October 21, 2012

Drop a format, or restrict T20

Administrators need to stop blaming India and collectively take tough decisions
119

The concentration of T20 cricket in recent weeks has accentuated a few major flaws in the game. The first and most important is to do with scheduling. The ICC has a Future Tours Programme, but it would be more appropriate to call the overall schedule the Futile Touring Circus. It has long been an unwieldy schedule, but as every day passes and a new T20 tournament is proposed, it has become not only an embarrassing joke but also a serious risk to the players' fitness.

With two tournaments - the World Twenty20 and the Champions League - preceding the prime season of three major countries, India, Australia and South Africa, it's not surprising there has been a knee-jerk reaction in trying to protect players from injury. There's a decent amount of scientific data now available to show that fast bowlers in particular are susceptible to injury when they quickly transition from a low workload to delivering a lot of overs in a day. Therefore it's asking for trouble to programme Test matches immediately after international T20 competitions.

However, that's exactly what Australia and South Africa are facing, and both teams have plenty of fast bowlers. Surely the point has been reached where the administrators not only have to revise the schedule but also to consider separating the different forms of the game into their own "seasons".

Australia's decision to recall Shane Watson from the Champions League mid-tournament has been criticised but it's Cricket Australia's statement, not their action, that is questionable. CA said it made the decision "in the best interests of Australian cricket and in the best interests of Shane Watson".

How can it be in the best interests of the player? Watson, like all cricketers who reach a high level of performance, is a fierce competitor. No one of that ilk enjoys missing the knockout portion of a tournament after competing in the round-robin stage. It would have been better to prevent Watson from playing at all rather than pull him out at the point where the Sydney Sixers have established themselves as one of the favourites to win the lucrative tournament.

The rapid expansion of T20 cricket has further exposed the game's huge dependence on India's financial clout and the relatively small pool of marquee players. The business model is highly dependent on drawcards to make it financially viable, and the number of tournaments drawing from that small pool of players keeps growing.

These two points were highlighted by the Australian official who bemoaned the unavailability of India's star players for the Big Bash League. He indicated they were needed to attract the big-money sponsors from India and the higher television fees that can be extracted from that part of the world if their players are involved. It's time cricket administrators from other countries broadened their horizons, especially with recent signs that India is finally starting to suffer a little cricket fatigue. It's also a bit rich to quibble about the lack of star Indian players in the competition when Australia's best aren't available to play the bulk of the BBL schedule.

Many outsiders are quick to criticise India for misusing its power at the administration table. However, the other major cricket bodies are even quicker to accept its money. They rarely challenge India when it wields its power in an effort to broaden the perspective, and instead pander to India's wishes.

By definition this makes the other administrations equally guilty of any misuse of power. The administrators need to formulate a co-operative approach to devise a workable schedule, one that is acceptable to the players and that satisfies the financial needs of the game. Any discussion on a grand plan for cricket's future should include the option of playing only two forms of the game, or of retaining three versions but scheduling T20 cricket as a club-only franchise model. If they decide on only two forms, then the 50-over game is the one most likely to become extinct. This may open the way for a hybrid 30-over game to represent the shorter version.

Cricket is fortunate to have choice of different formats but only if wise decisions are made about their future.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • NALINWIJ on October 24, 2012, 15:02 GMT

    I congragulate Australia for retaining a 3test series against SA without ODIs against them. This CLt20 appears meaningless and to maintain any legitimacy of T20 franchises CLt20 is important. I propose 2 groups of 6 team CLt20 involving 3 Indian franchises, 2 australian and one champion from SA,ENG,WI,PAK,SL,NZ and Bangaladesh. One group in INDIA with 3 Indian sides,SA,AUS2,ENG and the other group shared by BANG and SL cconsisting of champions of PAK,SL,BANG,AUS,NZ and WI. There will be 15 preliminary games in each group [total=30] played in 15days wednesday to wednesday with SEMIS on FRIDAY and FINAL on Sunday. [19days total] There will be 2 TV slots a day and great for tourism and legitimacy for t20 franchises.

  • S.Jagernath on October 23, 2012, 16:54 GMT

    The Future Tours Programme is flawed,it prevents Test cricket from being played at a single standard.Australia,England & India play the game at a far higher standard when compared to the rest.The other countries receive far more home test compared to the other 3.The ICC's main goal should be to have the game played at one standard & they are failing miserably.

  • jay57870 on October 23, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    (cont) According to ICC CEO Dave Richardson: "Probably the biggest challenge: making sure the international calendar works, providing balance between and context for the three formats". He adds: "with the proliferation of domestic T20 leagues, there has to be a way to make sure that they can exist and complement international cricket rather than destroy or cannibalise it". Yes, there's room for all 3 formats. Focus should be to prioritise & rebalance the schedule. There are no easy answers, but plenty of good ideas. Richardson thinks there has to be "one global event for each of the three formats" like the World Cup for ODIs & T20, plus the (future) World Test Championship. So something has to give way. WTC would be a "worthy replacement" for the Champions Trophy. Why have 2 ODI tourneys? As for T20, domestic leagues create a larger & deeper pool of players, not smaller. Ultimately market forces & time will dictate which ones survive or drop off. Can't force "wise decisions" now, Ian!

  • jay57870 on October 23, 2012, 13:34 GMT

    Ian - You can't have your cake & eat it too! It's futile to "quibble about the lack of star Indian players" in the BBL. Because BBL clashes with the prime-time part of India's international & domestic calendar. Who doesn't want "marquee players" & India's big-money sponsors & TV revenues? Hard luck, CA & ECB! BCCI must take care of Indian cricket's "best interests" too! Like it or not, IPL is here to stay: the ultimate destination for many of cricket's "marquee players". IPL is evolving: it's becoming like the Australian Open & Wimbledon in tennis. These lucrative Grand Slam tournaments - with their huge "financial clout"- are well entrenched in the topmost tier of the ATP World Tour. IPL is striving for the same in the international cricket calendar: it's the most lucrative cricket league. Plus India generates ~70% of international cricket's revenues. Surely BCCI must have a say in the way the international calendar works. Right, Ian?

  • anton1234 on October 23, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    I think most of us agree there is too much cricket. When you have too much you are either going to bore some people through overexposure or people will start being selective about which tournaments they watch.The international calender needs to be streamlined.

    A world championship is a must because at the moment most test series feel like 'friendlies' like you have in football. Each test match must count for something like a world championship. Most test series should be two test matches while the marquee series like the Ashes should be three match series. But each match will contribute to world championship points. Stage the World T20 world cup every year but with 14 or 16 countries in the tournament. If you rotate between Northern and Southern hemisphere, you will still have around 15 to 18 months between tournaments as opposed to like 12 or so if you stage it the same hemisphere two years in a row. T20s has to be a vehicle to spread the game.

  • on October 23, 2012, 9:01 GMT

    Ian is spot on. To say that only India is culprit is a prejudiced disposition. All crave for money and no one actually thinks of the game. India is talk of the town because it is the place where cricket is most popular.Therefore, it has come in a position to dictate terms. Anyone, be it England,Australia or SA , if enjoyed the position India is in today, would have acted in a same way as India is. One can exploit the other only when the other agrees by virtue of his greed to gain something.However, it is then when the poisonous game of greed,desires,temptations and compromises begin...

  • guptahitesh4u on October 23, 2012, 6:02 GMT

    Only 'Test cricket' should be played as International cricket. The ODIs should be removed at all. The T20 should be played in league mode only (something similar to football leagues played in european countries) with a champions league at the end of the season...the International T20 should be played in friendly matches only..

  • sony_sr on October 23, 2012, 4:43 GMT

    First time in my life as a cricket fan, am immediately switching off television upon seeing a t20 match. we definitely are having an overdose of cricket.

  • Timmuh on October 23, 2012, 0:33 GMT

    I can't believe there are people who say that Test cricket should be removed. The international game was built on Test cricket. Test cricket is the purest form of the sport, and requires that bit extra to win - not only do you need to outscore your opposition, you need to beat them. People might not have five days to watch, but they do care about the result - something that can't be said as much for other forms and it is the very essence of the sport. Administrators, and apparently some fans, have lost sight of the fact that the primary responsibility is to the game; the money is to be amde from, and in order to, keep the game strong. The current limit of international T20 is a good thing, and certainly should not be expanded upon. Dealing with the proliferation of domestic T20 leagues is a far bigger issue. As for the 50 over game, its purpose was money and has been overtaken by T20. Before it goes there are other things that can be tried, such as banning limited overs "only" tours.

  • SirViv1973 on October 22, 2012, 22:10 GMT

    Although dividing the formats in to seasons would seem a good idea in principle, its just not feasible. Here in Eng we can only play the game for around 4/5 months a year which would mean that we could only ever play one or two formats at home, there is a similar climate in NZL so the same would apply to them. It would make sense to play CLT20 bi annually in the years when there is no WT20 and expand it to 16 teams. The next WT20 is due in Mar 2014 so it would make sense to scrap the CLT20 that year and play the IPL during Sep/Oct.

