketers- Money Talks!. There were times not too far back where even reputed Test players could hardly make ends meet.BCCI should have a sub committee for development of Test Cricket from school level to Test Cricketers. They should have a separate squad of 30 players for tests on BCCI Contract, who should be banned from IPL (but not from ODI's) by paying them attractive salaries. England already has a system which deters test players form T20 - hence more optimistic views from Hussain. Dravid, with all his bright ideas, should head the Test sub-committee to keep Test Cricket alive in India!

  • POSTED BY ramli on | August 22, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    Dravid wants WC, CT but not bilateral ODIs, why? Where will the teams get practice? Does he say to practice at national tournaments and compete in WC? Bilateral ODIs do set the platform for building teams with new talent ... why should you scrape that? It is very clear that crowds are moving away from test cricket in most countries ... why hide this reality and keep harping on promoting test cricket? More test cricket can be played in countries which like them the most ... other nations are quite content to watch them playing? What if India does not produce world class test players? If test cricket is "real" cricket, so be it. We can still be proud to have the best ODI team. Why is this not an honour?

  • POSTED BY Little_Aussie_Battler on | August 22, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    Interestingly it is mainly the sub-continental set who want short form cricket and it is the traditional powers of cricket that want to keep test cricket and two innings cricket.

    Maybe it is time to look at a split and the Asian nations leave cricket and form their own short form quasi baseball leagues.

  • POSTED BY on | August 22, 2013, 9:27 GMT

    every test playing nations should play 10 tests matches per year and very important.

  • POSTED BY punzoe on | August 22, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    Who has time to play or watch test cricket? Don't be a dinosaur. Get a real job! We don't leave in an agrarian, leisurely society any more, last time I checked. A game that last 3-4 hours should be more than enough to test your skills. And those who blame T20, cricket has not seen as much innovation in 300 years as in last 3.

  • POSTED BY DawnBreaker on | August 21, 2013, 7:35 GMT

    Well said Dravid! Cricket is having more than needed bilateral series between teams. The Champions trophy needs to be brought back, as it can serve as a major 'testing ground' for the teams for the world cup. Plus, the recently concluded Champions trophy has been successful. Big tournaments also adds excitement to the game. According to me, the ICC must be looking to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe first, before investing in new markets because, these countries have already been playing cricket for a long time and they are in urgent need of development and help. This can help in bringing out the best in both these sides. The number of bilateral series must be reduced to a minimum. In any bilateral series, my suggestion is 3 tests, 3 Odi's and 2 T20's. Tests should be encouraged and played more.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 19:13 GMT

    Rahul Dravid said what was exactly in my mind. Restrict T20 to franchises and a World T20 every two years. Restrict bilateral ODIs and play instead the triangular series (like VB Series of Australia, Sharjah Cup or Natwest etc) once a year OR Chapmions Trophy as Dravid mentioned. Play more n more five day games; every test series (between top eight teams) must atleast consist of three matches (very rarely of two matches if the situation is inevitable). And smaller nations (Zim, Bang) should also play test series comprising of atleast two tests. There should b no one-off test match. There is zero attraction in cricket when we see a nation hosting other to play a bilateral series consisting of all Test, ODI and T20 formats simultaneously. Hasnain from Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • POSTED BY VJGS on | August 20, 2013, 16:31 GMT

    Brilliant article! No other sport has so many bilateral series, and I don't understand why Cricket has so much of those. Multinational Tournaments are much better for the game and for the viewers as well. ICC needs to cut down these useless ODI and T20 Friendlies and put more emphasis on Test matches.

  • POSTED BY on | August 23, 2013, 9:18 GMT

    Well said Dravid! Cricket is having more than needed bilateral series between teams. The Champions trophy needs to be brought back, as it can serve as a major 'testing ground' for the teams for the world cup. Plus, the recently concluded Champions trophy has been successful. Big tournaments also adds excitement to the game. According to me, the ICC must be looking to Bangladesh and Zimbabwe first, before investing in new markets because, these countries have already been playing cricket for a long time and they are in urgent need of development and help. This can help in bringing out the best in both these sides. The number of bilateral series must be reduced to a minimum. In any bilateral series, my suggestion is 3 tests, 3 Odi's and 2 T20's. Tests should be encouraged and played more. There is lot of Theories + doom & gloom for Test Cricket, but no practical actions proposed by either Dravid or Hussain. My suggestion is for having 2 parallel paths: 1. For Test format 2. For Shorter F

  • POSTED BY johnathonjosephs on | August 23, 2013, 5:28 GMT

    People are mistaking T20 cricket replacing Test Cricket as something more deeper. Nobody cares about T20 cricket. It is the whole franchise system that makes people fall in love. The fact that you can have superstar teams filled with international players playing against each other. Who watches bilateral T20 series? Even the bilateral ODI series is more interesting than the bilateral T20 series. It's these franchise tournaments that is what is getting popular. Imagine if all the same players in the IPL played a 5 day first class match against each other. It would be widely popular. Not because it's T20 cricket, but because all the top notch international players bundled up into super teams. People want to see Sangakkara, Dhoni, and Kallis batting side by side. Take the foreign players out of the IPL and I guarantee you the IPL will be dead in 2-3 years. We must address the problem of growing (getting very numerous now) Franchise Premier Leagues, not T20 cricket itself

  • POSTED BY Nampally on | August 22, 2013, 18:43 GMT

    There is lot of Theories + doom & gloom for Test Cricket, but no practical actions proposed by either Dravid or Hussain. My suggestion is for having 2 parallel paths: 1. For Test format 2. For Shorter Formats, both Test & Shorter format can flourish. There is too much focus on T20 IPL because it is providing luxurious livelihood for all Cricketers from test players to above average province level cricketers- Money Talks!. There were times not too far back where even reputed Test players could hardly make ends meet.BCCI should have a sub committee for development of Test Cricket from school level to Test Cricketers. They should have a separate squad of 30 players for tests on BCCI Contract, who should be banned from IPL (but not from ODI's) by paying them attractive salaries. England already has a system which deters test players form T20 - hence more optimistic views from Hussain. Dravid, with all his bright ideas, should head the Test sub-committee to keep Test Cricket alive in India!

  • POSTED BY ramli on | August 22, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    Dravid wants WC, CT but not bilateral ODIs, why? Where will the teams get practice? Does he say to practice at national tournaments and compete in WC? Bilateral ODIs do set the platform for building teams with new talent ... why should you scrape that? It is very clear that crowds are moving away from test cricket in most countries ... why hide this reality and keep harping on promoting test cricket? More test cricket can be played in countries which like them the most ... other nations are quite content to watch them playing? What if India does not produce world class test players? If test cricket is "real" cricket, so be it. We can still be proud to have the best ODI team. Why is this not an honour?

  • POSTED BY Little_Aussie_Battler on | August 22, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    Interestingly it is mainly the sub-continental set who want short form cricket and it is the traditional powers of cricket that want to keep test cricket and two innings cricket.

    Maybe it is time to look at a split and the Asian nations leave cricket and form their own short form quasi baseball leagues.

  • POSTED BY on | August 22, 2013, 9:27 GMT

    every test playing nations should play 10 tests matches per year and very important.

  • POSTED BY punzoe on | August 22, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    Who has time to play or watch test cricket? Don't be a dinosaur. Get a real job! We don't leave in an agrarian, leisurely society any more, last time I checked. A game that last 3-4 hours should be more than enough to test your skills. And those who blame T20, cricket has not seen as much innovation in 300 years as in last 3.

