Would the introduction of neutral venues for Test matches be a good idea?

Question

How would you feel if some Test matches were played at neutral venues? This could spread the game to a wider audience, which in turn could improve and popularise the game.

For instance, West Indies could play India in Amsterdam, Australia take on South Africa in Belfast, New Zealand play Pakistan in Toronto, and Sri Lanka face up to India in Nairobi.

Would the introduction of neutral, non-Test playing nations as hosts to Tests between full members be an attractive proposition?

Answer 1

Why on earth would either Australia or England want to play tests away from their own country . They already fill grounds for test matches and this idea is counter productive

The countries you describe already play one day internationals but really have no immediate hopes or desires to play test cricket . So we should concentrate on ensuring these countries get a fair share of one day internationals and 20/20 games

By the way I am not English , but a Scot who has always loved cricket . I am happy to travel occasionally to England to watch test cricket  

Answer 2

For 20-20 matches yes. For tests it will not work.

Answer 3

That could backfire. Because, test matches incites traditional followers of the game; but for those who cannot admire the length of the game, it is going to be a source of boredom . If we are to play at neutral venues, T20 is the best promotional gimmick. Test matches will not invoke much interest at neutral venues, unless there is a sizeable population of immigrants from the countries as same as that of the playing teams. ODI's maybe a  better option than test matches, T20 could be the last resort.

Answer 4

If India plays Australia in say West Indies, do you think people will come and watch ? Everthing depends on gate collections and advertisement revenue. Cricket will die a natural death.  

Answer 5

To some extent it will do..But,the income will be very less for the nation who host the cup..May be it work in the countries who dont have an international team..

For instance,in India;the stadium will be empty if  India does'nt play.. The same we can see in rest of the nations too..

In the fastestworld,T-20 is the great medium to popularize cricket..Test matches wont bring new audiences to cricket..Only cricket fans like us love cricket in any form..

Answer 6

9 test matches have been held at neutral venues before. http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engi...

Now for the your question-

I think it can be done occasionaly with consideration of various factors like

1-The population of the participating countries in the particular region (an India v Pak match can be organised in Canada because there's a good amount of population of these countries) & that would also bring some curiosity among the locals as well, to know what the real cricket is & what passion it brings!

2-The other factor would be, the scope of development in the neutral host country, like, say an Eng v SA test match can be played in Ireland would fill some inspirition & a close knowledge of the game among the people there.

Like I said, give it an occasional try & its not a bad idea then (unless ICC is really under some kind of debt or money shortage which I'm sure will never be the case..lol)

The matches would still be in touch with the fans of their country through television & that is where boards makes more revenues from, & not from ticket sale!

And if they're already investing alot in globalisation & development then no harm doing THIS.

Also to mention the advantages of familiar local conditions one team gets with their knowledge about the nature of the wicket and vocal home support. But a neutral venue neutralises those advantages.

Answer 7

Believe it or not, this is one of the central themes in a novel called Netherland that has just been longlisted for the Booker Prize. The novel has a character, Chuck Ramkissoon, who believes New York is crying out for an international cricket venue to entice test playing nations to play for big TV revenues. He also thought that the size of the Asian and West Indian populations in New York could easily sustain ticket sales.

Whether or not this could ever progress from an idea in a novel to a reality is difficult to judge - but the Chuck Ramkissoon was very persuasive.

Answer 8

First of all, i will just make a point which is irrelavant to the point you were making.

If neutral test venues were introduced then it would make Test Cricket fairer, no longer could teams like Sri Lanka prepare a pitch especially for there strenghts. Neutral veneus would show which test match side is the strongest, and which test match side could adapt to any given conditions best.

Neutral venues could help the game spread, take football for an example. Man Utd in recent times have gone to the US in pre-season to play friendlies against American teams and other European teams. The main objective in these tours (besides raising the profile of Man Utd across the world and making them a lot of money) is to spread the popularity of football in America. Anyway thousands of Americans flock to the stadium to watch Man Utd play, so my point is that if there is enough interest in the country, then neutral venues would be a great idea as fans from cricketing nations who dont play Test or ODI cricket could get to watch there heroes live. Of course this is all irralevent if the test matches are going to be played in Toronto infornt of 100 people.

A problem for me is that Test Cricket could lose some of its "Flavour and excitement" neutral fans would be great, but an England vs Australia match in Toronto wouldnt be half as exciting as an England vs Australia match at Edgbaston. A lot of England and Australian fans wouldnt be able to afford to travel to other countries, so test cricket (Whilst gaining fans from abroad) may lose fans from home.

Answer 9

playing test cricket in neutral venues and that too in non cricket playing nations is not a good idea.may be we could play some T20 matches but not certainly test matches.test matches are admired by true cricket lovers.

Answer 10

I don't think it will work. First of all very few people are coming to see the test cricket and if it will be played at the neutral venue then the supporters will be very less and ofcouse the security will be very good because no spectators to see the matches.

Answer 11

Mostly empty stands will greet the players.

Answer 12

It would make test matches even more boring. At neutral venues there would be less fans.A cricket match without a good crowd is never as fun as those played in front of packed stadiums.