  • NALINWIJ on October 24, 2012, 15:02 GMT

    I congragulate Australia for retaining a 3test series against SA without ODIs against them. This CLt20 appears meaningless and to maintain any legitimacy of T20 franchises CLt20 is important. I propose 2 groups of 6 team CLt20 involving 3 Indian franchises, 2 australian and one champion from SA,ENG,WI,PAK,SL,NZ and Bangaladesh. One group in INDIA with 3 Indian sides,SA,AUS2,ENG and the other group shared by BANG and SL cconsisting of champions of PAK,SL,BANG,AUS,NZ and WI. There will be 15 preliminary games in each group [total=30] played in 15days wednesday to wednesday with SEMIS on FRIDAY and FINAL on Sunday. [19days total] There will be 2 TV slots a day and great for tourism and legitimacy for t20 franchises.

  • S.Jagernath on October 23, 2012, 16:54 GMT

    The Future Tours Programme is flawed,it prevents Test cricket from being played at a single standard.Australia,England & India play the game at a far higher standard when compared to the rest.The other countries receive far more home test compared to the other 3.The ICC's main goal should be to have the game played at one standard & they are failing miserably.

  • jay57870 on October 23, 2012, 13:40 GMT

    (cont) According to ICC CEO Dave Richardson: "Probably the biggest challenge: making sure the international calendar works, providing balance between and context for the three formats". He adds: "with the proliferation of domestic T20 leagues, there has to be a way to make sure that they can exist and complement international cricket rather than destroy or cannibalise it". Yes, there's room for all 3 formats. Focus should be to prioritise & rebalance the schedule. There are no easy answers, but plenty of good ideas. Richardson thinks there has to be "one global event for each of the three formats" like the World Cup for ODIs & T20, plus the (future) World Test Championship. So something has to give way. WTC would be a "worthy replacement" for the Champions Trophy. Why have 2 ODI tourneys? As for T20, domestic leagues create a larger & deeper pool of players, not smaller. Ultimately market forces & time will dictate which ones survive or drop off. Can't force "wise decisions" now, Ian!

  • jay57870 on October 23, 2012, 13:34 GMT

    Ian - You can't have your cake & eat it too! It's futile to "quibble about the lack of star Indian players" in the BBL. Because BBL clashes with the prime-time part of India's international & domestic calendar. Who doesn't want "marquee players" & India's big-money sponsors & TV revenues? Hard luck, CA & ECB! BCCI must take care of Indian cricket's "best interests" too! Like it or not, IPL is here to stay: the ultimate destination for many of cricket's "marquee players". IPL is evolving: it's becoming like the Australian Open & Wimbledon in tennis. These lucrative Grand Slam tournaments - with their huge "financial clout"- are well entrenched in the topmost tier of the ATP World Tour. IPL is striving for the same in the international cricket calendar: it's the most lucrative cricket league. Plus India generates ~70% of international cricket's revenues. Surely BCCI must have a say in the way the international calendar works. Right, Ian?

  • anton1234 on October 23, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    I think most of us agree there is too much cricket. When you have too much you are either going to bore some people through overexposure or people will start being selective about which tournaments they watch.The international calender needs to be streamlined.

    A world championship is a must because at the moment most test series feel like 'friendlies' like you have in football. Each test match must count for something like a world championship. Most test series should be two test matches while the marquee series like the Ashes should be three match series. But each match will contribute to world championship points. Stage the World T20 world cup every year but with 14 or 16 countries in the tournament. If you rotate between Northern and Southern hemisphere, you will still have around 15 to 18 months between tournaments as opposed to like 12 or so if you stage it the same hemisphere two years in a row. T20s has to be a vehicle to spread the game.

  • on October 23, 2012, 9:01 GMT

    Ian is spot on. To say that only India is culprit is a prejudiced disposition. All crave for money and no one actually thinks of the game. India is talk of the town because it is the place where cricket is most popular.Therefore, it has come in a position to dictate terms. Anyone, be it England,Australia or SA , if enjoyed the position India is in today, would have acted in a same way as India is. One can exploit the other only when the other agrees by virtue of his greed to gain something.However, it is then when the poisonous game of greed,desires,temptations and compromises begin...

  • guptahitesh4u on October 23, 2012, 6:02 GMT

    Only 'Test cricket' should be played as International cricket. The ODIs should be removed at all. The T20 should be played in league mode only (something similar to football leagues played in european countries) with a champions league at the end of the season...the International T20 should be played in friendly matches only..

  • sony_sr on October 23, 2012, 4:43 GMT

    First time in my life as a cricket fan, am immediately switching off television upon seeing a t20 match. we definitely are having an overdose of cricket.

  • Timmuh on October 23, 2012, 0:33 GMT

    I can't believe there are people who say that Test cricket should be removed. The international game was built on Test cricket. Test cricket is the purest form of the sport, and requires that bit extra to win - not only do you need to outscore your opposition, you need to beat them. People might not have five days to watch, but they do care about the result - something that can't be said as much for other forms and it is the very essence of the sport. Administrators, and apparently some fans, have lost sight of the fact that the primary responsibility is to the game; the money is to be amde from, and in order to, keep the game strong. The current limit of international T20 is a good thing, and certainly should not be expanded upon. Dealing with the proliferation of domestic T20 leagues is a far bigger issue. As for the 50 over game, its purpose was money and has been overtaken by T20. Before it goes there are other things that can be tried, such as banning limited overs "only" tours.

  • SirViv1973 on October 22, 2012, 22:10 GMT

    Although dividing the formats in to seasons would seem a good idea in principle, its just not feasible. Here in Eng we can only play the game for around 4/5 months a year which would mean that we could only ever play one or two formats at home, there is a similar climate in NZL so the same would apply to them. It would make sense to play CLT20 bi annually in the years when there is no WT20 and expand it to 16 teams. The next WT20 is due in Mar 2014 so it would make sense to scrap the CLT20 that year and play the IPL during Sep/Oct.

  • muski on October 22, 2012, 17:24 GMT

    Hey Ian- get real man.Dont blame BCCI for all the follies of the game. As with any field of life, there are changes by the day. I would rate myself as a genuine cricket lover.By that definition, you would expect me to pay for a 5 day test match and watch it- i wont. I still think its a legacy of the POMS. The current day life has no time for guys like me to spend 5 days in a cricket stadium. This is not to say that I dont love test cricket. Atleast the BCCI will not and should not think that lower attendance in stadiums for test cricket means demise of test cricket.ODI cricket according to me looks to be the casualty and we should not worry too much about it. 20-20 is a entertainer more than a sport- atleast in that capacity it will flourish. However such usless tournaments like the current one in SA can be done with- I dont think many guys including the ones in India are following it.

  • Viru219 on October 22, 2012, 17:05 GMT

    @ Des_65, Thanks for your comments! But, The whole point I said to give the remaning overs to the opponent (if the team gets allout prior to theor 110 overs), is to spice-up the bowling efforts. In that way, Bowlers focus more on taking wickets (which resembles the purpose of Tests). Don't think that the opponent would just get benifitted, if the bowlers perform well, who knows the opponent may get all-out even in less overs.

  • on October 22, 2012, 15:13 GMT

    I just dont understand how a cricket season works.. It's the most unorganized sport I have ever seen!!!! Tournaments coming out of the blue while Intl series are around the corner..like WTF? Cricket is a sport with the most ridiculous structure I have ever seen. They need to take a look at what other highly profitable sports are doin and adapt to their formats i.e Soccer(football) or the NBA .. I mean that way the athletes Know year in year out what to expect.

    Cricket should have 1 Major League(2 tops) witch lasts 8 months and have a world cup and other Intl tournaments during off season.

    LOL thats why Cricketers are getting injured, burnt out and Fans are getting pissed off.

    Test Cricket is a JOKE to the rest of the world(besides die hard cricket fans..even than younger fans dont care cuz they wont waste 5days to watch it)

    Cricket needs to change their season Model... in lack of better words the current is AWFUL!! C'mon ICC

  • on October 22, 2012, 14:44 GMT

    The one dayers need to be restructured - 40 over match! with split innings of 20-each! That would take care of the T20 business model incorporated into a one day game thus making the game even more interesting, exciting and attractive. Tests MUST continue along side this model though.

  • Dr.Vindaloo on October 22, 2012, 14:28 GMT

    That limited pool of 'marquee players' will dwindle even further in the coming years because it is prolonged success in test cricket that forges reputations and makes players marketable. Unless you are playing 10 tests a year you are going to struggle to keep your 'brand' alive (this is why Pietersen was so desperate to mend his fences with England). So the more test cricket is undermined, the more long term damage it will do to T20. But everyone's snout is so deep into the T20 trough that they can't look up and see the bigger picture.

