The truth is finally being acknowledged; test cricket is in danger of dying.

"Ruining the beauty of the game."  Au contrair!  With 200 overs per team per match
still have everything with traditional Jurassic:  big scores, follow ons, declarations, etc.,
except fans are now certain of a result.  Side bats for 150 overs  in their first can only bat
for 50 in their second.  And totally eliminates fans having to come to the ground
on the last day just to see a  final 40/50 runs.


Rain?  Then just shorten the # overs each innings.  Works much better with a two
rather than one innings match.

I appreciate the response, Timmy. Do you think fans would pack out the ground to watch the TimmyJ plan if their team continues to get thrashed inside 4 days? No one likes watching their team get spanked match in, match out.

The concept of introducing two divisions would in theory help make matches more competitive as teams are playing similarly strengthened opposition. This also adds more importance to each Test match as you have a promotion/relegation aspect. 

Unfortunately, the introduction of a 200 over Test doesn't address the obstacle that the sheer volume of T20 cricket has presented. Due to the large number of T20 matches, fans have more live cricket to attend than ever before. This has impacted attendances at Test matches. There are only a certain number of matches fans can afford to attend - whether that be down to the cost factor or the time factor involved.

Test cricket is only dead in the West Indies. It is alive and well, with full stadiums around the world, thank you very much. T20 has found it's niche quite comfortably in these countries also. West Indians can continue to make excuses for their woeful returns in tests.

T20 cricket can be blamed for the drop in attendances in the test matches, but I'm not sure that it can be said that its a problem that's any worse in the West Indies than in any other part of the world. The T20 phenomenon as done more to put cricket itself back on the map and while that may have contributed to the lack of interest in test matches, I think for the game of cricket itself it's done more good than harm.

It has taken far too much time to bring the point of home. So much time that it might already be too late.

Test cricket was dying even before t20 came out and t20 was like the final nail in the coffin as it was what the audience wanted.

Hopefully the steps which the associations all over the world are taking, would bring some positive results.

Well, I can see why they would want to shut it down. You really have to consider cost, it's not always worth it to have something that is really expensive. That would be like moving the NBA to outside if it was too expensive to keep playing in stadiums. People would only watch it on TV, and the crowd would be something like a couple of thousand, but it's not like that in America.


If they needed to do it to cut cost, then I'm sure there is a good reason behind it.

The ICC aren't shutting it down. We have just seen record attendances at Lords a fortnight ago and at the MCG two years prior. The big three won't allow it to happen. There is too much money at stake from television revenue alone. The ECB signed a four-year deal with Sky in 2013 for £260 million. Radio and broadcasting rights further lined their pockets. Australia will earn an estimated £322 million over the next five years, while India are currently in the midst of a £450 million deal.

Are attendances in West Indies, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and the UAE problematic? Yes. Will changes be implented. Undoubtedly. Will broadcast revenue be pooled in the future? If the latest reports are to be believed , possibly. And for the better.

The average attendance at this years T20 Natwest Blast is around 6,500. This pales in comparison to the record breaking attendance (113,637) at the Lords Test a fortnight ago. Or the attendance at Old Trafford last week.