S
Stamislav
Guest
Re: BS things about todays cricket
One obstacle to eliminating dead-rubber matches is that every match in a Test series, and often every match in an ODI series, is played at a different venue. It is important that the administrators make sure each international venue gets its fair share of the action. In a playoff series in American sports, it's true that they don't continue playing once the series has been decided, but since the venues involved are just the two home fields of the teams involved, the venue doesn't make as much of a difference.
I think it would be possible to avoid playing dead rubbers in cricket, but it would require us to think about scheduling matches in a completely different way. Organizers would have to make sure the biggest venues hosted the "live" Tests in the biggest series (i.e., the first three Ashes Tests), and the rest of the venues would have to be on a rotation, so that, say, if a series is decided before a scheduled Test in Sydney can be played, the next series begins in Sydney.
I actually think one of the benefits of eliminating dead-rubber Tests would be making series longer, rather than shorter. Almost every Test series Sri Lanka plays is only a two-Test series, which I don't think is long enough, because sometimes you have a very competitive series tied at 1-1 after two Tests, and there's no decider. At the same time, it would be difficult to schedule every series for at least three Tests or more because of player burnout. So, organizers might be able to schedule longer series knowing that some of them would end early as a result of being already decided.
One obstacle to eliminating dead-rubber matches is that every match in a Test series, and often every match in an ODI series, is played at a different venue. It is important that the administrators make sure each international venue gets its fair share of the action. In a playoff series in American sports, it's true that they don't continue playing once the series has been decided, but since the venues involved are just the two home fields of the teams involved, the venue doesn't make as much of a difference.
I think it would be possible to avoid playing dead rubbers in cricket, but it would require us to think about scheduling matches in a completely different way. Organizers would have to make sure the biggest venues hosted the "live" Tests in the biggest series (i.e., the first three Ashes Tests), and the rest of the venues would have to be on a rotation, so that, say, if a series is decided before a scheduled Test in Sydney can be played, the next series begins in Sydney.
I actually think one of the benefits of eliminating dead-rubber Tests would be making series longer, rather than shorter. Almost every Test series Sri Lanka plays is only a two-Test series, which I don't think is long enough, because sometimes you have a very competitive series tied at 1-1 after two Tests, and there's no decider. At the same time, it would be difficult to schedule every series for at least three Tests or more because of player burnout. So, organizers might be able to schedule longer series knowing that some of them would end early as a result of being already decided.