  • on October 22, 2012, 13:59 GMT

    It is better to stop/ban T-20 format for the betterment of cricket in the future....even fans r bored of continuously cricket happening everywhere...I used to be a fan of cricket but i started losing interest when IPL happened in 2008..BLACK DAY for cricket fans like me :((

  • on October 22, 2012, 13:43 GMT

    The easiest way to get rid of the 'boring middle overs' of ODIs is to change it to 40 overs per side (cutting lunch to 20 mins) - long enough for batsmen to make hundreds, long enough for collapses and rebuilding, long enough for ebb and flow, carrying your bat or cameos, different enough from T20s and Tests, short enough to play two in a day - second match as a day-nighter - shrinking the length of World Cups in half without sacrificing ad revenue, allowing people in every time zone to watch live cricket. Rid restrictions on the number of overs per bowler - it is senseless. You don't tell batsmen they have to retire after 60 balls.

    Make each series 3 T20s, followed by 3 ODIs, then 2 to 5 Tests. Where atmospheric conditions allow, Tests - or at least part of - have to be played under floodlights.

    ODIs are still a great format - vital for developing the game and entertaining so long as there is something at stake. Seven-match series, followed by nine-match series are meaningless.

  • Nerav on October 22, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    all these calls to end ODIs when ODIs bring in full stadiums. Tests may be the purest form but life and society has changed. We dont have 5 days to watch a match anymore. At least ODIs offer a fair contest between bat and ball. Not the mindless hitting of T20s.

  • stormy16 on October 22, 2012, 12:38 GMT

    Interesting point from Chappel and comments too. The different 'seasons' raised by Chappel may not work as the 'test' season is likley to be used as a recovery and getting ready for the 'limited over' season. Also the money and interest will be poles apart so somehow the answer is to mix everything in one - as is now. Someone said a continuing test championship towards a semi final and final - that could work. This makes every test a meaningful game. Also there could be a points system for tests - first innings wins, bonus points for say getting 20 wickets, all of which adds points to a knock out series to be played at a neutral venue. All test series would also have to be 3 test only and all teams have to play home and away. I think the issue is no wants to tinker with test cricket which I agree but unless something is done it could die a slow death.

  • longfellow on October 22, 2012, 12:24 GMT

    Nicely put VivGilchrist, that's exactly how I like to do it. Test cricket is the best!

  • Captcroc on October 22, 2012, 11:25 GMT

    Girish Nair, I think you should look at the way BCCI sell tickets where you have to buy for the five days of a Test Match and you will find out why not many attend Test Matches in India. The BCCI have to get fair dinkum about the way they sell tickets. Anyway, T20 is absolute rubbish compared to real cricket, Test Cricket. Great crowds in Australia and England for Tests, because it is real cricket.

  • VivGilchrist on October 22, 2012, 10:46 GMT

    Some people keep asking about who's got time to watch a 5 day Test? Thats the thing with Test cricket, you don't need to watch every ball. You check the scores regularly at work, you have it on radio while you wash your car, you come in and watch the last session. You get up the next morning and do it again. On the weekend you watch the first seeion before heading out. Thats the beauty, You get emotionally involved. Watch the players to see what's more satisfying - a Test victory or a T20 win.

  • anton1234 on October 22, 2012, 10:21 GMT

    Whether you like it or not, you have to allow marketing forces to prevail. If people want to watch T20 as opposed to tests, then you have to accept to T20 will take precedence. In some countries test cricket is already loss making and is only propped up thanks to revenue share they get from ICC. Unless test cricket is streamlined with fewer tests (10 at most per country per year), and with a world test championship in place, all that's going to happen is it will just meander along until people in England and Australia also lose interest, at which time test cricket will find it very difficult to keep going as an entity. Sorry, it may sound harsh, but that's the reality. We live in a Playstation generation where kids have extremely short attention span and very few go out to play outdoor sports. Cricket cannot keep tests afloat just for the sake of an older generation. To me cricket is cricket. It does not mind which form, though I do like T20s and quality test cricket.

  • davidlister on October 22, 2012, 8:52 GMT

    In the heyday of cricket, the first half the 20th century, there were very few Test playing countries Those few countries still love Tests- maybe we'll go back to those days...

  • bigdhonifan on October 22, 2012, 8:42 GMT

    Drop all T20 internationals other than T20 world cup and play domestic leagues only.

  • ashankar on October 22, 2012, 8:39 GMT

    @YS_USA I see what you are saying but the problem with Cricket Formats is that, Tests are less paid whereas the Franchise driven T20s are paid like Hell. Your suggestion would make sense if and only if Tests and ODIs pay scale are raised (I wonder how would that be possible as the turn arounds for Tests have reduced greatly of late). Franchises would not be interested in Test format and perhaps ODIs too. Obvoiously players' would choose to play T20s rather than tests. We will be back again to the concern that those 100s of players that we produce will be waiting to be selected by any of the franchisees across the world.

  • mtalhas on October 22, 2012, 8:04 GMT

    put an end to t20.those days were better when we often used to have odi series bw 2 or 3 or more sides.so many t20 wcs,champions league,so many t20 leagues around the world..its all a total mess.cricket is a game which was originally played for 5 days and then for one day later on.from where did this concept came in international matches to play a short version (t20) like what the kids do on streets?it has done no good to the game eather than benefitting the gambling industry and corporations.

  • Ashish_514 on October 22, 2012, 7:52 GMT

    As long as we are giving suggestions, here is mine- 2 year test league with each test nation playing 1 home and 1 away test with each other, 2 semi finals and a final. Drop in 3 T20's for the money and excitement, keep ODIs only for international competitions- champions tropy(each year), World Cup (once in 4 years). No T20 world cup

  • PKNYcricFan on October 22, 2012, 7:32 GMT

    @girish nair lol dude ICC doesn't have what's required to stand up to BCCI. ICC is not in any position to force anything upon Indian team. DRS is still Not mandatory because India alone doesn't support it. Cricket's survival depends on India whether we accept the fact or not. Broadcators only want to invest in events that predict Indian team will not be knocked out. I am very optimistic person but I think that's going to lead to nothing but more problems. We can't let BBCI become a beast or is it too late? I just want to say that I don't mean any offense to Indian fans. I'm a true lover of the game and support all TEAMS.

  • YS_USA on October 22, 2012, 7:12 GMT

    In the USA, there are 4 major franchise-based team sports, baseball, football, basketball and hockey and there are about 100 teams playing matches everyday, giving livelihood to thousands of players and hundreds of peanut vendors. India has the economy that would support at least 50 teams, giving livelihood to hundreds of players and also to peanut vendors, so why not? Let there be test matches during the day and T20s during the nights. If US with 300 million people can produce hundreds of players, India can too.

  • on October 22, 2012, 5:42 GMT

    Look at the otherside, Country like India, which never used to play this many test matches are now playing too many after IPL. Which I think is more forced up on them . In India, I never see many watching Test matches. Mostly its empty stadiums they play for. So one way is reduce TEST matches. That can help too.

  • on October 22, 2012, 5:32 GMT

    no need for test cricket any more.,we are living in 2012 , very few people have time to watch test cricket , others who love cricket just watch highlights of test cricket. i want one day matches of 40 overs. i hate; 1 , one day series of 5 or 7 matches ( it must be 3 one day match in a series) 2 , 5 test match series ( maximun 2 or 3 test matches in a series)

    required in a tour 1 , 3 test(1st inngs 90 over each , pitch will not matter in this case) 2 , 3 one day ( 40 overs) 3 , 1 or 2 20-20

    in one year no team allowed to play more than 1 , 12 tests. 2 , 25 one day 3 , 15 twenty-twenty + world cups

  • S.h.a.d.a.b on October 22, 2012, 4:38 GMT

    It is not easy to forget test or odi or even T20. all of them are the beauty of a flexible sport. I wish cricket govn body to make a proper digestive system of these formats for a fan. i tell u i like to watch ckt as a religios sport since 30 yrs but now after watchin t20 w.cup, i m not able to digest ch.league as too much t20 is being playing in quick time. it had also happned when aus/S.af and ind/eng had back to back test series'. i hope someone wud read n understand feelings of a desperate FAN of the beautiful game.

  • Rupret on October 22, 2012, 4:38 GMT

    How sad that so many comments appear to favour getting rid of test cricket. For me test matches are the only real test of cricket prowess - not just whether someone can hoist the ball over the midwicket boundary, but a test of skill, application, technique and strength of character. Modern society seems enamored with quick results, headlines and superficial cricket. No, I say, retain test cricket and by all means have other formats to fill in the remaining gaps, but please don't mistake these games for real cricket, they're mere facsimiles of the real thing.

  • on October 22, 2012, 3:24 GMT

    For the last 10 years (yes, even before T20 cricket came along), there has been far too many pointless one-day internationals, which had a detrimental effect on player fitness and killed domestic competitions throughout the world, as star players were never available. Now we have T20, and a form of domestic cricket becomes popular again with players and fans. Players will play given the opportunity and they have the right to earn as much as they can while still fit enough. Reduce the number of pointless bilateral one-day series. Reduce the number of pointless bilateral T20's. Make internationals a novelty just like they are in other sports. Take the focus back to the domestic game and test cricket and this will reinvigorate interest in international limited overs cricket and players will be fit and available for test matches and for more forms of domestic cricket.

