Test Cricket is the real test for the players and should be played more often.
Debate Rounds (3)
Who, besides children of plantation owners and British Lords, has the time to play a 5 day game? Not your average student, not your average person. Involvement in the sport would decrease because it's just not feasible for most people to do a 5 day game. Overtime you would lose any new athletes who did not have the social status and the copious amounts of time.
Who is going to buy tickets to see a 5 day game? Who is going to watch? The other rich people with nothing to do for an entire work week?
5 day games also make a player susceptible to injury and harm. Permanent injury could result in stubborn players not wanting to take of injuries, or because they couldn't find a replacement who could take 5 days off work on short notice. Run on a sprained ankle all week guy can't compete for another month. Or maybe just limp for the rest of his life.
The intensity of the game would dramatically decrease to a sloth's pace. Athletes want action, not attrition. Yes, only the entertainment portion in highlighted, that why people play sports! Action and entertainment! Otherwise, they'd play chess. The subtle nuances of a game, tactical, pragmatic and otherwise can be brought out with adjustments to the rules.
Sports evolve over time as we learn, as the players and coaches learn; rules have been changed in every successful sport from boxing to football to equestrian. Change is necessary for the reasons of safety, athlete accessibility and growth of the sport.
Secondly, playing 5 day games does not send the game to any obscurity. Its only a misnomer and a wrong notion that people have towards Test Cricket. How can you say that the test match is not spreading and is less popular? Have you not seen how interesting the Ashes Test Series between the Australians and the English is ? Does it not have a big knowledgable fan following of purists and lovers of the game? How can you say that the game is not growing? Much depends upon the attitude of the players and the fans. Money is only a secondary factor here. Cricketers should play cricket not for money , but for the love of the game. They should focus on developing their skills and talents than dreaming of a fatter purse. And moreover, in today's society, the game is well off and all the cricketers earn well. Hence,money is not all a factor in deciding which form of the game should be played more.
And, again its erroneous to say that Test Cricket is not crossing international , cultural or ethical lines. Is not test cricket played at the international level among countries across the globe? This form of cricket does involve many players and is obviously not a lower quality product. And more importantly , it should be noted that its not an average student or an average person who should play cricket at the international level , representing his/her nation. Trained people who are the best in their nation should represent their country in the international level. People who can play ODI's or twenty 20's can obviously play Test matches and moreover if a player does not have copious amount of time to play test cricket which improves his skills and nurtures his talent and helps him to become consistent , then its better that he gives up playing cricket itself. And it should also be noted that even great players need to practice regularly and sincerely in order to deliver in the international level. And the fact that the famous Ranji Trophy Cup( which is a platform where players from many Indian states take part and from which many players for the National team are selected) follows a Test Cricket Pattern only strengthens the fact that this form of cricket is widely acclaimed to test and nurture the player's fitness abilities, skills and other tactics.
It is agreed that the game may have less commoners or viewers of the game , but for the players to nurture their skills, playing considerable amount of test cricket is necessary. Its agreeable that sports should have entertainment coupled with it, but if you want quality sports or quality cricket, you do need to sacrifice a little of entertainment. And again, there will be no slow down in the intensity of the game. All games are in its own unique way interesting. There is action in every form of the game, in its own way. It depends on the mindset of the players who play the game and the fans who watch the game to decide what the action is.
The opponent has clearly said that " 5 day games also make a player susceptible to injury and harm. Permanent injury could result in stubborn players not wanting to take of injuries, or because they couldn't find a replacement who could take 5 days off work on short notice. Run on a sprained ankle all week guy can't compete for another month. Or maybe just limp for the rest of his life." This is a very erroneous fallacy. Injuries are a part of every game and it is not justifiable to say that people who play test cricket are prone to more injuries to players who play ODI's and twenty20's. The format of the game requires you to play for 5 days continuously and if you cannot do that and suffer injuries and are fatigued too often , then it only shows your low capability and shows that your fitness is bad. Test cricket is being played since the 19th century and it does not show any such injury problem about which my opponent is talking about.
It is agreed that change is essential, but it is important that the change is positive in nature and not negative. If change leads to one's own downfall or degradation then what's the point or the value of changing. In the present case, it can be concluded that test cricket is the best way to train the cricketers as it is "the game" which tests the real character of cricketers and it should be played more often to get more positive results.
He also states that the training value of 5 day games is good for normal length games. Perhaps, but practice and drills with proper coaching would help that without the risks of permanent injury and losing a work week to practice. As a coach, I can tell you people learn better rested.
" It only contends that Test Cricket is a real test and real challenge for the players and that it should be more played often. It does not say that we should ban other forms of cricket and play only test matches"
Not including those who have to work for a living. Access to 5 straight days of playing is for rich kids. It is only the children of the rich that can afford this. A working guy would maybe want to play 3-4 games on his vacation, not one long game and have no time for himself, family.
Further more, 5 days for an athlete or normal person is unhealthy. The chance of being injured while fatigued increases as well an increase chance of permanent injuries and dehydration.
"Money is only a secondary factor here."
Money makes it possible to have the best athletes possible. Better athletes, better game. If you were an athlete that had the choice to play baseball for $1 million a year or cricket for $50,000 year what would you choose? What would most people choose?
And I'm going to play a sport that might get me injured and risk my family's quality of life? I think not. For less cash than my talent allows? I think not.
Sorry money is a factor. Olympics for example, there's a direct correlation between countries who sponsor their athletes and the amount of medals they win.
Speaking of Olympics, who won the gold for Cricket? Oh wait, no one! Cricket isn't in the Olympics. So much for crossing regional, cultural and ethnic lines. So much for being "widely acclaimed".
Let's use Lacrosse for an example. They would have three day games on fields miles long. Sometimes it resulted in death. Do you think lacrosse would be more popular or less popular if they still had these games? Obviously, putting their energy into new rules, new equipment and changing the game for the *safety* of the players brings out the best game possible.
"It is agreed that the game may have less commoners or viewers of the game , but for the players to nurture their skills, playing considerable amount of test cricket is necessary. Its agreeable that sports should have entertainment coupled with it, but if you want quality sports or quality cricket, you do need to sacrifice a little of entertainment."
"Commoners"? I dare venture, by the use of the word "commoner", example; the lowest class in society, that my opponent sees class and social status equated with the ability to play throughout the work week.
The effect a cheering crowd has on an athlete is motivation; to do better, to try hard, to dig deep. That's gone with your 5 day games. Quality sports is entertainment for the players and the fans. Slow, tired, injury prone athletes playing a game of attrition does not appeal to this commoner.
"Injuries are a part of every game...."
The human body can only take so much punishment. You lose your players, who aren't making much money anyways, and how do they support themselves? How does a farmer go back to harvesting when he's got a torn ligament and can't afford treatment? Sure, being hurt is part of the game. But being injured? The pride of athletes do not let them quit. Player will run on torn achilles tendons, broken bones and concussions if you let them. Treated promptly it can heal. But you would have a 18 year old kid play 4 more days with an injury limp the rest of his life because you would call him weak and unfit.
prashanthramdas forfeited this round.
mega_dez forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.