  • POSTED BY dcindia on | August 21, 2013, 23:17 GMT

    We admire test cricket because it does not give bad players any place to hide. In test cricket, best players stand out, by their skills and by their endurance. I would love to see world championship test cricket. But to get my attention and I suspect that of most cricket fans, such a tournament has to emphasize on skill and endurance of the teams. Let's host it simultaneously in the grounds of all cricket-playing nations, so that no team has homeground advantage, and are forced to travel to play their matches. Let's host it in all kinds of wickets. Let's not gripe about the monotony of so-called true wickets. The best cricketers are those who can adjust to every condition. Isn't it so? We have gotten used to watching cricket all round the year, so let's not worry too much about keeping the test championship short.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 18:10 GMT

    Dravid is asking for staying of Champions Trophy because India has won it. For me the 50 year world cup after 4 years and twenty20 championship after 2 years is decent. In between these two events should be maximum test matches and limited number of ODI's and Twenty20's. But limited means limited (Might be max. of 3 ODI's and 2 T20's per series)

  • POSTED BY Nampally on | August 21, 2013, 15:33 GMT

    I also like to add to my earlier comments a suggestion for going back to Cricket schedule as it was in 50's & 60's. For example when India visited England, they played a whole series of 3 day county matches + 5 Tests. The same happened when England visited India - they played 5 Tests + matches against several state teams or even Zones. If there are to be any ODI's, they should be restricted to say 3. Please, No T20's!. Current format of Indian team landing in England to play 3 Tests + 5 ODI's is" Just isn't Cricket". If you add world Cup & Champions' Trophy to it is additional gravy. Cricketers were paid less in those days despite their brilliance as comparable to any modern Cricketer. They had correct fundamentals of head over ball, get to the pitch of the ball with bat pad together. Bowlers were asked to focus on length, direction & accuracy. Bumpers were lethal with several specialists & the Spinners were magnificient. No danger of Test Cricket in jeopardy -Bring back the old Glory!

  • POSTED BY Cpt.Meanster on | August 21, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    You know why Nasser Hussain doesn't like ODIs - England are POOR at it. They don't like winning anything in ODI cricket. Hmm, makes sense to me Nass. Still, the World Cup is an integral part of that format - the game's GREATEST prize. Seriously, a vast majority do not care about test cricket outside of the UK, Australia, and SA (to a certain extent). I say keep the 50 over world cup, get rid of meaningless test matches and ODIs/T20s. Preserve marquee rivalries (Ashes, India-Pakistan, Aus-SA, Ind-AUS) etc. Let the others form a second tier league for ODIs and tests played in twin legs (home and away). Also, the associate nations need to be a part of the picture. Cricket is already a diminished sport. The last thing we need is 4 teams playing top quality cricket. Realistically, only 4 or 5 teams play decent test cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 12:20 GMT

    @Lodhisingh - What they really meant was cut down on bilateral series which have 7 ODI matches. Have three one dayers and the remaining four days with a day added will amount to a test match. It is sensible to have atleast a 3 match Test Series rather than 2 or even 1 match.

  • POSTED BY wallrock on | August 21, 2013, 12:16 GMT

    Well said Dravid.This guy talks well,is learned and knows the game. I would prefer BCCI make him a batting coach for team India. He has a lot to offer young budding cricketers.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 11:58 GMT

    I agree with Dravid here. But ICC needs to popularize cricket. All bilateral series should be converted to trilaterals, a neighbouring coutry should be called in. If countries like Ireland, Holland can play good cricket once in 4 years then am sure they will do much better with regular exposure to the international domain. Win or lose, am sure in the long run it will encourage cricket in those countries and ultimately help cricket.

  • POSTED BY Lodhisingh on | August 21, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    cut down on bilateral odi series? so, how r the bhuvis, ashwins, kohlis, rohits, rainas,jadejas supposed to get their chances to be known as good enough for a trial in tests? and coming from a player who played 300+ odis? how r zimbabwe players supposed to get exposure without bilateral odi series? cut down on international t20s? how many international t20s are played anyway outside the t20 world cup?

  • POSTED BY Naresh28 on | August 21, 2013, 11:31 GMT

    TEST championship is a way to save Test cricket. This should be scheduled in conjunction with test series. Thus alternate a test series with a Test championship matches. The matches must be played all over the world. The points system will eventually decide who is top of the league and these teams should then play off to see the champion. The ICC test ranking can be drawn from here.

  • POSTED BY Sheela on | August 21, 2013, 11:24 GMT

    Those who are against Test Cricket, have conveniently ignored the fate of the bowlers in limited overs 50 or T20 matches where shorter boundaries, field restrictions. In Test cricket taking 20 opposition wickets is the main aim. This is not so in limited overs cricket. Of course any solution to make Tests more interesting is always welcome without diluting the essence of Test cricket.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | August 21, 2013, 11:20 GMT

    The ICC is tryna make cricket popular all over the world and it doesn't matter what these two speak. t20 is todays demand.

  • POSTED BY Naresh28 on | August 21, 2013, 11:18 GMT

    I see DRAVID being co-opted into the ICC soon. This guy talks well,is learned and knows the game. I would prefer BCCI make him a batting coach for team India. He has a lot to offer young budding cricketers.

  • POSTED BY Jadejafan on | August 21, 2013, 11:11 GMT

    @Amit-13:- "Bangladesh, I despair... is just a lost cause. Their love for cricket is more to do with watching than actually playing and competing" - that doesn't make any sense. The team is bad at Test Cricket like Dravid said because of a poor first class set-up. And if my memory serves me right, this Bangladesh team beat our Indian team last time out. What Dravid said is 11/10 spot on!!!

  • POSTED BY mjrvasu on | August 21, 2013, 10:37 GMT

    It is all nice to hear. Unfortunately most speakers are from another centuty. The realities of sponsorship money, TV rights, viewership and ratings, even families enjoying a short burst of cricket with entertainment, have all taken over cricket today. If anything, events will go forward to create more entertaining forms of cricket. Certainly they will never go backwards. Sorry Dravid, Hussain - you guys had your innings, be happy with that.

  • POSTED BY simpleadmin on | August 21, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    mr dravid i know u r a great in test cricket,but y u r targeting one day cricket that to bilateral cricket,,i suspect since both u and nasser were not good in one day cricket so u guys want it to be chopped as u both were dropped on numerous occassions,this article is more on self perspective,,,havent u seen in india odi's mainly bilateral have been so interesting and drawn majority of crowds,,,i agree tests should be preserved but not at expense of odi...odi is also crucial form because it tests ur skills,fitness,adaptation to pressure,,odi cricket have given players like dhoni,bevan who r masters in finishing games which u both were not,,respect these guys dravid,,,i dint expect this frm u mr dravid,,,plz dont target odi cricket,,,odi also tests skills of players,,it brings all teams equally into as any team is capable of beating other team on its day,,,test cricket should be promoted,but more tests instead of odi can lead to people loosing interest in game..

  • POSTED BY wrenx on | August 21, 2013, 9:47 GMT

    This is still largely a logistical issue. One day games are good for spreading a tour around a country. In India, for example, if a team comes to tour, it's good to have games taken to different venues, so fans can get to see live matches. These should be done better though - we need to restrict venue usage. If a tour has 3 ODIs and 3 T20s, all 6 of these games should be at different venues, and separate to the ones used for the tests. If a team comes to England, they can play a test at Lord's, and a T20 at the oval, and take the rest of the test elsewhere. I've never understood 5-match ODI series where one venue is used for 2 or 3 games.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 9:35 GMT

    why punish cricket viewers with cricket's most boring format..................Who cares about bilateral tests ....................It is the ICC tournaments that matter the most

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 9:24 GMT

    GrindAR - there are several sports with multiple formats!! Rugby Union (7s and 15s), Rugby League (7s and 13s). Volleyball (Normal & Beach), ...

  • POSTED BY harmske on | August 21, 2013, 9:22 GMT

    dravid makes some good points, and so does hussain. although im not sure if i agree with hussain on the champions trophy replacing the world cup. i believe the top associates should be encouraged to participate and showcase themselves at the world cup. cricket is already such an exclusive "members only" sport (with entry to test cricket almost impossible for any new entrants), the last thing we want to be doing is taking away the few opportunities these associate teams have of proving their worth.

    lets have a champions trophy, a world cup, a t20 championship and a test championship in a 4 year cycle (i.e. one event every year). limiting meaningless bilateral ODI series will allow us to accommodate this whilst giving administrators and broadcasters a flagship event every year (in addition to marquee test match series).