  • VivGilchrist on October 22, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    What has killed Test cricket in some parts is no result pitches. Test cricket is at it's best when conditions favour bowling. Some of the best games are when the team batting in the 4th innings of the game are chasing under 200 to win on the 3rd or 4th morning on a seaming or spinning deck. Some of the pitches in the subcontinent where teams declare at 4/800 for eg is what kills Test cricket.

  • on October 22, 2012, 2:50 GMT

    Who has time to watch 5 day cricket or let alone a 50 over match? All other major sports are for few hours - soccer/basketball are usually around 2 hours.

    I propose: Drop Tests and ODIs.

    T20s should have some new rules:

    11 players - 1 specialist keeper (who doesn't bat), 5 bowlers and 5 batsmen (bowlers can't bat and batsmen can't bowl). Allow teams to use either 4 or 5 bowlers depending on pitch condition.

  • on October 22, 2012, 2:08 GMT

    Well test cricket needs to change. For me, the first decision that needs to be made is that no more draws. I need a result, we need a result. only 4 days - no team can get more than 2 days for 2 innings. Toss winning team gets to decide if they gonna play their two innings in a row for next two days or they want to use their first day for first innings and let the other team bat their first inning next day and then come in to use their second day of batting and second innings.

    This brings somewhat ODI taste to test and still keeping some of the test spirit there....................... OR

    No more dead pitches where neither spinner nor fast bowlers get to show their metal. I need bouncers back............... i need fast pitches where batsmen only can dream of batting for over 50 overs.

  • Cricket_theBestGame on October 22, 2012, 2:02 GMT

    i agree..there is too much unnecassary cricket being played and the quality of cricket it self is degrading. interesting idea 30 overs ODI matches..in my view the best format instead of 50overs would be 36ers ! play 36 overs a side...it will be good short but enough to play decent cricket...the charm of odi will come back. plus the name will sell it self!!! T20 should be kept to a minimum and with time should be put to rest. i hope the ICC is reading this !!! or Mr chapel will pass on the idea ;)

  • cricketcarl on October 22, 2012, 2:00 GMT

    how about a restriction to test cricket, a team can bat no longer than a day (90 overs) for 1 innings. just adds a new dimension and would have viewers just a bit more on the edge of their seats, nothing like a touch of urgency once in a while to get the heart racing with a nervous smile.this would add new tactics and the match would last no longer than four days, anyone agree? i think bigger crowds each day would attend and financially, may be more beneficial with the compressed format. after all, we send email these days not letters in the post, as bob dylan said, the times, they are a changin!! what a beautiful game it is!

  • VivGilchrist on October 22, 2012, 1:15 GMT

    It's all about context. There is HUGE interest in the Aus/SAf Test series because they are fighting it out for the No1 spot. People condemn 50 over game but when played in World Cup form it generates massive, almost unparalleled interest. T20 caters for those that crave destination over journey. T20 at Domestic level with a T20 World Cup every 4 years (spaced 2 yrs from 50 over WC). In general, a tour should be 3 tests, 3 ODI, 1 T20, unless interest demands more Tests, or a Tri or Quad ODI/T20 series takes place. There is room for all 3 formats, just as long as it's not just a glut, and games must have relevance.

  • cheesemethod on October 22, 2012, 0:54 GMT

    Come and watch a high profile test match in Australia and then tell me its not practical. For the countries where test match cricket has had a below par crowd turnout, follow New Zealands lead and play on smaller (and more scenic grounds). I love 5 day tests, sure ball to ball isn't the most thrilling thing to watch but the battles within the game are great viewing. This is the format that shows the true skill of a cricketing nation and will live on forever. I do really enjoy 50 over cricket but its obvious that this will be the victim if one format is to go. I just like the idea that everything domestic goes to t20 and limited overs format for international cricket is 50. The obvious problem then is how to create 50over players in the domestic scene - no one goes to the games and I would guess that the ratings would have also dropped eg. Who cares about the Ryobi Cup when the BBL is coming.. I hate to say it but ODIs will be wiped out.

  • sudhir98 on October 21, 2012, 23:50 GMT

    Nobody likes to admit, but test cricket is not practical in the modern age. Nobody has 5 days to watch a test when you have maybe 3-4 weeks vacation per year as most of us do. Most tests are played in front of empty stadiums. Just admit what the reality is and stick to 20/20 and ODI formats.

  • JavagalSrinath on October 21, 2012, 23:36 GMT

    If you are considering dropping a format. It should be test. Its tedious on players as well as fans. Atleast test matches should be reduced to 2 days with only single innings and still we can have all 3 results (draw, win/loss, tie). I have seen many boring matches where teams win with innings to spare. It's almost certain that team with a big lead is going to win the test match, so why have another innings. This format was ok during 1900 but no longer suitable in 2012. In case of considering dropping one more format, then it should be ODI

  • MinusZero on October 21, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    If you read between the lines, recalling Watson tells us that T20 is not as important as tests...the way it should be. Although, Watson is not a great test player. Stats dont lie

  • Des_65 on October 21, 2012, 22:47 GMT

    Viru219, OK. But, don't add remaining overs to other teams batting but to the same teams batting in the 2nd innings. This will be fair so the team can come back after one inning failure. Without it, the second team will have more overs and will surely win the match unless the pitch is bowler-friendly. This is required to have matches like Calcutta between Australia & India where India won because of Laxman's & Dravid's batting in the second innings. Also, instead of 110 overs (4 * 110 = 440) an innings you estimated (for the current 5 * 90 overs a day = 450), better to have 100 overs per innings with new ball due after 60 or 70 overs instead of 80 overs. Having only 400 overs (80 per day) will reduce fatigue on the players, especially fast bowlers. Also, Captains will have more time to think (strategy) and not get penalized on low bowling rates. Overall better quality than quantity.

  • on October 21, 2012, 22:44 GMT

    this would help solve the annual problem of IPl & Champions league reducing the quality of the fist bi lateral test series held in England, West Indies, South Africa & Australia. Also instead of having just 2 high standard domestic twenty20 leagues & a host of substandard leagues trying & failing to copy them we would have 1 grand world class event & the other domestic leagues could be economically viable & successful enough in their own niche with proper management

  • cheesemethod on October 21, 2012, 22:25 GMT

    cricket lover of all formats like many others. Domestic t20 comps are the most important to give the unknown players a place to shine and to create a good franchise comp. The Aus comp has done wonders for the crowds with in many cases domestic t20 crowds outweigh ODI crowds. t20i on the otherhand as much as I like to watch it. Its just a showpiece, however it creates amaZing atmosphere and obviously works. I'm not sure we need a t20i world cup though, afterall it was a format designed to bring the interest back to domestic cricket. The champions league needs the most change. Make it fair with 2 teams from every country with a t20 domestic comp and make it a knockout from the very first game and possibly a world series style best of 3 games for the 2 finalists.

  • on October 21, 2012, 22:21 GMT

    The Champions league as it is @ the moment is a farce & totally irrelevant. What is needed is a for ICC to create a 2 month window for a world domestic t20 cup similar to the football world cup with 32 available spots. 2 each for the weaker competitions in NZ, WI, Zim, Pak, SL, Bang, 3 for Eng & SA & 4 each for BBL & IPl, the other 6 teams can come from associate members like Kenya, Afghanistan, Ireland Netherland, Canada, Bermuda etc, All the teams like perth scorchers , Mumbai Indians etc would aim to qualify for this world cup by playing local players or foreign based players not required by their cricket boards for bi-lateral international series. On qualifying for the world cup these teams could then bid for all international players on auction as their will not be any international cricket taking place. The world domestic cup could be hosted by a different full member of the ICC every year

  • mark2011 on October 21, 2012, 21:11 GMT

    @Capt_Meanster; dont think that without India criket wil die.game survived well over the yrs even befoer india started playing criket,BCCI became financialy prosper very recently.. diferent eras wil come and go... so india will have short period thats it. T20 is not the real criket.. it is good for low level club matches...the real skills and temparament of playing criket can not be measured by playing T20s...T20 can be played in new countries where criket need to be introduced & promoted.. but not in existing test playing nations.. bcos there nothing much new promotion is required in those countries.. insted make more competitive games and better scheduling is needed. those who sugget to drop ODI, wil one day suggest to drop test also..bcos the wrong impresion & perception of criket as T20 wil lead to that point in future. ITS A MATTER OF DECIDING THIS IS A SPORT OR BUSINESS.unless that is clear and taken the correct vision of the game..criket will soon sadly be RIP...

