Test cricket is based on a points system hence there is a ladder that ranks teams in order of 1, 2, 3 etc the problem is like the AFL season you dont play every nation the same amount of times.

I'm sure Andy is not going to worry about a few overly 'protectionistic' cricket tragics... That said he knew what would happen... I personally can't understand the attraction the game from a spectator perspective (for similar reasons to Drewy - and others as well) but i have learned to keep it to myself (barring this post) - as its a no win situation...

I back Gaze 100%.

Good to hear I (and drewy) are not alone here.
Johnny sack - i agree 100%, no win situation. Even worse, no consideration situation, they dont even like thinking about it..

Cricket isn't a sport, it's a waste of time.
much like baseball

Yeah I've never really understood cricket - still beats soccer :P

Doubt it.....Soccer is the world game, no other sport is played by as many countries as it

Test cricket is more about the "1 on 1 battles", if I may, than the overall mantra of where you are ranked in the world. The history of certain countries' test series (and the impact they have had on 2 country's social relationships with one another), not the least of which is England v Australia in the Ashes (Pakistan v India is another), cannot be understated.

When you go to England, an English bloke and an Aussie bloke are more likely to chat about, "banter" and have a friendly rivalry in a pub or workplace over the Ashes than they are about world war 1/2, the football/basketball results, the political relationship etc etc, for example.

Sure test rankings give bragging rights, but it is more about one country having the edge over another based on the last test series and the history of the series between the countries.

Each to their own really, when it comes to individual sporting preferences, but for me test cricket is the ultimate test of a team's concentration, focus, and ability to play consistently well over a longer period than any other game is played. One bad session of cricket for a test side can have pretty big consequences on a test series and a test match. If you doubt that, see day 5 (2nd session?) of the last Ashes test in Australia. There is so much more to it than just hitting a ball and rolling your arm over. It's more like a game of chess.

"Doubt it.....Soccer is the world game, no other sport is played by as many countries as it"

No other sport can be played by people in third-world countries who roll up a ball of paper and kick it along the ground because they can't afford a basketball ring.

I think it's a pretty narrow minded view of cricket. Domestically they have a league for the longer version of the game, and obviously the 1 day world cup rolls round from time to time, and while there may not be a test "world cup" that doesn't mean they're not playing for anything.

They have official test rankings which determine the best country in the world, so teams play a number of matches throughout the year in a bid to get as high in the rankings as possible, this is no different to tennis or golf. Tennis players play to win the slams and climb the rankings while crickers play to win series (Ashes, Border Gaviscar trophy, Frank Worrell etc) and climb the rankings. If anything the cricket model offers a better judge of the world's best team than a 2 yearly basketball carnival (Olypmics and World Champs) - a basketball team needs to play well for 3 weeks every 2 years, a cricket team needs to play well 12 months of the year.

And by the way how good was Hughes today?

Why does basketball have a world cup? What are the teams playing for?

Why do the Tigers tour Chinas in a meaningless series of exhibition basketball games? What are they playing for?

In all sports, players play because they enjoy the game. Professional sporting businesses (international cricket, NBL) operate the way they do because there is a market for the product they sell and it pays its way (jury is out on NBL, I guess). So why is there a market for test cricket?

Test cricket originally got established as a non professional set of contests. It was about national bragging rights (as are all sporting contests and leagues). As such, it has a pretty strong history of tradition built around national affiliations that results in a lot of social importance being placed on the results of the contests in the national psyche of the countries involved. That's what makes it socially and consequently commercially valuable.

Another sociological reason for international test cricket being a useful thing is the distraction it sometimes provides, from the conflicts between different countries and cultures. I'd rather have Indian and Pakistani populations focused on who has the better cricket team than who has the better nuclear arsenal.

Test cricket is less about deciding the best team in the world, and more about the stories that develop over a five-day match and then over a number of matches in a series.

Similar to a seven-game NBA series, infact. Tactical shifts, rivalries built; if you have a bit of patience it can be remarkably rewarding.

There's a place for both 'done in two hour' types sports, and those that take a bit longer to develop, but perhaps with more twists and turns. I defy anyone to be bored watching the 2005 Ashes, that was compulsory viewing.