In recent time, Many speculations about the test match's time, I have heard that ICC is going to change the test format which could be four days test match, It is certainly a self-killing issue, first of all, Test cricket is the fundamental of all the cricket format, so it shouldn't be changed anymore, I think five Days is the standard of this format, if it would be changed then definitely it will loss the glamour of test match, If you say about the declining of the TV audience then I want to say that still the Asheses is the most popular series so don't think about the change.
I agree, Ashes is always a really good series and as a fan i do not want to see any changes in that format, it was an suggestion by the ICC i guess to reduce the number of days but if you look at the recent match between South Africa and England and if that was a 4 day Test it would have been a draw, so we do need to see results than seeing drawn matches and hopefully they will not experiment with the days in Test matches. Day night Test matches are interesting and i support those changes but not reducing the days. 
Topic: Test Cricket Prediction and Discussion Thread [self - mod] - page 989. (Read 152390 times)
In recent time, Many speculations about the test match's time, I have heard that ICC is going to change the test format which could be four days test match, It is certainly a self-killing issue, first of all, Test cricket is the fundamental of all the cricket format, so it shouldn't be changed anymore, I think five Days is the standard of this format, if it would be changed then definitely it will loss the glamour of test match, If you say about the declining of the TV audience then I want to say that still the Asheses is the most popular series so don't think about the change.
First of all, the ICC needs to admit that the popularity of test cricket is waning and the TV audience for this format is declining. The solution is not to dilute the format, but to reduce the number of test matches. As of now, a typical international side takes part in 8 to 10 test matches per year. The ICC can reduce it to 3-4 matches per year. If the number of matches are low, then I hope that more fans will turn up for the matches. Majority of the fans want more T20 matches, and I don't think that the ICC can ignore their demands.
@Sithara007 ICC will never admit that because they’ll not risk loosing their current advertisers so now they are trying to come up with radical approach by reducing the format, however this decision of theirs is already facing lots of backlash hence I hope they don’t go ahead with it. Another option I can suggest is that ICC should promote more test matches between top teams like Australia, England, and India or arrange more test matches between India and Pakistan as that shall help them revive this format.
Source:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-7858491/South-Africa-set-oppose-four-day-Test-matches-England-Australia-support-ICC-proposal.html
First of all, the ICC needs to admit that the popularity of test cricket is waning and the TV audience for this format is declining. The solution is not to dilute the format, but to reduce the number of test matches. As of now, a typical international side takes part in 8 to 10 test matches per year. The ICC can reduce it to 3-4 matches per year. If the number of matches are low, then I hope that more fans will turn up for the matches. Majority of the fans want more T20 matches, and I don't think that the ICC can ignore their demands.
4 days or 3 days will make a mess of a test match because if the pitch is good for batting and teams are strong, no teams will be able to complete the two innings and more test matches will end up in a draw. For those who like the short format of the game, should watch T20 or T10 and leave the test matches for those who like the longer version of the game.
I hope ICC will not mess up the format, there is enough experimentation going on and if they want to come up with a different format better they find a new name for that kind of matches rather than changing how Test matches are played. I am not following all of the matches but i will not miss good competitive matches and only in Test matches we are able to witness that now a days because of the liberal rules in limited overs cricket. 
What a bad idea of making a 4 days Test Match
I think the reason few are saying for four day because it is not accommodating, or people are not really interested in watching the test match anymore as now we have T20 where in few hours the results is out. Thus in order to make some changes are also have seen test match is getting over in 3 days as well. Will it be good or bad for circket is not known.
4 days or 3 days will make a mess of a test match because if the pitch is good for batting and teams are strong, no teams will be able to complete the two innings and more test matches will end up in a draw. For those who like the short format of the game, should watch T20 or T10 and leave the test matches for those who like the longer version of the game.
What a bad idea of making a 4 days Test Match
I think the reason few are saying for four day because it is not accommodating, or people are not really interested in watching the test match anymore as now we have T20 where in few hours the results is out. Thus in order to make some changes are also have seen test match is getting over in 3 days as well. Will it be good or bad for circket is not known.