  • PKNYcricFan on October 21, 2012, 20:36 GMT

    I believe if a test player is making less money than T20 player, there is something seriously wrong with the game. ICC must insure that test players make more more money than T20 players. THEN you should let players decide which tournaments to play. After all, this game is not just abt talent but strategy. Let these players sit down and think about their injury problems. What makes tendulkar great is not just talet but his ability to stay fit or play through pain whenever required( at least in his early days). Shoib akhter never made it to GREAT GREAT bowlers because he didn't know how to manage his fitness. Some might argue about his long run up but it was his own decision to run a mile before bowling and he totally responsible for it.

  • Vedahametham on October 21, 2012, 20:13 GMT

    I have read all the comments. Interesting. But I am a die hard fan of cricket as a sport. I see and love both T20, T50 an Test matches. Apart from supporting Indian team when they play I enjoy games between other countries too. I enjoy cricket. a good shot, a fast ball carting the stumps, a googly ball, a fabulous catch and the whole atmosphere in the stadium. thoroughly enjoy it when I am at the stadium and equally enjoy when I sit in-front of the TV. Apart from other sports, now a days American foot ball I really love cricket. It my major recreation.

  • on October 21, 2012, 19:32 GMT

    Yes, I must agree that T20 might be good for a franchise-model type of format. The next thing to do, maybe, would be to implement a three-game series for each match-up. (Call me a baseball fan [which I'm not], but that might seem feasible, especially if ICC might think of T20 as such...) That might prolong the T20 season, though, but, if I might reference the point that ODIs might become, as anton1234 said, " one-sided bore fests," it might eventually overshadow one of the other 2 formats. Besides, it appears T20 is becoming the popular format among today's youth around the world, including here in America.

  • on October 21, 2012, 19:25 GMT

    Test Cricket is beauty of cricket, people doesn't feel it can't understand what it is. T20 is not spoiling Test Cricket rather it's spoiling test players!!!! It's right time to think about the future of beauty.

  • on October 21, 2012, 18:36 GMT

    It seems that ICC is confusing at times. In the recent past they hav tampered with the game a lot bringing in a lot of flair, found a solution, then again deciding against it thus leaving the game in the same sorry state like before.To all the respected purists and fans of Test cricket ask yourself honestly where does Test cricket bring in the attention cricket deserves in recent times? In my view T20 is a BIG blessing to happen to cricket. Look at the popularity and attraction its has brought to the game therefore making it competitive enough with other shortened sports like football. Not to offend anyone but the truth is we are living in a world where time holds value and no has the time to watch a game for 5 days. Its Test cricket and ODIs that should stop. Promote T20 as the form of cricket if u want cricket to be alive and want more competition in the games by allowing low ranked countries to compete.ODIs are are more of 1 sided affair.results get predicted in the halfway.

  • on October 21, 2012, 16:27 GMT

    Though test match cricket is the true form of cricket which give batsman and bowler equal chances, I don't think that it can survive for another 10 years. Eventually, only Australia and England would be playing test match cricket once in every two years while 20-20 or 30-30 would be played between clubs of various nations. I used to watch and enjoy test cricket, now we are living in a fast age, who will follow 5 days match that does not produce result? who will watch test cricket when team's refuses to chase a total of 180 runs in 60 overs?

  • Viru219 on October 21, 2012, 16:16 GMT

    I have an interesting idea - How about cloning Tests with ODIs, and make one format in place of those two. There will be 4 innings, each innings is limited to 110 overs (2 per each team, same as test match). But if a team gets out before their 110 overs, all those remaining overs will get added to opponent team's batting. At the end, which ever team has more runs would win the game. Bottom line: A team has to remain not out in their 110 (which serves Tests purpose, at the same time they have to score runs which serves ODI).

    Let T20 be there to Manufacture Hard hitters and competent fighting cricketers. And let the above cloned format be the real Treat to watch.

  • Riz81 on October 21, 2012, 16:12 GMT

    Purists would have you believe that cricket is an abstract art that only a few can appreciate but really, cricket is just a form of entertainment and as such, it competes with numerous other options that people have to entertain themselves with today. But none of those other options require you to sit tight for 5 days hoping for a result! So even if we limit the number of T20's being played or kill ODI's altogether, Test cricket will still die its natural death unless this 150 year old format evolves into something that the youth of today can get excited about!

  • aby_prasad on October 21, 2012, 16:11 GMT

    oh my , how the world has changed! My grandfather and his era Indians would rub their eyes in dismay if they were to see this current scenario. Aus , brit and other cricket boards respecting and admitting indian cricket board as mighty rich,influential and shaping things,and lucrative for international players too! Wish this scenario would happen in other fields in india too! and to all my non indian friends, i repeat, india is huge, we hav aus type of fans, brit types, pak types, pro ind types and what not! So please dont judge as you would judge a small country or a big country with small population or range! Its just not possible to judge the world with a few, and india is a capsule of the world in one country. Apologies for the fanatic fans to all of u., and salutes to gandhiji, the only man who cud unite this unbelievably diverse country that is just soooo different on many levels!,tooo different i must say! Jai hind

  • kunderanengineer on October 21, 2012, 15:12 GMT

    If tournaments such as the CLT20 and the IPL are to have any legitimacy or meaning, something must be done about scheduling. This is the only sport I can think of where arguably the best player in the tournament (Shane Watson) cannot finish it because he has to respect another contract. Can you imagine Lionel Messi leaving Barcelona during the Champions League tournament because he has obligations to the national team. Being a Watson fan and a cricket fan this is akin to watching one half of a thrilling movie before the plug is pulled. As Ian says, either let him play the whole tournament or not at all. This happened in the IPL last season as well when Kevin Pietersen had to leave the Delhi team due to obligations with England. Ian is absolutely right; this is not in the best interests of a fierce competitor like Watto nor the fans. Totally ludicrous!

  • on October 21, 2012, 15:08 GMT

    drop t20. its useless and boring as baseball. as a cricket fan i don't like t20 at all. i don't understand why icc thinks we want t20? i wish there was a test match going on everyday. only thing icc wants is more money, just like greedy dogs from bcci. btw its MCC who is responsible for destroying the game.

  • sandyusa on October 21, 2012, 15:00 GMT

    It is no body's fault that T20 is popular, rather a good thing to happen for the game of cricket. Now the cricketers or cricket administrators or so called experts of cricket is at fault by trying to elevate test cricket from T20 without offering the same level of attraction to the fans or prospective fans like T 20 offers. How about a 5 days test cricket played by more than 3 teams with 5 innings in the same 5 days to spice up the things? Get the point?

  • CaptainKool on October 21, 2012, 14:54 GMT

    Yes exactly stop blaming India for everything.

  • OttawaRocks on October 21, 2012, 14:36 GMT

    Well written article by Ian Chappell. I have nothing to add.

  • anton1234 on October 21, 2012, 14:25 GMT

    Iftekharul Hasan Siam ,

    Why drop international T20 when each of the T20 world cup has been an excellent spectacle. In contrast, other than the 2011 world cup which was pretty good thanks to some close matches, the 2007 and 2003 versions were dire. The problem with ODIs is that if one tam gets off to a bad start, the matches more often than not end being one sided bore fests.

  • ultimatewarrior on October 21, 2012, 14:20 GMT

    People's who are talking about viewers' fatigue please check their stat's correctly and see the attendance & viewership of Various Football/Basketball/Baseball/Ice Hockey etc Leagues...They are not only many times more matches but also more attendances per match.......

  • anton1234 on October 21, 2012, 14:20 GMT

    As soon as we start seeing a big drop in test crowds in England and Australia, two countries where the test game still attracts crowds, I think its goodbye to test cricket. I don't think they could artificially keep the game alive for too long.

    As for 50 over game, the 2015 world cup in Australia could well mark the end of the 50 over game. We will be left with T20s played in franchise form around the world. And if we want international cricket, we are going to have a T20 world cup every year and maybe bi series, triangular or quadrangular international tournaments in between the world cups.

    As unfortunate as it is, people in the modern world just do not have time for 7 hour test days and 8 hour ODI games.

  • Natx on October 21, 2012, 14:16 GMT

    @Robster1 - This is the best advice and I couldn't agree more. Get rid of 50 over cricket, it basically gets dull between overs 15-40; upgrade twenty20 to thirty30, as 20 over matches are pure slam bang stuff and nothing more, extra 10 overs will provide a nice balance for this format and also an excellent justification to get rid of 50 over dull stuff and time waster; 3 test series to keep the pinnacle format alive, keep the players fit, and to draw more people to the grounds (days 3 and 4 should be on weekends). Even better, one of these three tests could be played out as a day-night match so more people can attend and test cricket will always remain popular.

  • venkatesh018 on October 21, 2012, 14:15 GMT

    Well said Ian. The ODIs should be dropped from the schedule ASAP.

  • on October 21, 2012, 13:52 GMT

    Cricket can survive without India. but if India pulled out of cricket...India will take a huge hit on jobs generated due to cricket and the marketing world.