  • POSTED BY Amit_13 on | August 21, 2013, 8:50 GMT

    Isn't the threat greater in that the weaker teams are getting closer to Associate nations in their brand of test cricket? Shouldn't this promote more teams to test status? Zim, given financial help, could challenge some of the big boys on the field in every format. Bangladesh, I despair... is just a lost cause. Their love for cricket is more to do with watching than actually playing and competing.

    With just four top teams left, cricket will have a king (in either ICC or BCCI or ECB or CA) without a kingdom. Don't discount the threat of test cricket going the way of breakaway model of franchise cricket to break the system. Another Kerry Packer moment for Associate nations can't be that far. I'd love to see Afghanistan give the Windies or Kiwis a run for their money!!!

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 8:46 GMT

    Well, I dont support hussian about reducing the no of teams in World Cup to 8. associate nations are doing wonderful in the world cup and there are more teams like afghanisthan, nepal, hong kong, uae wanting to play world cup.

  • POSTED BY rashivkd on | August 21, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    Brilliant article.!! For me, test championship would have been played like EPL, that last long for around a year, with all team playing in both home and away against all teams(8 teams) in point system. Bilateral series of ODIs no more required and instead can have some tournaments containing three or four teams like Asia cup, CB series, etc.

  • POSTED BY macruic on | August 21, 2013, 8:42 GMT

    How is it possible that there are no negative comments here? This is sickeningly 'closed-shop' by Hussain and Dravid. While every other team sport on the planet is trying to INCREASE membership and expand its horizons, cricket is drawing in the strings.

    The fact of the matter is - for ODIs and T20s, people who attend these matches WILL remember them, because they have actually been able to sit through the entire duration and see every ball.

    Also, T20s and ODIs are more TV friendly, and also competition-friendly. And with all due respect, for all but the hardened cricketing afficionados, they are more exciting to watch than 11 men defending almost every ball and trying to sneak 1 or 2 runs here and there.

    Also, the shorter formats are more inclusive - they allow other nations to join in. By having fewer of them, smaller nations will feel neglected, and cricket will never develop into a world game.

    No pat on the back for Dravid and Hussain from me. Sheer cricketing snobbery.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 8:37 GMT

    All well said by the excellent gentlemen who graced the game of cricket. But what they are saying has only theoretical and pedagogical value now, what they are saying will remain a dream. What the ICC can or must do to encourage more Tests is a moot point, because while everybody is still playing a lot of Test cricket, and it is very well respected and ably fought (as time goes on, less and less so, one might notice), it is crazy to think the shorter formats will see any sort of slump. It is inevitable that if one format will lose water, it's likely to be the longest one. Cricket is spreading around the world (slowly but surely), and T20 cricket is grabbing attention, associate nations are fielding better sides. Test cricket has only sustained itself for so long because it had only a few faithful countries playing it. And even England and Australia, the Test-playing giants of the 20th century, have very well followed T20 leagues.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 8:36 GMT

    I think best way is to force every test playing country to complete playing atleast 3 tests against each other in span of two years,,,, Why play India- Zim or Pak-WI,, or any such small series??Also they should limit no of ODIs which a country will play against a particular country.. EG India should not play more than 4 ODI with SL in a year. This will maintain the surprise factor for each bowler and batsman.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 8:35 GMT

    when will icc give test status to ireland?with zim struggling they should bring them asap!

  • POSTED BY adonis.warrior on | August 21, 2013, 8:26 GMT

    I am always promoter of Home and Away format in test matches series. Like one mentioned in article, I have suggestion, teams can be grouped into two. Group of top 5 teams and other group of bottom 5 teams. from each group each team will play 1/3 matches in one home/away series. results same win/loss/draw. finally at the end of the season bottom two teams from top group will be relegated to bottom group and 2 teams from bottom group will be promoted to top group.

    There will be context in test match series then. Viewers will be increased automatically.

    Teams can play friendly tests with other group teams if they want

  • POSTED BY Gdesai on | August 21, 2013, 8:16 GMT

    Hussain and Dravid are intelligent men and understand the modern day cricket's demands pretty well and the ideas proposed are well balanced on that. I would really like to keep Champions Trophy and probably bringing in a Tri-nation/Quadrilateral series between evenly matched Teams to increase the intense for the preparation of World cups as Dravid said and obviously, watching good close games will always give pleasure that the game is supposed to, never mind it's a World cup game or not! A bit more focus on Test cricket from ICC and the Boards will help in raising the standard of Test matches and a Test Championship might just be the initial spark that the cricketing world needs!

  • POSTED BY ultimatewarrior on | August 21, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    Continue from last comment....[4] A Teams will get 40-50 tests per 4yrs and B Teams will get 25-30 tests per 4yrs [5] All bilateral series will be of Test (Min 3 Mostly 4 Rarely 5) ODI (Mostly 3) & T20 (Mostly 3) [6] Apart from playing series with inter division's team, A Teams should consider whole Div.B as one Team and play once each home and away series in every 4yrs [7] For example India should host a 4 match series with (SL,NZ,BD,ZB plyg 1each) [8] For away series SL can host AU to play between Aus & (SL,NZ,BD,ZB plyg 1each) while NZ can host IN to play between IN & (SL,NZ,BD,ZB plyg 1each) [9] Motto of this whole exercise is to have more and more tests between equal level teams and keep matches interesting enough. [10]It will remove the possibility of a full series between SA and ZB, but on +ve node they will play 2 Tests in 4 yrs, 1 at home and 1 at away/neutral [11] After every 4 year ICC should relegate/promote 1 team from A/B [12] None of these Div. will be used in ODI/T20

  • POSTED BY ultimatewarrior on | August 21, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    On the given lines of the article and also looking upon http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=matches;spanmax1=21+Aug+2013;spanmin1=21+Aug+2003;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team , we find that Right Now TEST cricket is clearly divided into 3 divisions (though UNWRITTEN) i.e. A(EN,AU,IN,SA)-playing most, B(PK,WI,SL,NZ)-plying avg C(BD,ZB)-plying least. Due to this division TEST cricket is loosing popularity overall....If ICC wish to benefit all 3 formats on long run, it have to have pass the rules like: [1]It should be 2 clearly legalized divisions on the basis of Teams performances & ICC rankings [2]Division A(6 teams) will get more matches without compromising the quality of cricket for the period of 4yrs and Div.B(4 teams) will have a bit less matches, so they have to show some good quality in last 4yrs in order to get into Top 6 teams for next 4 yrs. [3]On today's rankings ICC can have A(EN,AU,IN,SA,PK,WI) & B(SL,NZ,BD,ZB)...read more in nxt

  • POSTED BY rocknrola on | August 21, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    Recent 50 over matches like SA-SL, Ind-Zim, Pak-WI will not be remembered after a month. These kind of matches doesn't make sense. But people still remember SA-Aus test series. They can increase number of matches from 2 to 4 in Ind-SA test series. Let Pak-Ind-SL have tri test championship.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | August 21, 2013, 7:28 GMT

    lets split tests into divisions of 4-6 teams who have to play a min no of tests home and away over a 4 year period. yoyu could then have a test series to decide the winner of each division or a play off series between 2-4 teams. same structure could be used for odis. if icc did this it would leave enough room for friendly series over a four year period plus extra games at individual cricket boards discretion

  • POSTED BY WAKE_UP_CALL on | August 21, 2013, 7:27 GMT

    The bilateral series can give a way to tri series.for eg lets say pak is due to tour england and then followed by india (test series).Now between these two test series one can easily arrange a tri series comprising ind,Pak,eng. Thats a win win situation with excited contest and one which can be remembered.The only way one can make a test match interesting is by limiting each innings to 100 overs to make out a contest.No more dull boring draws and negative cricket tactics like England can be eradicated.ICC must regulate the cricket grounds which produce dull draws(like sl) and make sure there is proper fine in case there is no improvement and still producing meaning less flat pitches for draws.

