Cricinfo for Cricket

ESPNcricinfo for Cricket Summit

'Restore Champions Trophy, restrict bilateral ODIs'

Nagraj Gollapudi in London

August 20, 2013

Comments: 115 | Text size: A | A

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?"


Rahul Dravid and Nasser Hussain at a panel discussion at the first ESPNcricinfo for Cricket Summit, London, August 19, 2013
Nasser Hussain feels that only the best eight teams had the right to contest a World Cup © ESPNcricinfo Ltd
Enlarge

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

RSS Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

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.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Nagraj GollapudiClose
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days