  • sweetspot on October 21, 2012, 13:46 GMT

    Apart from the World T20, which can also be a once in four years affair, there need not be any international T20s. There is enough franchise cricket to fuel that audience's fire. I'd say Test cricket can be dropped and allowed to die a natural death. It may be the "ultimate" and everything, but it really is irrelevant as far as growing the game is concerned.

  • mark2011 on October 21, 2012, 13:37 GMT

    Cricket survived over 100 yrs even it's been played by less than handful of coutries, bcos the quality of the game and it was played on the same quality irrespective of time it takes either 5 days test or ODI.. so that speak something special about the this game..had it been differnt sport played like that in intl level it would hav been already extinct by now..so as a game criket stands strong.i think all thes problms now due to money coming ahead of the game & criket became business than a sport. T20 introduced to promote criket but ironically now its become threat to criket itself.I think T20 is 'promotinal material' of the 'criket product'.T20 shud encourage othr coutries to play criket (test/ODI) not to think T20 is the criket. this is like ppl demanding 'promotional stuff' instead of 'product' and ultimately u a face a situation to scrap the real product (criket-test/ODI) insted of promotinal material..I THINK ICC GOT ITS MARKETING STRATEGY TERRIBLY WRONG..MAY GOD BLESS CRIKCKET

  • on October 21, 2012, 13:30 GMT

    Actually ,yes ,its in the best interest of Shane Watson. That's because as a player you want to play more and more, not concerned about fitness. And seeing to Australian schedule , CA's decision is justified .

  • electric_loco_WAP4 on October 21, 2012, 13:23 GMT

    Test cricket has become the big liability for cricket boards and there are no signs of it getting better. Already save for the Ashes and tests in the UK tests have hardly any followers left in all other places- at least in terms of the near empty stands seen at test venues form the Windies to India. It has already become a huge financial burden with even the richest board BCCI taking an aversion to the test game . One can't imagine the plight of cash strapped boards (which are about 70% of the world game) having to take on the burden of hosting tests which only worsens the scenario for them.As a result they are being held to ransom by their globe trotting stars playing lucrative franchise t20 at the expense of their national teams. Sad state for test cricket and save for Ashes (incidentally the oldest test rivalry),test cricket is on its last legs....unfortunately.

  • anton1234 on October 21, 2012, 13:16 GMT

    Here is how I see it. The 50 over game must be dropped. Have only test and T20s.

    A world test championship running in a cycle of 2 years has to be introduced. Each test series will be either a 3 or a 2 match series depending on the opposition with big difference in prize money accorded to table placings at the end of the two-year world championship. The top will play in final with home advantage going to team finishing top in the league.

    Play T20 world cup every year with 16 countries.

    Each country can stage 2 or 3 T20s before or after a test series against the same opposition.

    That's the international schedule.Its lean and with focus on quality rather than quantity.

    Let each country have their own T20 tournament as they see fit. Get rid of the champions league. In cricket there is already a lot of international cricket where players form different countries play against each other so the champions league isn't needed.

  • Robster1 on October 21, 2012, 13:01 GMT

    Very good article - 30 over cricket would be an excellent way ahead. 20/20 is just too brief and gives little opportunity for a side to recover and 50 over cricket is far too long. And all test series should be a minimum of three matches.

  • on October 21, 2012, 12:57 GMT

    Drop International T20 cricket. After lots of franchise T20 like IPL, BPL, Champions League there is really no need of International T20.

  • sparth on October 21, 2012, 12:49 GMT

    Cricket isnt just about money. Test's have to stay otherwise there is no ground where the truely talented and skillful players can suceed. Test's make legends - we must remember that. T20's need to be reduced in number, there are far too many t20 scheduled together. Think about it, this article wouldnt have appeared if the T20 world cup was not the week before the champions league started

  • on October 21, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    Done. Test match cricket is over. Australia and England will hang on to this format but events (and money) will finish this soon. RIP test match cricket

  • TheBengalTiger on October 21, 2012, 12:24 GMT

    Australian cricket needs Indian money to survive. Its why Giullard has to give that award to Tendulkar.

  • Cpt.Meanster on October 21, 2012, 12:22 GMT

    I say get RID of meaningless BILATERAL series along with ODIs; problem solved. Also, the ICC needs to bring in the test championship model to do away with USELESS series. Who wants to see a WI v BAN series out of no where ? NOT me. I am sure many others don't care who those two teams play. There should be 2 divisions of teams: The top 5 in division 1, the last 5 in division 2 along with relegation and promotion on the basis of performances. No more international ODIs please. Also, restrict T20s to ONLY club level competitions like the IPL, BBL etc. International T20s should be BANNED. For those of you who say India should be pushed out of the ICC, without India, cricket WILL die. India IS the engine of world cricket.

  • daddymac on October 21, 2012, 12:22 GMT

    I don't understand why the ICC are complicating World Cricket.

    Easy Solution.

    Each Test Playing nation plays each other in best of 3 tests, alternating home and away and have double points for winning series away.

    Each ODI Playing nation plays each other in best of 5 ODIs, alternating home and away and have double points for winning series away

    Each T20 Playing nation plays each other in best of 3 T20s, alternating home and away and have double points for winning series away

    Window for IPL, and other T20 tornaments, and Champions League of teams of winners of each domestic T20 league.

    T20 World Cup every 2 years, ODI World Cup every 4 years.

    Example

    Australia vs India played in Australia (3 Tests, 5 ODIs, 3 T20s)

    Then after the cycle finishes

    India vs Australia played in India (3 Tests, 5 ODIs, 3 T20s)

    I really dont understand why the ICC makes the whole fixture so complicated

    Each team plays each other 3Tests, 5ODIs, 3T20s Home & Away with double points for each away win

  • Adeel9 on October 21, 2012, 12:12 GMT

    Oh, I like the idea of giving every format a season of it's own. Sure there'll be problems in actual implementation but nothing's problem free.

  • IKISM on October 21, 2012, 12:11 GMT

    Well Mr Chappel I believe some cricket boards just want to look after their players in a more responsible manner because Watson is an Australian contracted player and Cricket Australia can call Watson out anytime they want to. What must stop is this mindless T20 because Watson just got out of World T20 and now into this pro INDIAN CLT20 where 4 Indian teams are allowed direct entry while rest of the world must play qualifiers to get through the main rounds.

  • KingOwl on October 21, 2012, 12:09 GMT

    People keep saying drop this that and the other forms of cricket, based on their own preferences. But the reality is that people can't agree on what to drop. They all have to be played at the international level because there is a demand for them. The best we can hope for is 3-3-1 (test-ODI-T20) matches per series. Some may opt to play less or more (like the Ashes - but the Ashes don't really appeal to a vast majority of cricket fans - what matters most is test competition between the two best sides. So, my suggestion is to treat the Ashes just like any other series). Agree on this schedule and the rest will take care of themselves. If there is an agreed schedule for international matches, then the professional leagues have to give way (except for the IPL, unfortunately - but that is the reality!)

  • David_Boon on October 21, 2012, 11:53 GMT

    Ditch T20. The media and marketers love it, but I've never actually met a cricket fan who does. All 50+ members of my local club are also unanimously against it. Hopefully, it dies a quick death and we can go back to having 5 Test series again.

  • warneneverchuck on October 21, 2012, 11:41 GMT

    I don't know y evry county wants to have their own league. They can't copy what India has with IPL. I heard Pak is also planning to have own league but with all due respect to Pak players that league will die in one season like BPL or SLPL

  • EngineerKhan on October 21, 2012, 11:06 GMT

    Why does always Ian Chappell think he is the wisest Cricket Analyst? Totally rubbish idea. All the 3 formats are good. It's the beauty of Cricket to have 3 different formats and all are equally exciting. I am Test lover, but do I hate 50-over or T20?? No way!! They are more exciting in their own right. Tests show the extreme of patience and skills

  • Stark62 on October 21, 2012, 10:38 GMT

    Put a restriction on ODI's, not T20's!!

    Also, Test isn't as popular in Asia as it is in Eng, Aus and maybe SA, meaning the Test format should be dropped because Asia is the biggest revenue for cricket and icc.

  • on October 21, 2012, 10:01 GMT

    India reluctantly accepted the shorter formats of the game- both ODIs & T20. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/587360.html - describes how India had reluctantly opened up to ODIs. Even in case of T20 England, NZ, and several other countries where already riding the T20 bandwagon while India was a mere onlooker. The emergence of ICL made it imperative for the Indian Board to accept and even encourage T20 to avoid another World Series episode in cricket. May be IPL has actually saved international cricket! The truth is countries like England, New Zealand (some others too) needed these shorter formats- first ODIs and now T20. When ODI came India had overflowing Test crowds, when T20 came India had overflowing ODI crowds. So if T20 is a circus, & if that's not 'right', let's blame England first. The problem is not T20, not even IPL, the problem is inability of some cricket boards to sustain interest of cricket. The creator of Frankenstein is a bigger problem than It is.