What a bad idea of making a 4 days Test Match
They are representing a country here so if a country has more wealth than other then they can show off them as better team by buying players from other countries? This is not the real success of sport, but this is not against the rules as per ICC rules so nothing to be discussed.
In the Olympics I have seen African athletes representing GCC nations such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In this case, these players are offered "temporary citizenship". They remain as GCC citizens during their career, and once they retire the citizenship is revoked. A number of nations have complained against this system, but the IOC has permitted this to continue. And in cricket it is even easier. You don't even need to be a citizen to represent a country. That's how the UAE can field a playing XI, entirely comprised of Indian and Pakistani citizens.
~snip
Elizabeth II is a nominal monarch without any real power. Apart from being a part of the Commonwealth, I don't think that New Zealand has any connection with England. Regarding the nomination of Stokes, at first I thought that they were trolling him. I have seen a lot of New Zealanders complaining about England stealing their best players. Also, Stokes (along with Kumar Dharmasena) played a major role in the defeat of New Zealand in the final of CWC 2019 (although I would consider NZ as the real winners of that match).
What ever fancy word we use Elizabeth II is still the head of state in New Zealand even though they are a constitutional monarchy and a democracy, the former UFC middle weight champion Robert Whittaker is born is New Zealand but he is representing Australia and now the current middle weight champion Israel Adesanya is a Nigerian born representing New Zealand, so what you have to understand is that it is a common thing and people do migrate to countries where they deemed feasible, the world cup could have been a tie rather than giving England the cup and that is my opinion too. Elizabeth II is a nominal monarch without any real power. Apart from being a part of the Commonwealth, I don't think that New Zealand has any connection with England. Regarding the nomination of Stokes, at first I thought that they were trolling him. I have seen a lot of New Zealanders complaining about England stealing their best players. Also, Stokes (along with Kumar Dharmasena) played a major role in the defeat of New Zealand in the final of CWC 2019 (although I would consider NZ as the real winners of that match).
They are representing a country here so if a country has more wealth than other then they can show off them as better team by buying players from other countries? This is not the real success of sport, but this is not against the rules as per ICC rules so nothing to be discussed.
I am surprised with the level of patriotism showed here, everyone who is complaining about someone playing for another country because of money are they working for their own government or working for a foreign company, people usually migrate to other countries looking for a better living and if a sports man does that is it a big crime 
.They are representing a country here so if a country has more wealth than other then they can show off them as better team by buying players from other countries? This is not the real success of sport, but this is not against the rules as per ICC rules so nothing to be discussed.
I am surprised with the level of patriotism showed here, everyone who is complaining about someone playing for another country because of money are they working for their own government or working for a foreign company, people usually migrate to other countries looking for a better living and if a sports man does that is it a big crime . I think a lot of the New Zealanders are angry that Stokes dumped their country and went to play for England. But you can't really blame him. Stokes migrated to England when he was a kid. You can't compare this to someone like Eoin Morgan (who first represented Ireland, and then switched to England). But to be fair to Stokes, he has always stated that he is proud of his Kiwi heritage. You won't hear that from those Kolpak players.
People migrating to other countries is not a new thing and if Stokes parents moved when he was a kid what is there to complain and not sure whether it has become a big issue as i have not seen any uprising against that and so is the case with Eoin Morgan where he migrated to a country which pays him good.I think a lot of the New Zealanders are angry that Stokes dumped their country and went to play for England. But you can't really blame him. Stokes migrated to England when he was a kid. You can't compare this to someone like Eoin Morgan (who first represented Ireland, and then switched to England). But to be fair to Stokes, he has always stated that he is proud of his Kiwi heritage. You won't hear that from those Kolpak players.
People migrating to other countries is not a new thing and if Stokes parents moved when he was a kid what is there to complain and not sure whether it has become a big issue as i have not seen any uprising against that and so is the case with Eoin Morgan where he migrated to a country which pays him good. 
