Test Cricket is the real test for the players and should be played more often.

My worthy opponent makes no mention that 5 day cricket games are exclusive to the unemployed rich. 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.