  • baskar_guha on October 21, 2012, 9:47 GMT

    1) Make T20 format only for professional leagues like IPL, BBL, etc. There is no need for countries to play this format against each other. This way we wont see random T20 series between countries where the T20 teams are cobbled together at the last minute.

    2) Change ODI to have two innings -- 30 overs and 20 overs. This will introduce life into the game and avoid win the toss, win the match problems. You could even have the notion of follow-on to add some more strategy.

    3) Maintain a 2:1 ratio between ODIs and tests. This will take care of the silly 7 ODI tours of country X to India. This will encourage more tests which ultimately should be played day-night.

    Only thing stopping something sensible like this is short-term greed at the expense of long-term 'good of the game.'

  • crindo77 on October 21, 2012, 9:31 GMT

    yorkshire86 is back ! after hiding in the burrows post Englands despicable defence of their t20 title which included a how not-to play spin bowling masterclass, the poster champions are back, buoyed by the return of their favourite "we hate you but please save us" son, KP. Son, your understanding of world cricket and finance is rubbish !! So save your comments for the next ECB meeting or send them to Allen Stanford.

  • warneneverchuck on October 21, 2012, 9:23 GMT

    To those saying to isolate India. cricket is dependent on India and the day India stop playing cricket will die. Even though ENG invented it India is the one who is the powerhouse and it's the only countey Wher cricket is religion

  • stalefresh on October 21, 2012, 9:21 GMT

    Spectator fatigue is equally dangerous as player fatigue. The spectator craves for context and quality. Players fitness impacts quality and too much cricket impacts context. Why is world T20 every other year? Why does champions league have 4 ipl teams? What is champions trophy? Why are some players part of 6 clubs? It is all like a bad circus. I love all 3 forms of the game but the context is only left test cricket. The quality of test cricket is impacted by fatigue. I can't believe someone like dhoni still enjoys playing the game, in the way it is supposed to be.

  • urprashant on October 21, 2012, 9:10 GMT

    Reduce the unnecessary one day matches. The bilateral one day series should not have more than 3 matches. The unnecessary one day tours like Australia had this year of England should never happen. Any cricketing tour should ideally contain 3 Tests, 3 One dayers and 2 T20s. I think this way neither players nor spectators will get tired and all 3 formats will survive.

  • Gizza on October 21, 2012, 8:38 GMT

    @ yorkshire-86, I think you're confusing India with the IPL. Yes if the IPL died tomorrow the world of cricket will live on but if say India was kicked out of the ICC Test member group hypothetically, there will be a huge financial problem for the other 9 countries. Many tours are from a business point of view not ecnomically viable. It seems in Australia's case, in recent times the Ashes, South Africa and India coming make the bread and butter while Cricket Australia always makes a loss when the Windies/Pakistan tour (in last 10-15 years). There are many international tours around the world which don't make enough money to cover the expenses but an Indian tour fixes all financial woes. The England Test squad and even the County players are indirectly being partially paid by the Indian cricket fan since 70% of all cricket revenues come from that one country.

  • mensan on October 21, 2012, 8:37 GMT

    I feel IPL and other leagues will die sooner or later. They are not financially viable. BPL and SLPL have already failed financially. IPL and BBL will follow suit. Country vs country is the real cricket.

  • AK_25 on October 21, 2012, 8:21 GMT

    icc should restirct t20....cz of it the quality of cricketer is degrading in terms of their skill n otherareas.....i m sure in near future the quality of test ll be go down.....n cricket ll loose its charm....n 50 over game doesnt harm dat much what T20 does to cricket..yes t20 is good for entertainment n get sponsors n revenue ....bt it kills quality cricket....n those who blame bcci for it shld know its bcci who were against t20.....

  • yorkshire-86 on October 21, 2012, 7:57 GMT

    Cricket is not 'dependant' on India. India's board is dependant on cricket. If the IPL vanished tomorrow only one person in the entire of England (KP) would suffer, and even for him it wouldn't be a big blow. The Ashes would go on. Tours to SA would go on.

  • wnwn on October 21, 2012, 7:52 GMT

    I don't think 4 overs here and there is going to do much damage to bowlers as long as they have warm up matches before test cricket and gradually build up to bowling 15 overs per day.

  • Meety on October 21, 2012, 7:38 GMT

    @David Brumby agree with your last sentence, totally disagree with your first. Balls per year are lower now, than in the past, however, bowlers are playing more matches & short form cricket can demand high intensity cricket that is not replicated in FC & Tests. Yes bowl & bat less - but are under more physical stress. @AussieKev on (October 21 2012, 06:16 AM GMT) - yes I think we can learn a bit from Rugby in the way they seperate the 2 squads. I don't want Cummins playing T20s anymore. == == == I will buck the trend on this article & say that there is room for 3 formats, just not all at International level. ODIs are a much better format of cricket than T20s. I think T20s should be strictly a Provincial format. It is a great format for the Olympics & really International scheduling should revolve around that. Peel back meaningless ODIs & the FTP is workable. The only worthy format to crown a World Champion is ODIs.

  • warneneverchuck on October 21, 2012, 7:24 GMT

    @ Sayed atif. BCCi never force any foreign player to play in IPL. It's each and evry individual' own wish. Who doesn't want to earn money. If BCCi I culprit then all players r equally responsible. Pak players r not part of IPL but still they'll want to play it.

  • real26_03 on October 21, 2012, 7:18 GMT

    ALL t20 Leagues(IPL,BPL,BBL,SPL) must be stopped... But yes,, only International T20 should be there... Just answer this: Which tournament did u like most - 1)ICC t20 world Cup 2)Individual Domestic T20 Leagues (IPL,BPL,BBL,SPL) ???

  • on October 21, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    ICC has three products to sell in the market. As of now their product sells mostly in among nine countries which were formally administered by one empire. Now the business decision ICC has to take is whether stick to these nine countries and be a commonwealth sport or expand its market by giving game more value than some individuals associated with some records to make cricket a global sport. If ICC continues the prevailing way, the game will loose its charm. At present its money that's above cricket and what worst example can we have than the likes of Sachin Tendulkar, who has got everything he has from the game, but cant play T20 for his country but can play for his franchise simply because they pay a lot more...Cricket needs individuals who opt the game before money...else down-road is destined...

  • on October 21, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    More t20 is harm of the existence of cricket, schedulling T20 is important. T20 has made many class player go out of form, likes of Viru, Guttam,.. Even players have to make choices for playing right format.. T20 is hack in hast, only money can be invested and returned ..

  • remnant on October 21, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    I would suggest that before condemning ODIs, it would be better to atleast let the public view 25x2 over innings per team, for international teams.I mean that it should start with opening batsman, with only 6 overs powerplay. Atleast this could be a Test match in microcosm. This might see renewed vigor in the later half of the 1st innings and the inital half of the 2nd innings!

  • SASANK360 on October 21, 2012, 6:31 GMT

    Superb article by Mr.Chappell. Presented his ideas very well. I agree with what he suggests. T20 should be dropped. Also ICC must realise the negatives of T20 cricket and should close the official windows for IPL,BBL,SLPL and other domestic T20 leagues. If above is not possible atleast conduct them once in two years.Shame that our Indian cricket board is contributing to IPL and CLT20 which along with other tournaments eat up more than half of the calendar year.ICC should ban all these leagues or atleast make sure they are held once in a couple of years to mitigate the danger.Otherwise players end up with fatigue and tiredness.They play non-stop cricket for money and eventually don't turn up to cater their country's needs.Sachin Tendulkar is the best example.He played for Mumbai Indians in 2011(after WorldCup) and ended up skipping WestIndies tour.So he didn't get enough test match practice and failed miserably in Eng tour.He didn't realise this and played CLT20 and again AUS debacle.

  • on October 21, 2012, 6:28 GMT

    True T20 is ruining the essence of cricket ... but why to stop blaming INDIA.... It is India who is exploiting T20 that much .... because they got good source of doing business and earn some good quick money ... India is always a culprit.

  • AussieKev on October 21, 2012, 6:16 GMT

    Quite right. Rugby officials quickly learnt the lesson when 7s rugby became increasingly popular. They went from picking current international players, in their normal positions, to virtual unknowns, who were good at 7s rugby.

    Cricket officials, regardless of country, tend to be hungry for money (not necessarily personally, but certainly to fill the coffers of their nation's cricket association). They've seen that going the rugby way doesn't earn as much money and will continue on their merry way, until people at all levels pressure them.

    Let's face it, if you had 1000 workers and your workload doubled and then tripled, you would hire some more workers, wouldn't you?