  • POSTED BY venkatesh018 on | August 21, 2013, 7:22 GMT

    Holding, Hussain, Dravid, Ganguly, Mark Taylor and their like will do wonders for the overall welfare of the game, if they are given posts with some power vested in them...A bit of Socialism is the need of the hour in World Cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 7:20 GMT

    Great input by Dravid and Hussain. ICC must restrict bilateral tours by all International teams to 3 tests,3 one day and 2 twenty/20 games as a maximum. 5 test matches and 5 to 7 one day games per tour is diluting the value of cricket to a great extent. Hopefully the ICC cricket committee will make these mandatory changes to commence from 2014.

  • POSTED BY WAKE_UP_CALL on | August 21, 2013, 7:18 GMT

    contd..The myth about recent Champions trophy .It was successful only because it was organised in ENGLAND-Multi cultural society with immigrants from everywhere.(Asia,west indies,).Play this trophy somewhere else and you will see lack of crowds except for home team matches.Though i am still fan of the champions trophy because it reflects the ICC rankings and also a shot at world champions however one has to see where the next one should be allowed.Only Australia comes in mind because they have immigrant population next to England.Or it should be played only in England as home of cricket just to be fair to the cricket fans(ind,pak,srilanka,aus) shouldn't mind and it should be played after every two years.T20 world cup is a boon to associate countries to actually challenge the major countries and quite frankly i would say that this format will give chance to any team to win the cup and should be played after every four years with maximum teams as possible.to be contd...

  • POSTED BY WAKE_UP_CALL on | August 21, 2013, 7:06 GMT

    contd...ashes is important because its played between two quality teams.Take a test match sri lanka vs nz played both in (sl and nz) only to invisible crowds.nd even if t2o has effected the batting in both teams that means it should be low scoring game and a contest but still no crowds.The truth has to be accepted that test matches will have increased value in may be top 5 countries and it will slowly disappear in other countries.west indies and nz have already identified themselves as flamboyant limited over teams.There is nothing to be saved even if one tries to send A teams in different countries.Whats the point when there will be no one to watch test matches except the big KABAL.sports is always alive because of crowds and one has to respect that which is clearly missing.

  • POSTED BY WAKE_UP_CALL on | August 21, 2013, 6:53 GMT

    The most important point is that FTP is decided in between individual boards who are interested to play with each other and not the ICC.The reason for 'teams" missing out on matches played is totally based on commercial reasons.You can all goo ga ga about being unfair however this is the truth.just see how Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe have profited recently by playing with India. Irrespective of the fact cricket experts talking about chopping this or that one has to see that every board looks after itself and its staff.Now "T20 vs tests" Jargon everyone knows that South Africa vs Bangladesh in test cricket is a one side boring game however if both these teams play a t20 it would be tight contest.Test cricket is alive only because of countries who have that first class structure and you can build one overnight.even in england recently compare the crowds of england vs new zealand test series with the t20's played .there was a huge difference.Test cricket need an identity like ashes...

  • POSTED BY muzika_tchaikovskogo on | August 21, 2013, 6:48 GMT

    Completely agree with Nasser Hussain. The ideal approach would be to restrict ODIs to bilateral series, with 3-5 ODIs preceding a test series to whet the appetite for the bigger contest. Secondly, test series ought to be of minimum 3 tests. That would create context and generate interest, rather than the surfeit of meaningless ODIs we're subjected to these days.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    What Dravid said is 100%correct.We should take immediate steps to reduce 7 one day matches in India-South Africa series to 3 and increase test matches to 5

  • POSTED BY calcu on | August 21, 2013, 5:57 GMT

    No team should play more than 5 t20I in an year.No tour should consist of more than 2 t20. The top 8 teams should play minimum 6 tests in an year while bang and zim should play minimum 4 an year. The no of Odis should be restricted to 20 an year.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 5:55 GMT

    I agree with Nasser and Dravid that the number of ODIs and T20 should be reduced as much as possible. I have my own recommendation as well..:-)... that we can induct other upcoming nations to Test match status and ask them to play against each other only! A multi-nation Test-championship between B'Desh, Ireland, Zimbabwe and Scotland/Holland wont harm anybody.... Nasser asked for CONTEST and having these nations playing against each other make things exciting for all involved, the neutral fans/TV-viewers and above all the players from these emerging cricketing nations...

  • POSTED BY ODI_BestFormOfCricket on | August 21, 2013, 5:20 GMT

    @icfa well said. Spectators know what to watch. Not ex greats.

  • POSTED BY TommytuckerSaffa on | August 21, 2013, 5:14 GMT

    Hope Dravid gets a job in the ICC. He is my favourite indian and talks a lot of sense. END poiintless bilateral ODIs and T20 should only be played at franchise and tournaments - couldnt agree more.

  • POSTED BY Arrow011 on | August 21, 2013, 5:04 GMT

    England invented Tests & T20s so they always want ODIs to be reduced or removed forever as they were invented by Australia. ODIs are as important as tests to survive, if one format can be reduced drastically it has to be T20s. ICC should allow only 1 T20 per series / tour, there is no need to reduce bilateral series as they give more chance for improvement & also for the boards as every country cannot host World cups or major ICC tournaments. T20 should be reduced to accommodate more test matches. It is time ICC inducts Ireland & Holland into test status. It is time we have more number of test playing nations than staying same for the past a decade now. The last introduction to test cricket was Bangladesh & it is nearing a decade. ICC should have more vision to promote test nations as well. Young cricketing nations like Ireland, Holland which have local talent are given entry in 1 world cup & for the next 4 years they are not encouraged at all. No way this shortsightedness will help.

  • POSTED BY Geeva on | August 21, 2013, 4:45 GMT

    I disagree with reducing the bi-lateral one day series...if played in a 4 year cycle with the top 8 nations playing home and away in 3 or max 5 odi per series you can truly see who is the best ODI team over 4 years..similar i agree with Dravid Test series should be a minimum 3 matches per series and all teams complete home and away in 4 year cycle....its not ODI;s that are the problems its T20 leagues that are the issue..its not a major problem to solve!!!Test cricket will survive!!!!

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | August 21, 2013, 4:42 GMT

    Cricket should take a leaf out of the FIFA world cup, especially where the T20WC is concerned, simply have 8 groups of 4 teams with the top 8 ranked teams seeded and the other 24 teams drawn randomly into the groups.

    Each team plays 3 games, in the qualifying rounds, and the top 2 teams go through to a knock out competition, so no team plays more than 7 games, and it should take no more than 4 weeks to complete.

    You could then put the 16 teams that get through into a 50 over WC with 4 groups of 4 again the top two going through to a knockout stage.

  • POSTED BY kartickspeaks on | August 21, 2013, 4:05 GMT

    I just wonder if "IPL opportunity" is over-hyped in the sense that if the foreign/indian players do not perform in other formats like domestic leagues, they wouldn't always land a lucrative deal. The point is eschewed by Hussain when he says that the Shahs and Morgans din't become better players because of IPL. Precisely and so on one hand it may take a few ageing stars early into sunset but those who have just started are probably not good enough to play at the highest level anyway and may just end up making a few bucks for few years.

  • POSTED BY Cricket_theBestGame on | August 21, 2013, 3:57 GMT

    could not agree more with both Dravid and Hussain.

    one more thing i'd like to pose to ICC and the powerful boards, if you only have a 4-5 countries playing cricket and the game is not exanded (ireleland is much more worthy of test status than bangladesh) then there won't be any cricket left!!

    don't kill the goose that lays the egg. stop this T20 leagues around the world and revive test and ODI cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 3:57 GMT

    This is the good idea given by rahul and naseer

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 3:44 GMT

    ODI or T20 cricket have become boring to watch , of late . Any day, Test cricket provides maximum entertainment , as the game can change every session . Further, there is a level playing field in test cricket , which makes it all the more exciting to watch . With the ODI and T20 games heavily loaded in favour of batsmen, there is no contest and hence the bowlers always tend to focus more on restricting the batsmen than in taking wickets . Test cricket Vs ODI or T20 is like Filter coffee Vs Instant coffee .