Answer 13

I can just hear the outraged howls of indignation if that was brought into being! How would fans feel being deprived of seeing their teams play? I know I would be hopping mad, but more than that, I don't believe you would get that big a roll up at matches between 2 foreign teams. People want to cheer their own country on.

Answer 14

Dear Oracle,

I have addressed your questions as:

Q. Would the introduction of neutral venues for Test matches be a good idea?

A. Everything considered, while this is an interesting idea, I feel there are too many negetives loaded against it

Q. How would you feel if some Test matches were played at neutral venues?

A. My feelings are positive in the sense the crowd support could be spread out for both the opposing teams. Crowds could potentially applaud good cricket.

Q. This could spread the game to a wider audience, which in turn could improve and popularise the game.

A.This will surely spread the game to a wider audience and will also popularize the game. But I do not think it would improve the game. The negative would be diminished paying spectators at the stands. The crowds are often inspired by a certain amount of nationalistic feelings when they pay to watch live cricket .

Q.For instance, West Indies could play India in Amsterdam, Australia take on South Africa in Belfast, New Zealand play Pakistan in Toronto, and Sri Lanka face up to India in Nairobi.

A. True, this will popularize the game, sure, but the income earned would be more from television and internet coverage. The profits will not be maximal.

Q. Would the introduction of neutral, non-Test playing nations as hosts to Tests between full members be an attractive proposition?

A. It could. On the whole, it is a good idea, I suggest that it be tried on a limited basis. Since sports these days is all about money, I think one off test match could be on a neutral venue. The profits and loses could break even. This can then be viewed as a long term investment which would not accrue any immediate profit but would do so in the future.

Good question Oracle!

Rehman of Multan

Answer 15

I think that Test matches should be played on neutral pitches. It would make the game so much more fair, and more interesting as both sides have the same advantages and disadvantages.

Non-test playing nations as hosts for Tests between international teams. Okay.

There are a few faults in the idea.

1. The bad side is, money. You may not see a heap of people in Nairobi coming to watch a match between Sri Lanka and India. There's no money made for the cricket boards, and i know that the Sri Lankan cricket boards really need money right now.

2. If there's no crowd then theirs no feel for the game, even if your sitting at home watching the match you always like to hear an enthusiastic crowd.

3. Countries like Nairobi find it hard enough trying to keep their country out of poverty. The quality of the pitch may not be the best.

BUT

Charity. There's always a charity you can support in every country.

If teams went over seas to different countries and played for a cause. That would get the media into it, therefore getting more poeple into cricket, more people would turn up to the matches because it's going to charity, there would be a lot of talk about it.

Obviously you wouldn't be able to hold test matches in other countries all the time, but holding a few test matches in countries that don't play cricket and doing it for charity would get the whole world watching and talking. Enough money would be made from TV rights alone, i reckon.

That's a sketch of my idea.

It's a good idea to get neutral venues anyway because it makes it a fair match, and more interesting because both teams are equally advantaged.

Nice question.

Answer 16

I'm not sure if this would work at all. Cricket is not big enough on a worldwide scale to attract large crowds in non cricket playing nations. Also not sure how much interest would be generated in watching two foreign teams play in your country.

Answer 17

It may help fair game

Answer 18

i think the home team have the advantage of knowing the pitch, atmosphere etc so they should get to take advantage of that.the return test series in the other team's country is to their advantage so they should be entitled to that

Answer 19

I do not believe that neutral venues will be a good idea. Part of the challenge for touring a country is beating them at thier home ground. This isn't easy as we all know and this is what defies great teams from ordinary teams!

Edit: Also if its at a neutral venue, then noone from that particular country will have interest in the game and no one will go to watch the game!

Answer 20

If you ant to increase the popularity of the game, then maybe holding the T20 and ODI games at neutral venues could help. However holding test matches at neutral venues is a No No

Answer 21

It is a good idea but I would prefer a match played between ICC World 11 vs the MCC or something similar.2 or 3 matches per year at a neutral venue for publicity,entertainment and competition.

Test matches between nations should have the home and away atmosphere cause after all it is tradition and I don't see any considerable benefit in for example a SL vs Aus in Nairobi  showdown.You could get better publicity by having the  African 11 taking on the World 11.But it better not be a joke like the last Africa 11 vs Asia 11 ODI series.

Answer 22

YES...

Answer 23

These countries you mention already play cricket maybe not to the standard of England or the larger cricket playing nations but have national test squads.Do you you think playing shinty at Wembley would make it popular in England?Guernsey and Jersey also play cricket but we get knocked out of big competitions in the preliminary stages sort of like England getting knocked out of European nations or world cup at soccer.

Answer 24

One of the attractions is how hard it is to play on away soil, where their ground staff try to suit the pitch to their strength.

Also the climate makes differences and it is all about the toughness of a team in test cricket

Answer 25

Is this your idea of a way to keep test cricket from phasing out?  I'm afraid test cricket it just too long and therefore more boring to most spectators.  I won't be sad to see it go, if it does within the next 5 years.  ODI's and Twenty20 keeps it fun.

Answer 26

as long as the atmosphere is gud then its ok...i mean i dont wanna see half empty stadiums

wat the icc need to do is.............................get it to uae....the atmosphere was awesome....its probably even better than nz,wi,sa...the ppl here wud flock if there was a game again