  • ultimatewarrior on October 21, 2012, 6:09 GMT

    Now it is a well known fact that T20 is the most easy to accept cricket format for cricket alienated world......it has taken more than century to have 9 test playing nations starting from 2......then it has taken around 30 years to have 20+ nations playing odi......but in the latest scenario t20 should be independent of test and odi and this fact should be accepted by ICC otherwise ICC should be prepared for having a non-ICC body regulating T20 cricket worldwide whether for nationwise or clubwise. As this "pocket size 3hr entertainment powerhouse" has 100% chances to become world's leading game instead of most popular game in South Asian subcontinent and 2nd category game in Eng-Aus-SA

  • nymphsatyr on October 21, 2012, 6:02 GMT

    who wants to work hard, when they know -bring in some indian player and your pocket will be a fluffy bread! All other cricketing board are all shameless loosers

  • on October 21, 2012, 5:57 GMT

    finally an article which puts other cricket boards including CA and CSA in the right perspective.i am no fan of BCCI and IPL/CL etc BUT i have always maintained that other boards are equally guilty of sacrificing test matches for the sake of cash rich T20.(remember the 2 match series between SA and AUS last year..has it ever happened before..hopefully it doesnt ever again)also majority of other cricketing nationals/writers should come out of this notion that all Indians are pro IPL/T20..nothing like that. the fact is because there a large number of people in India the number of test lovers here would almost certainly equal any other test match favored nation..dont deny poor attendance for test matches here....because of BCCI it has also become a fashion now a days to blame India for all cricket ills.BCCI is guilty of ignoring test matches but the same dos not apply to all Indian cricket fans..hope point gets noted.

  • Nadeem1976 on October 21, 2012, 5:22 GMT

    I am firm believer in two format of cricket. Test cricket and T25. We don't need ODI cricket after 2015 WC. There is nothing wrong in playing too many T2020 matches because they are short and players can manage it. Specialist only play T2020 not all test cricketers.

    I think ODI should be omitted from cricket and T25 or T30 should become the short version and test cricket.

    Don't blame every thing on India. If any other board has problem with BCCI then don't send your players to play IPL.

    Indian fans will be more happy to see their international players playing with local players in IPL. It's always the loss of international players for not playing IPL.

    Stop blaming India and make two formats in cricket.

  • on October 21, 2012, 4:59 GMT

    Cool, I'm not the only who thinks 3 formats is crazy.

    There is no need for that much cricket to be played, especially since even here in Australia, average households get to watch it for about 2-3 months of the year, and even then it is taken up by a drawn out ODI tournament with predictable results.

    I alway thought that ODI's in this era are not necessary. Despite legends being born out of this format, I always thought ODI's were more of an attractive package for the everyday viewer. These days, ODI's are so boring to watch due to strange inconsistent rules that are more advantageous for batsmen anyway and usually 20-40overs overall of boring defensive gameplay.

    T20 is what sells and there should only be Test cricket and limited overs cricket (One Day Cricket in 20 overs).

  • on October 21, 2012, 4:42 GMT

    The so called "work load" is far less today then it was 30 years ago. Players had more days on field then they do now. Maybe it's time to look at the poor training techniques. T20 is boring cricket which allows those with average abilities to succeed. There should be far more tests being played.

  • on October 21, 2012, 4:37 GMT

    India's mainline Polity has great say in BCCI. Sharad Pawar was our agriculture minister. More than giving attention to his duties as an Agriculture misnister, he was happy attending BCCI dinners. After the end to rotation policy. Another big wig in Arun Jaitley is going to be next chairman and subsequently ICC chief. When its about Cricket, Eastern region does not garner as much money as its southern and northern counterparts, therefore a next head from North is about to come. The day when cricketers and cricket experts will have a greater say in BCCI. The shape and form of world cricket will also change. Till then hope for the best.

  • ElBeeDubya on October 21, 2012, 4:35 GMT

    Golden Goose hasn't finished laying the eggs so all the columns in the world won't make any difference. The market decides what BCCI would do and other boards, since they are also indirectly depending on the Indian market (due to tour income as well as the financial clout of IPL which will keep top international players leashed to IPL), will have to wait.

  • roversgate on October 21, 2012, 3:51 GMT

    I agree with this article. I strongly think the future would require the IPL and champions league being in alternate years. So: 2013: Champions League, 2014: IPL, 2015: Champions League, 2016: IPL....etc. All the other leagues should do the same, by having only one tournament between champions league tournament. Plus with the above schedule, IPL will never happen immediately after the ODI world cup like last year and Champions League will never happen after the World T20 like this year. Give the time that is opened up for the players to have longer breaks between series.

  • on October 21, 2012, 3:19 GMT

    Don't always agree with Mr. Chappell, but I dare say he is dead right on this one.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on October 21, 2012, 3:19 GMT

    Don't always agree with Mr. Chappell, but I dare say he is dead right on this one.

  • roversgate on October 21, 2012, 3:51 GMT

    I agree with this article. I strongly think the future would require the IPL and champions league being in alternate years. So: 2013: Champions League, 2014: IPL, 2015: Champions League, 2016: IPL....etc. All the other leagues should do the same, by having only one tournament between champions league tournament. Plus with the above schedule, IPL will never happen immediately after the ODI world cup like last year and Champions League will never happen after the World T20 like this year. Give the time that is opened up for the players to have longer breaks between series.

  • ElBeeDubya on October 21, 2012, 4:35 GMT

    Golden Goose hasn't finished laying the eggs so all the columns in the world won't make any difference. The market decides what BCCI would do and other boards, since they are also indirectly depending on the Indian market (due to tour income as well as the financial clout of IPL which will keep top international players leashed to IPL), will have to wait.

  • on October 21, 2012, 4:37 GMT

    India's mainline Polity has great say in BCCI. Sharad Pawar was our agriculture minister. More than giving attention to his duties as an Agriculture misnister, he was happy attending BCCI dinners. After the end to rotation policy. Another big wig in Arun Jaitley is going to be next chairman and subsequently ICC chief. When its about Cricket, Eastern region does not garner as much money as its southern and northern counterparts, therefore a next head from North is about to come. The day when cricketers and cricket experts will have a greater say in BCCI. The shape and form of world cricket will also change. Till then hope for the best.

  • on October 21, 2012, 4:42 GMT

    The so called "work load" is far less today then it was 30 years ago. Players had more days on field then they do now. Maybe it's time to look at the poor training techniques. T20 is boring cricket which allows those with average abilities to succeed. There should be far more tests being played.

  • on October 21, 2012, 4:59 GMT

    Cool, I'm not the only who thinks 3 formats is crazy.

    There is no need for that much cricket to be played, especially since even here in Australia, average households get to watch it for about 2-3 months of the year, and even then it is taken up by a drawn out ODI tournament with predictable results.

    I alway thought that ODI's in this era are not necessary. Despite legends being born out of this format, I always thought ODI's were more of an attractive package for the everyday viewer. These days, ODI's are so boring to watch due to strange inconsistent rules that are more advantageous for batsmen anyway and usually 20-40overs overall of boring defensive gameplay.

    T20 is what sells and there should only be Test cricket and limited overs cricket (One Day Cricket in 20 overs).

  • Nadeem1976 on October 21, 2012, 5:22 GMT

    I am firm believer in two format of cricket. Test cricket and T25. We don't need ODI cricket after 2015 WC. There is nothing wrong in playing too many T2020 matches because they are short and players can manage it. Specialist only play T2020 not all test cricketers.

    I think ODI should be omitted from cricket and T25 or T30 should become the short version and test cricket.

    Don't blame every thing on India. If any other board has problem with BCCI then don't send your players to play IPL.

    Indian fans will be more happy to see their international players playing with local players in IPL. It's always the loss of international players for not playing IPL.

    Stop blaming India and make two formats in cricket.

  • on October 21, 2012, 5:57 GMT

    finally an article which puts other cricket boards including CA and CSA in the right perspective.i am no fan of BCCI and IPL/CL etc BUT i have always maintained that other boards are equally guilty of sacrificing test matches for the sake of cash rich T20.(remember the 2 match series between SA and AUS last year..has it ever happened before..hopefully it doesnt ever again)also majority of other cricketing nationals/writers should come out of this notion that all Indians are pro IPL/T20..nothing like that. the fact is because there a large number of people in India the number of test lovers here would almost certainly equal any other test match favored nation..dont deny poor attendance for test matches here....because of BCCI it has also become a fashion now a days to blame India for all cricket ills.BCCI is guilty of ignoring test matches but the same dos not apply to all Indian cricket fans..hope point gets noted.

  • nymphsatyr on October 21, 2012, 6:02 GMT

    who wants to work hard, when they know -bring in some indian player and your pocket will be a fluffy bread! All other cricketing board are all shameless loosers

  • ultimatewarrior on October 21, 2012, 6:09 GMT

    Now it is a well known fact that T20 is the most easy to accept cricket format for cricket alienated world......it has taken more than century to have 9 test playing nations starting from 2......then it has taken around 30 years to have 20+ nations playing odi......but in the latest scenario t20 should be independent of test and odi and this fact should be accepted by ICC otherwise ICC should be prepared for having a non-ICC body regulating T20 cricket worldwide whether for nationwise or clubwise. As this "pocket size 3hr entertainment powerhouse" has 100% chances to become world's leading game instead of most popular game in South Asian subcontinent and 2nd category game in Eng-Aus-SA