It is really interesting to see the liberal view of New Zealand since Ben Stokes who is representing England yet he got nominated for an award for the citizens of New Zealand and it shows two things, either they lack many candidates or they want to showcase that they are liberal and really wanted to award someone who is born in New Zealand even though they represent another country.
I think a lot of the New Zealanders are angry that Stokes dumped their country and went to play for England. But you can't really blame him. Stokes migrated to England when he was a kid. You can't compare this to someone like Eoin Morgan (who first represented Ireland, and then switched to England). But to be fair to Stokes, he has always stated that he is proud of his Kiwi heritage. You won't hear that from those Kolpak players.
It is really interesting to see the liberal view of New Zealand since Ben Stokes who is representing England yet he got nominated for an award for the citizens of New Zealand and it shows two things, either they lack many candidates or they want to showcase that they are liberal and really wanted to award someone who is born in New Zealand even though they represent another country.
Looks like you are not aware of the political scenario where Elizabeth II is the queen of New Zealand and the head of state and if they nominate an England player then there is nothing strange in that but i am glad someone who is living in New Zealand won their prestigious award than a player who is representing a different country and if Ben Stokes won the award because he was born in New Zealand i wont be surprised.Elizabeth II is a nominal monarch without any real power. Apart from being a part of the Commonwealth, I don't think that New Zealand has any connection with England. Regarding the nomination of Stokes, at first I thought that they were trolling him. I have seen a lot of New Zealanders complaining about England stealing their best players. Also, Stokes (along with Kumar Dharmasena) played a major role in the defeat of New Zealand in the final of CWC 2019 (although I would consider NZ as the real winners of that match).
It is really interesting to see the liberal view of New Zealand since Ben Stokes who is representing England yet he got nominated for an award for the citizens of New Zealand and it shows two things, either they lack many candidates or they want to showcase that they are liberal and really wanted to award someone who is born in New Zealand even though they represent another country.
Looks like you are not aware of the political scenario where Elizabeth II is the queen of New Zealand and the head of state and if they nominate an England player then there is nothing strange in that but i am glad someone who is living in New Zealand won their prestigious award than a player who is representing a different country and if Ben Stokes won the award because he was born in New Zealand i wont be surprised. ~snip
No, award went to guy named Mike king (mental health advocate)
They did nominate him but Ben stokes requested to remove his name from nomination.
It is really interesting to see the liberal view of New Zealand since Ben Stokes who is representing England yet he got nominated for an award for the citizens of New Zealand and it shows two things, either they lack many candidates or they want to showcase that they are liberal and really wanted to award someone who is born in New Zealand even though they represent another country.No, award went to guy named Mike king (mental health advocate)
They did nominate him but Ben stokes requested to remove his name from nomination.
Well after all he's NewZealander first, At least kiwis thinks he's one of them 
Did he really won the New Zealander of the year aware, he played some good innings for England and he was the main player to take them to victory.No, award went to guy named Mike king (mental health advocate)
They did nominate him but Ben stokes requested to remove his name from nomination.
Quote
"I am flattered to be nominated for New Zealander of the Year," he said. "I am proud of my New Zealand and Maori heritage but it would not sit right with me to be nominated for this prestigious award. There are people who deserve this recognition more and have done a lot more for the country of New Zealand.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2019/07/23/ben-stokes-says-nomination-new-zealander-year-doesnt-sit-right/Nope. It is not happening in the other sports. Let me explain.
I was talking about Athletics and how they are recruited, the promoters used to visit African countries to recruit players to represent United States and Canada and if you look at all their 100 m and long distant champions they are all recruited from Jamaica and other neighboring countries and Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell are the athletes that showed that they can be successful without moving to other countries and hence they were topping the medal list in Olympics and world levels.Sports bodies such as FIFA and FIVB allow players to represent a country only if they hold the citizenship of that particular country. The rules for FIBA is even stricter. They allow only one naturalized player in the squad, even if they have the citizenship.
In football there is a five year residency requirement to play for that nation and i am expecting a change in that rule in the future as there are more migrations world wide right now you cannot restrict people like that. If someone has the skills then they can play for the clubs and hence international matches will not be a big hurdle. Jump to: