Is it time that the ICC stipulated that the minimum number of Test Matches should be three and not two?

Question

For example, India have just played a two Test series in South Africa where they acquitted themselves well and it's clear to me that their players, brought up on ODI and T20 cricket lack the players with the depth of skills to play consistently well at Test level. With longer series they would gain the experience to develop these skills and the result would be a better experience for players and spectators and for Test cricket as a whole. I appreciate that for smaller nations playing three Test series is too much, but it shouldn't be a problem for the top ICC nations.

Any thoughts?

*ѕнινα* crυiѕe тнroυgн · Accepted Answer

Very good suggestion.I think in any test series,there should be atleast a minimum of 3 tests to a maximum of 5 test matches.In this case,I think the BCCI is at fault for such a short test series,the one against WestIndies according to me was of very less importance compared to playing against SA.
Its time ICC takes the matter into its own hand and make a rule that there should be a maximum of 3 test matches in any series,if it means cutting some ODI's or a T20 match from the tour schedule then its fine.Atleast Test Cricket will benefit immensely.

Banz · Answer

I have a problem with your statement "brought up on ODI and T20 cricket" 
Players are selected on the basis of their first class performances and not on their ODI/T20 performances for the Test team. Everyone who gets a place in the Indian Test team has got it after playing in the Ranji Trophy for a few years. People have to wait years for a cap - just ask Rohit Sharma or Yuvraj Singh. Ajinkya Rahane for instance has 6000+ FC runs at an average of 60+, he isn't in the team because of his exploits in the IPL. That goes for the most of the players in the team. At the moment I have doubts on just a couple of players - Dhawan and Jadeja as to whether they are good enough for Tests.

And coming to the point, I'd love nothing more than a 4 or 5 Test series against these big nations. We already play 4 Tests against England and Australia home and away. We generally play 3 Tests series against South Africa and it's a shame that petty politics has cost us what could have been a great New Year's Test at Cape Town. 
Any 2 Test series is a joke, it's hardly what you'd call a series. You lose one Test and there's no way back. And the worst part is that it's the top 2 nations playing it. The next time we tour South Africa I want at least 4 Tests. 
I wouldn't complain about our future tours though. We play a 2 Test series in New Zealand, then 5 Tests in England and 4 Tests in Australia. This is going to be one good year.

small · Answer

Yes..... it makes more sense to play at least 3 matches in a series, whether tests or odi's or even t-20's if you ask me...... best of three is the simplest norm in any series of matches..... best of 5 becomes even better like how it is used in Poker, but then 5 test matches can become dreary if there are no results or even when it is a totally one-sided contest.

? · Answer

It's ridiculous that a "series" between the top 2 ranked teams should be played in a grand total of 12 days from start to finish, it should have been the highlight of the year

Mr. Sarcasm · Answer

5 ODIs + 3/4 tests + only one T20 = Perfect cricket tour

Anonymous · Answer

yes there should be atleast 3 test matches in a series. Then there would be a chance to comeback or level the series.

Evan · Answer

Yes, d top teams should play more matches...d initiative should come from d respective boards.....most of us were disappointed wid dis 2 test series.....congrats on d series win.....Happy New Year....

Is it time that the ICC stipulated that the minimum number of Test Matches should be three and not two?

7 Answers