  • POSTED BY CrICkeeet on | August 21, 2013, 3:43 GMT

    Well..... bt I cant see any minimum possibility smthng like that.... not in near future.... evn looks lyk this is quite impossible till 2023 (This ftp).... ICC is too greedy nd teethless...

  • POSTED BY crick_sucks on | August 21, 2013, 3:39 GMT

    cricket fans watch what they like not what is best for the game. While the purists and some cricket players might feel strongly about test cricket but still it can't be forced down the throat of a average cricket fan who prefers the shorter formats than test cricket. The Boards will play more of the format that is watched by millions not test cricket that attracts a few thousands. So however much you want test cricket to be given more importance than shorter formats I feel it is not going to happen. So stop all this wishful talking and come up with hard core facts to support your stand. At the end of the day it is commerce that drives everything.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 3:38 GMT

    Implement Tendulkar suggestion of breaking down 50 over in to two 25 over innings and make it mimic a test cricket.

    Also, make test cricket a day and night match with special pitches that produce results than flat pitches. Use color clothes and restrict each innings to 100 overs max. (I have seen a max of 130 overs in an innings can surely get results).

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 3:18 GMT

    Test cricket is still popular. Just look the ongoing Ashes series. The ICC over the years through its future tours and plans mandated that countries play test too many test matches per year. Many of those matches were one-sided. Test matches should remain as what it was in its heyday: a confrontation or test between nations, with national pride at stake. Per year, each test nation should not play more than 6 matches - 3 at home and 3 abroad. This will leave a big window for T20s and ODI. The absence of Pakistan as a host is also affecting the game. Hope the political turmoil there will be resolved soon.

  • POSTED BY humdrum on | August 21, 2013, 3:00 GMT

    The point about the ICC helping out the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe is the most sensible thing,yet trust the ICC to ignore sage advice and chase mirages.Even in the old days when it was controlled by England and Australia,it was never even handed in the treatment of its members,so they are being true to form.When they frame rules disallowing subs for batsmen,why the same does not apply to fielders? In this series,the way some english guys disappear regularly into the pav,no questions asked,is a disgrace to the game.

  • POSTED BY Rukky on | August 21, 2013, 3:00 GMT

    Agreed that Bilateral series should be eradicate to make cricket more interesting. What my suggestion is to held a Quadrangular series between nations throughout the year. such as 1 quadrangular in 1st Quarter (2 weeks from Jan-Mar for (Top 1,2,3 rank and rank 10)..and so on next Quarter( 2 weeks from Apr-June) for 2nd quadrangular (rank,4,5,6 and Rank 11) then, next quater(and 2 weeks from July-Sep) for 3rd Quadrangular (rank 7,8,9 and rank 12), and for last quarter (and 2 weeks from Oct-Dec), Top 4 nations from each Quarters.... And the same can be done to Tests and T20s..(by this we can have regular 12 nations...playing against each other through out the year. And we can get new nations also (for making a qualifiers Quadrangular oh pentagonal tournament among team ranks from 9 to 12~14). Meanwhile the remaining time (apart from those 2 weeks in each quarters), we can have bilateral test series instead of ODIs and T20s.. Please suggest how this idea is? Rukky

  • POSTED BY cricket_ahan on | August 21, 2013, 2:56 GMT

    Great article, but is this really that new of a viewpoint!?! A great example of what Dravid is talking about is the meaningless tri-series (though the article refers to bi-lateral series) between India / SL / WI immediately after the last Champions Trophy. In my opinion, it is all these Domestic T20 leagues that are popping up around the world that are disrupting schedules and taking focus away from Test cricket. Yes, meaningless one-dayers don't help the equation, but even a 7 ODI series occupies much less time than a 4-5 week local T20 tournament. Personally I love the IPL, but don't think much of the other leagues in the world - except maybe the Carribean League. The problem is it is now such a big revenue source for National boards that deterring their existence is difficult at best. Culling the excess T20 tournaments for me personally is the best solution, but perhaps the only realistic option is to cull stand-alone bi-lateral ODI series. Pity!

  • POSTED BY gocool_here on | August 21, 2013, 2:43 GMT

    Mr.Hussain, What you mentioned about IPL is actually applicable for all T20 leagues. So it is better to mention 'T20 leagues' and not just IPL which is spoiling the cricketing techniques.Otherwise, I agreee with all the points mentioned here.

  • POSTED BY Timmuh on | August 21, 2013, 2:43 GMT

    Personally, I'm fan of banning limited over tours (50 or 20 or any other number of overs) that are not attached to a minimum of two Tests. Only series including at least one non-Test nation would be excluded; this includes World Cups which must include a minimum of two non-Test nations and preferably more, and the T20 chmapionships with six or eight non-Test nations. There are other things to add as well, including greater equality in the FTP to ensure all Test nations get a decent amount of Test cricket. And penalties for failing to comply with the FTP.

  • POSTED BY DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on | August 21, 2013, 2:41 GMT

    how could they say, few are meaningless ODI bilateral series? Even it played in a crowded calendar year, If fans, sponsers and two boards are intrested then there is nothing like meaningless series. ODI cricket generating more money money to boards. Most of the bilateral test series are meaningless, conducting without much public intrest and fans.

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 2:33 GMT

    @Narbavi, completely agree on your points; Firstly the T20 should be a 4 year tournament as well as a 4 year cycle majoring on each format every year. The champions trophy was a big tournament, as a fan i looked forward to seeing my country (Pak) too perform and win it. Also a big fan of dravid, and this whole debate on the importance of test cricket. We must not undervalue test cricket, instead push for more series with 3-5 matches. Pak often play SL in tests, ,but only seem to max a limit of 2 tests which serves less of a purpose than a 3, 4 or 5 match series such as the ashes, or other nations like India-Aus.

    Anyways, with regards to revival of ODI cricket, i believe interest is declining and one proposal is to bring back tri-nation ODI series. I remember days of india pak wi tri nation series in dubai, or natwest series in england which arose big crowds and great interest. This has to be the way forward for ODIs!!

  • POSTED BY vimalan on | August 21, 2013, 2:18 GMT

    you guys can talk whatever you want, but am doubting if the paying public was taken into account for what they needed

  • POSTED BY Rowayton on | August 21, 2013, 2:18 GMT

    I don't have a problem with bilateral ODI series that are part of a tour, so long as the matches are in reasonable proportion e.g. 3 tests and 3 ODIs. But if we're going to scrap meaningless stand alone bilateral one day series (an excellent idea IMHO) could we please do it before the ridiculous 7 game series between Australia and India in October?

  • POSTED BY IndianEagle on | August 21, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    You cannot force bilateral test series instead of bilateral ODI series, when two boards and fans are not intrested. Those who are advocating for 'test' are conservatives, failing to accept the change of nature. All Bilateral ODI,t20 series are for best intrest of cricket and fans not for ex.greats. k, If they feel test cricket is soul, pure and real of cricket, has been here for 140 years then why it failed to attract fans (new fans) and new nations?

  • POSTED BY on | August 21, 2013, 2:06 GMT

    I am sorry, but this is living in a fantasy bubble. Are tests my favourite format? Absolutely!! But where is all the money? It is all in 20/20. Where are all the casual fans? It is 20/20.

    Sure, in Eng - Aus - India, you get people for tests. But what about in Pak matches? SL? WI? NZ? Barely anybody is watching these test matches.

    For all the people below, lets see how many people come out to the Pak vs Zimb, Pak vs RSA, and Pak vs SL tests this year. But the Pak 20/20 matches (outside maybe Zimbabwe) will be sold out.

    In the end, its the majority that control everything, and the majority of people want 20/20 (I wish tests make a comeback, but lets see if you and your friends support the test series I listed above).

