ICC contemplates timeless tests..

I don't see the necessity - most tests provide a positive result within 5 days and I see better ways of managing this without timeless matches.

              1)  Prepare wickets that deteriorate after about 3 days.

              2)   Increase the overs per day to 100 or 18 overs per hour  (that'll shake the players up!)   

              3)  Make the game's duration 30 hours long , even if that goes beyond 5 days - this for rain effected matches.

             I can't see any match not being resolved under those circumstances and if it's still undecided after these stipulations , then have some sort of bowl off.     I don't want to see 10 days matches - I have work to go to!


Edited by Sledger - 19 July 2011 at 7:08am

Originally posted by Clobber You just know that sod's law dictates that there would be a huge brouhaha about having a Timeless Test, then it would be all over before lunch on the 3rd day!

   Now that would be funny matey !

They are contemplating it to ensure they have a winner in the finals of the test championship which is quite funny actually because as Sledge has written there are various other ways to ensure that. At the most one "reserve" day can be in place in case rain washes out a significant part of the match, otherwise a first innings lead or something like that can be used to find out the winner.

Originally posted by sam_ahmed ... also the entire Idea of a test championship looks a very poor one to me, I'm fine with the limited overs WC, the present ranking system to determine the Test No.1 side and just to keep people interested a Champions Trophy every two years because waiting for all teams to clash against each other for 4 years is quite a long wait so CT is necessary ... they want to Scrap the CT for the Test championship which to me is quite ridiculous.

 I'll have to disagree. I'm well in favor of a World Test Championship. Quiet like the idea of having an outright winner in Tests too. The 'Test Champions' tag would be a lot more meaningful to the players and fans alike as opposed to posing with a ICC's Gada like trophy at the end of a calender year. Think it would make Test cricket more prestigious an event. The best format of the game after all deserve to have its own championship.

However I'm opposed to the itinerary of the Championship, which is a little unclear, where different teams play different number of tests before the play-offs. A lot more tightening needed on that front.
Would also like to see an ODI league Championship, perhaps, lasting over a two year period.

Originally posted by Clobber Perhaps not even 30 hours, but a match that has a maximum of 450 overs, as per paying supporters as supposed to be getting for their money as it is anyway. Players knowing they are going to have to come back another day might gee up some over rates.

 On the contrary I think teams could use that to purposely slow down over-rates in particular sessions where the oppositions on top and hope and wait for the session break to help shift momentum. For me 30 hours just fine, and if teams fail to comply with the over-rates strict penalties.



Edited by vote4peace - 20 July 2011 at 5:59am

 I suppose the new rule of the captain getting a one-match ban in case of two over-rate violations within a period of 12months should work fine in overcoming that issue. Maybe even the bowler(s) responsible could be charged along those lines.

I was led to believe that a timeless test would be used in the 'final' of the Test Championship to determine a clear cut winner. In that case, it may have merit. However, to use it in every test is not feasible. How would you determine how long you'd need the ground for, how many tickets to distribute or even when the next game should be. If the first test in a series went for 10 days and the next game was scheduled the day after then you'd have serious issues.