  • POSTED BY DRS_Flawed_NeedsImprovement on | August 21, 2013, 2:03 GMT

    how could they say, few are meaningless ODI bilateral series? Even it played in a crowded calendar year, If fans, sponsers and two boards are intrested then there is nothing like meaningless series. ODI cricket generating more money money to boards. Most of the bilateral test series are meaningless, conducting without much public intrest and fans. Once Great viv richards said, now a days test series are watched by few fans along with more dogs.

  • POSTED BY GrindAR on | August 21, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    I see desperation, but not viable solutions/suggestions. Mutual ODIs can be reduced to not more than 3/4 to accomodate 1 more test. Like 2 test series is meaningless as same as 7ODI series. 1/2 T20 in a bilateral series is meaningless...

    Min 3 Max 5 tests/ODI/T20 should be mandatory in a bilateral series... so visiting team are forced to bring in versatile plyers to fit all formats... You balance financially and keeping the context and contest in the interests of each format of cricket.

    As a major sport, Cricket is the only one that has multiple formats.

  • POSTED BY vswami on | August 21, 2013, 1:28 GMT

    Its amusing to hear Hussain asking India to clamp down on ODIs. A mere glance at stats will tell him that India has staged a mere 18 ODIs at home in more than 2 years since WC 2011. In the whole of 2012, there was just one ODI in the entire calendar year and that too at the fag end of the year. By contrast England will have staged 33 ODIs at home by the end of this summer excluding the Champions Trophy since WC2011. ODIs are far too important for ECB to generate cash and India stages too few ODIs of late given the size of the country and number of cricket playing centers . Again one of those myths that some commentators keep perpetuating that is devoid of factual basis.

  • POSTED BY Aizyv on | August 21, 2013, 1:18 GMT

    I have a better plan.End all billateral series and just have 3 world cups every year.Test world will have top 8 teams, odi world cup top 10 teams and t20 world cup top 12 teams.All teams will play each other once in these tournaments the top 2 will face each other in the finals.

  • POSTED BY BigINDFan on | August 21, 2013, 0:51 GMT

    To be fair Test cricket has its place just like T20s. I agree that an international player should be able to play all formats of the game. So while there are great suggestions here to sustain Test cricket the ICC and the boards have to come up with a fine balance between quality and quantity.Not to forget the games have to be "results oriented and appeal to the larger cricketing fan base". So Broad vs Clarke can be a fun contest over 3 Tests just like over 5 Tests if there is no rain or bad light.

    Wouldn't it be fun to have a Test tri-series with top 3 teams once a year?

    Have a WC for each format with teams playing each other over 2 years in league format and the top 4 or 8 teams qualify once every 2 years.

    I agree boards give ICC power, ICC invest your cash in Bang, Zim. Only market T20s to USA and China (no patience for watching 5 days of cricket with no result).

  • POSTED BY Cricket_Froth on | August 21, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    Agree entirely regarding banal 3-5-7 match ODI series. We don't watch them in our household and nobody is interested in them at my cricket club. We want more Test cricket, meaningful 3-5 Test Series. ICC and the major boards need to do much more to promote Test cricket by educating people about it, the logic, strategies and tactics. Whenever people understand the game, they love it.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | August 20, 2013, 23:45 GMT

    Finally someone with some common sense.

  • POSTED BY Beige_and_blue on | August 20, 2013, 23:03 GMT

    While I agree on principal with Dravid's desire for more test matches at the cost of T20 and ODI games (after all it is 'proper' cricket) The reality here in NZ is empty stadiums for 'boring' Tests, and carnival atmosphere, packed out grounds for ODIs and T20s. In terms of revenue gathering alone, we cannot afford to move in this direction.

    My desire is to make Tests more exciting and attract audiences to see spectacular sporting brilliance (which incidentally is what I feel I'm getting at Tests anyway). Perhaps something along the lines of one or two overs per hour of Tests as a kind of 'powerplay' to keep the short-attention-span-viewer riveted to the seat and focused on the action.

    I know this will offend many 'cricket purists' however, in the interest of a financial lifeline for cash-strapped NZC this may be a way to effectively save my favorite sport from potential extinction, especially if we remove the profitable forms to accommodate the extra tests.

  • POSTED BY Viv-Viru on | August 20, 2013, 22:51 GMT

    Bilateral - Test Matches only World Events - World Cup, Champions Trophy Franchise Level - T20 Role of ICC - Promote cricket in the US, China, and other countries

    No need for a Test Championship. No need for T20 world cup.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    Good discussion and I agree about meaningless bilateral one day series played solely for Media and money.

  • POSTED BY espncricinfomobile on | August 20, 2013, 20:57 GMT

    Since watching or listening to cricket for over 40 years I have seen the slow decay of the game I love. It's not that there is a problem with quantity as I could watch or listen to cricket every day, but the quality of the game has diminished. In saying this I don't have an answer as with more choices for kids these days cricket bodies have to compete for the hearts and minds of our youngsters. I agree that 2 test series are a waste of time and effort and 3 should be the minimum. I believe that T20 though fun to watch has a lot to answer for. I believe that the BCCI has a lot to answer for. I think that T20 should be structured in such a way that contracted test players should be allowed to play it except at international level. If a contracted player wants to play IPL he loses his test contract.

  • POSTED BY Behind_the_bowlers_arm on | August 20, 2013, 20:43 GMT

    For a start can we cancel the 7 (SEVEN) ODI's between India and Australia in October. Utterly utterly pointless and in the case of Australia a hindrance to their Ashes preparation.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 20:42 GMT

    At last, someone of note is saying what I've been saying for years, bi-lateral ODI Series are meaningless. 99 per cent of them are forgotten five minutes after their completion. Replace them with a One Day League with annual promotion and relegation. 2 divisions of 6 or 7 according to who has the resources to join it. Well done, Rahul Dravid, speaking a lot of sense again as usual!

  • POSTED BY anuradha_d on | August 20, 2013, 20:39 GMT

    chimerical......2 guys disconnected from the real world.......what about the monetary losses by cutting out all the ODIs. ??.....who will fill those monetary holes......test cricket is good...but don't go overboard...trumpeting test matches......MONEY drives all cricket......icommerce, economics overrides idealism

  • POSTED BY subbass on | August 20, 2013, 20:23 GMT

    I'd agree with Nasser on making the Champions Trophy the new W.C. and with Dravid on reducing the number of ODI and T-20 series that lack context.

    Test cricket could do with Pakistan v India Test matches back, but that is a very sensitive issue politically and of course no-one will tour Pakistan due to the poor security level..

  • POSTED BY BRUTALANALYST on | August 20, 2013, 20:00 GMT

    "Some of the stronger nations have to make a few sacrifices in terms of their power and control and hand over little bit of power to the ICC." This is crux of it for me also with the reduction of bouncers the introduction of helmets and advanced padding scary fast bowling became irrelevant which is why Pak and W.I have fallen off and the game has become more about batting technique and tactics which require resources to nurture it's really no suprise England are no1 looking at the sheer size of backroom staff and resources nationwide for kids from age of 10. Also India being no1 without a real pace attack highlights just how far shift between bat and ball has come for me this is the biggest issue the loss of adrenaline and real "Test" between pacebowlers and batsman is what has made Test cricket so mundane there really has never been worse time to be a fast bowler in the history of the game and T20 also primarily encourages batsman and allroudners with big $ far more than fast bowlers

  • POSTED BY cricraz on | August 20, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    This is pure utopia for past cricket players. They can play as many tests and restrict T20's but they will be playing in front of empty seats and with very little TV revenue! These players are not going to get paid. Why is that ex cricket players not understand that the audience is the one that determines the viability of the sport or its format? To be good at T20 requires skill, a different set as compared to what is required in Test cricket. It does not mean it is inferior( As much as I adore Dravid), He is dead wrong about it being a superior sport. Look at how athletic the modern day cricketers are as compared to the ones in 70-90's. This is like comparing a decathlete to a 100 m Sprinter. Is one a superior athlete compared to the other? The viewing public decides the format that is going to survive and the players are going to play the format that is going to pay them!

  • POSTED BY FormerMiner on | August 20, 2013, 19:33 GMT

    While I have heard several ingenious proposals to save Test matches, I am yet to hear of a compelling reason to justify why it should even exist! The Test Match is a relic of the 19th century Colonialism. Never in the history of almost 150 years of Test matches has parity among various teams exceeded more than three teams. There have always been one, two or a maximum of three teams equally competitive against each other and then there were the rest. The leading factor for a sport to remain relevant is to keep the teams competitive. The 50 over introduced the first semblance of parity, the 20 over format flattened the sport and the uber-capitalist IPL socialized the sport like nothing preceding it did! With demands of speed, agility and strength the 20 over format also punctuated Cricket as as "sport", unlike the Test match which is rooted in aristocratic leisure. For today's eight year old armed with an XBOX controller, T20 is the only logical choice to entice him outdoors.

  • POSTED BY pulkit10 on | August 20, 2013, 19:30 GMT

    As for the comment on the associate nations, that puts Hussain right up there with Vaughan in terms of the most priceless comments made. Many of these associate nations eagerly wait for major events like the world cup to arrive so they finally get some quality practice against top teams. To take it away from them would mean that you'll just widen the already wide gap between teams like Ireland and England. If anything, such practices should be encouraged...or maybe replace this with more bilateral series with these nations or U-19 tours to them. To cut them off and say "nope, not good enough" means they'll never be good enough. As for Bangladesh...they don't need the help. Cricket is very popular there and they can afford to spend their cash and raise their game (they already have, by some measure). Some nations do need the exposure but to sacrifice new nations for this is madness. You'll never be able to move on from status quo then.

  • POSTED BY asim229 on | August 20, 2013, 19:22 GMT

    I somewhat agree with it bcse all this can only be implemented in the countries already playing test cricket but the globalization of the game in countries like China and US is very difficult based on the test cricket. The biggest hurdle is that if you tell someone who never watched cricket that there is a game in which one match is played over five days then they get scared of adopting it because it is too long.Even those bilateral ODI series which are called meaningless have much bigger crowds then the test match and even IPL,CPL games are played in front of full house and the test matches have empty stadiums.The only exception to it is an Ashes series which have a historic value to both England and Australia so it is very competetive and have full crowds.So first we have to bring crowds to the stadiums in the subcontinent to watch test matches before thinking about globalizing the test cricket.

  • POSTED BY Rajeev129 on | August 20, 2013, 18:23 GMT

    Well said Rahul. These 5/7 bilateral odi's really boring. a five ODI series is somewhat OK, but only if the pitch offered is well balanced for both teams. For example a 5 match series between Aus vs SA and Ind vs SL will be mostly competitive in either countries. But 7 match series is always boring, it should be banned if not to accommodate a Test match atleast 2 T20s instead.

    Champions Trophy was always exciting, in every tournament of it an underdog lifted the trophy against the odds for favorites. It should be restored back in ICC calender.

    Test Championship is a good idea but every match of it will be boring for third country. I presume that this tourney will join among Super Series (No.1 vs Rest) and Super Sub (12th man) as a failed ICC attempt to improve the cricket popularity.

  • POSTED BY Cpt.Meanster on | August 20, 2013, 18:20 GMT

    I absolutely agree with cutting down on the number of bilateral ODIs and T20s. However, I cannot agree with playing more 'meaningless' tests between nations where there is absolutely NO balance or fairness. For example, a 5 test match series between Zimbabwe and England will NEVER make sense. People will already know the result. If you want Zimbabwe to play more competitive cricket, then the best solution will be to let them play against 'A' teams of the stronger nations. Don't waste people's time and money (a trend in modern sport) for the sake of an old idea (test cricket). Any form of cricket must be meaningful. I also totally disagree with Nasser Hussain on the notion of eradicating the World Cup which is the games GLORIOUS prize. If we do that, the associate countries will never have a chance to taste international cricket. It will be unfair to upcoming teams like Afghanistan and Ireland. A 50-50 article IMO.

  • POSTED BY cricketherry on | August 20, 2013, 18:16 GMT

    i think Bilateral series must be replaced by multinational OdI tournaments like World Series in Australia with 5 top teams or a Asian series with 5 teams . ime is to promote the modern version Sharjah tournaments .which not only will sustain the excitement but also keep he ODI cricket Alive and Competitive. and Champions rophy should be restored .add to that there is a bigger need to reschedule the Cricket.And the implementation world test championship is yet unclear.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    Rightly said but franchise cricket should be stopped.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 18:03 GMT

    Please do arrange environment to play more test cricket. we as fans will be eagerly waiting to watch better,quality Test cricket.If I am given a chance to choose a format on any day, my first and best choice will be it.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 17:47 GMT

    Yes I do agree with Dravid and Hussain.Test cricket is dying no doubt about it and the administrators are supposed to be blamed for it and also few powerful playing nations. Cricket has become so professional that for few countries only money matters. In my view the calendar year for the entire test playing nation should be equal for Test, onedays and T20s.If a country plays 10 test then it should be permitted to play 10 one days and 10 T20s every format should be equal in no. A very good question raised by Hussain regarding new market or helping Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Despite of looking new market these two test playing nations should be helped. New market be also developed but not by neglecting these two test playing nation. The real game is Test cricket rest is MONEY.

  • POSTED BY Kirk-at-Lords on | August 20, 2013, 17:36 GMT

    Dravid offers additional good thinking about balancing off ODI and Test cricket, although he misses the commercial/broadcast dimension of ODIs which far outdistances Tests. Following his advice could well end up killing the proverbial golden-egg-laying ODI goose. But that can be worked out in the details. The key is to provide context and contest, and this panel evidently sent down a scorching yorker on these matters. Nassar Hussein asked the biggest strategic question of all: Should ICC focus on new markets with T20, or help level the Test playing field for "2nd division" nations? The T20 approach rings false because it would make the sport ring false. Cricket can have razzle-dazzle but must not ONLY be that. The other path has more than a whiff of colonialism and big-nation-bullying about it. This is where ICC could live up to the "I" (International) + establish a global system, building on World Cricket League, Intercontinental Championship, etc. by somehow incl the big boys

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 17:33 GMT

    really hoping more ex-cricketers will join these 2 and make a bigger noice... cheeers

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 17:31 GMT

    Just watched the video....absolutely speechless!!!Dravid has always been a true ambassador of the game...The way he is conducting himself after retirement is phenomenonal...Test Cricket requires people like him to restore its credibility.....:)

  • POSTED BY Kirk-at-Lords on | August 20, 2013, 17:12 GMT

    Will the "ESPNCricinfo for Cricket Summit" be made available in full on video and/or text? This is perhaps the most important single thing Cricinfo has EVER done to support and promote the cricket. Long may it continue! I urge you to make this widely and FULLY available

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 17:02 GMT

    the debate seems like a partial. if you want to revive the charm of test cricket, there should be kind of pitches that deliver results. and bilateral series in one day should be replaced with the trilateral compulsory for four times in a year. moreover poor performer countries can hire the players from foreign countries like in league in 20-20.

  • POSTED BY PrasPunter on | August 20, 2013, 16:58 GMT

    Take a Bow Rahul !! No doubt why you are one of the best batsman Test cricket has ever produced !! ODIs and T20s are crap and nothing. Wonder what value the upcoming 7 match ODI series between aus-ind and aus-eng are gonna provide.

    Agree with Nasser as well - Not sure what the formats of WC 2011 and WC 2015 going to bring in - way too many one-sided contests and what not. Cut it to 8 teams and let each of them play 7 matches, with the top 4 playing the semi-finals. Imagine the sort of contest this format would produce !! Now thats what I would call a real one !! A Championship true to its name !!

  • POSTED BY KapilsDevils1983 on | August 20, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    Rather than forcing a format onto people, surely we should simply let supply and demand decide how many Tests, ODIs and T20Is are played in a tour. It is interesting to note that people advocating Tests usually are of past generations who have not played (much) T20I.

    If a 3 match or 5 match bilateral ODI series lack context, the same can be said of Test series? Personally, I like watching cricket for the contest, the fun of watching a game, and don't always need a context although I preferred the tri-series and the quadrangular series that were so popular in the 90s.

    The quality of pitches to maintain a balance between bat n ball in Tests and ODIs ought to be maintained to prevent domination by batsmen and similarly size of bats and boundaries need to be regulated! That would make for good cricket, no matter what format!

  • POSTED BY mihir_nam on | August 20, 2013, 16:50 GMT

    India plays 7 Odi's those are useless if they win 4 in Row ..Kiwi's are better now 3odi's and 3t20i's and 3test Odi's should be restricted to 3. India vs Zimbabwe 5Odi's doesn't make sense..Even if they want to keep 7 Odi's then please keep Tri Series so it will be interesting till final.. or if one team is leading 4-0 then rest 3games are boring... Bring 2 new teams to Test Cricket Ireland and Afghanistan or Dutch... Let them play against bottom 5teams on regular basis in Test Cricket and ODi's against everyone to be competitive . Let ODI's be more interesting in Champions Trophy and please let Associates host it

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    ODI cricket is a great form of cricket, a player grinds down 10-12 years to get 300 wickets or 10000+ runs with 20+ centuries, the latter is harder to earn and so sweet to taste! ODI batting has a rhythm: start off an innings, get a good start, see where you stand after 15 overs, play the middle overs with caution and easiness, look where you stand and aim for a final score in the last 8-10 overs. ODI bowling is like: start off with pace or spin depending upon the opposition and conditions, use spin & pace wisely, keep wicket takers for the powerplay and slog overs and set the field as necessary. But ODI cricket allows to build momentum and with unscripted twists and twirls, it's a great contest and a great test of the cricketing skills. Imagine Muralitharan, Warne, Akram, Waqar, Mcgrath, Kapil, Imral had never played ODIs....we would not have recognised their abilities and we would have been extremely unlucky... TEST & ODIs should keep a natural balance between them...good luck!!

  • POSTED BY Swapnil-Sehwag-Gambhir1 on | August 20, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    The Champions trophy should be restored and the 50 over world cup should be there and there should be a test cricket world cup having the top 8 ranked teams playing 7 matches each once in 3-4 years.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 16:39 GMT

    I've got a lot of respect for Nasser, but he's out and out wrong.

    The Associate teams need to play in the World Cup, not be shut still further out.

  • POSTED BY Narbavi on | August 20, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    What the ICC can do is have a world tournament every single year, a 50 over world cup followed by the t20 wc the next year which should be followed by the champions trophy which should be followed by the world test championship, this cycle should be followed so that these major tournaments happen once in every four years!!

  • POSTED BY Narbavi on | August 20, 2013, 16:28 GMT

    No wonder i am a huge Dravid fan, i share almost the same thoughts as Dravid does with the only exception that i want the t20 world cup once in every four years and not once in every two years like Rahul wants it to be, should scrap 7 match bilateral series, even the 5 match one day series should be played only on rare basis and there should be only one t20 international per tour, also the champions trophy needs to be re instated but not at the expense of the world cup like hussain wants!!

  • POSTED BY Narbavi on | August 20, 2013, 16:28 GMT

    No wonder i am a huge Dravid fan, i share almost the same thoughts as Dravid does with the only exception that i want the t20 world cup once in every four years and not once in every two years like Rahul wants it to be, should scrap 7 match bilateral series, even the 5 match one day series should be played only on rare basis and there should be only one t20 international per tour, also the champions trophy needs to be re instated but not at the expense of the world cup like hussain wants!!

  • POSTED BY Narbavi on | August 20, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    What the ICC can do is have a world tournament every single year, a 50 over world cup followed by the t20 wc the next year which should be followed by the champions trophy which should be followed by the world test championship, this cycle should be followed so that these major tournaments happen once in every four years!!

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 16:39 GMT

    I've got a lot of respect for Nasser, but he's out and out wrong.

    The Associate teams need to play in the World Cup, not be shut still further out.

  • POSTED BY Swapnil-Sehwag-Gambhir1 on | August 20, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    The Champions trophy should be restored and the 50 over world cup should be there and there should be a test cricket world cup having the top 8 ranked teams playing 7 matches each once in 3-4 years.

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    ODI cricket is a great form of cricket, a player grinds down 10-12 years to get 300 wickets or 10000+ runs with 20+ centuries, the latter is harder to earn and so sweet to taste! ODI batting has a rhythm: start off an innings, get a good start, see where you stand after 15 overs, play the middle overs with caution and easiness, look where you stand and aim for a final score in the last 8-10 overs. ODI bowling is like: start off with pace or spin depending upon the opposition and conditions, use spin & pace wisely, keep wicket takers for the powerplay and slog overs and set the field as necessary. But ODI cricket allows to build momentum and with unscripted twists and twirls, it's a great contest and a great test of the cricketing skills. Imagine Muralitharan, Warne, Akram, Waqar, Mcgrath, Kapil, Imral had never played ODIs....we would not have recognised their abilities and we would have been extremely unlucky... TEST & ODIs should keep a natural balance between them...good luck!!

  • POSTED BY mihir_nam on | August 20, 2013, 16:50 GMT

    India plays 7 Odi's those are useless if they win 4 in Row ..Kiwi's are better now 3odi's and 3t20i's and 3test Odi's should be restricted to 3. India vs Zimbabwe 5Odi's doesn't make sense..Even if they want to keep 7 Odi's then please keep Tri Series so it will be interesting till final.. or if one team is leading 4-0 then rest 3games are boring... Bring 2 new teams to Test Cricket Ireland and Afghanistan or Dutch... Let them play against bottom 5teams on regular basis in Test Cricket and ODi's against everyone to be competitive . Let ODI's be more interesting in Champions Trophy and please let Associates host it

  • POSTED BY KapilsDevils1983 on | August 20, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    Rather than forcing a format onto people, surely we should simply let supply and demand decide how many Tests, ODIs and T20Is are played in a tour. It is interesting to note that people advocating Tests usually are of past generations who have not played (much) T20I.

    If a 3 match or 5 match bilateral ODI series lack context, the same can be said of Test series? Personally, I like watching cricket for the contest, the fun of watching a game, and don't always need a context although I preferred the tri-series and the quadrangular series that were so popular in the 90s.

    The quality of pitches to maintain a balance between bat n ball in Tests and ODIs ought to be maintained to prevent domination by batsmen and similarly size of bats and boundaries need to be regulated! That would make for good cricket, no matter what format!

  • POSTED BY PrasPunter on | August 20, 2013, 16:58 GMT

    Take a Bow Rahul !! No doubt why you are one of the best batsman Test cricket has ever produced !! ODIs and T20s are crap and nothing. Wonder what value the upcoming 7 match ODI series between aus-ind and aus-eng are gonna provide.

    Agree with Nasser as well - Not sure what the formats of WC 2011 and WC 2015 going to bring in - way too many one-sided contests and what not. Cut it to 8 teams and let each of them play 7 matches, with the top 4 playing the semi-finals. Imagine the sort of contest this format would produce !! Now thats what I would call a real one !! A Championship true to its name !!

  • POSTED BY on | August 20, 2013, 17:02 GMT

    the debate seems like a partial. if you want to revive the charm of test cricket, there should be kind of pitches that deliver results. and bilateral series in one day should be replaced with the trilateral compulsory for four times in a year. moreover poor performer countries can hire the players from foreign countries like in league in 20-20.

  • POSTED BY Kirk-at-Lords on | August 20, 2013, 17:12 GMT

    Will the "ESPNCricinfo for Cricket Summit" be made available in full on video and/or text? This is perhaps the most important single thing Cricinfo has EVER done to support and promote the cricket. Long may it continue! I urge you to make this widely and FULLY available