Test World Championship

[welshplato]

It is ridiculous that cricket does not have a world cup in what everyone agrees is the highest form of the game - test cricket. It could be easily arranged if there was enough political will. Here is one suggestion. For the sake of argument, starting May 2009.
1. Qualifying competition: matches based on ICC rankings (1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5).
Preliminary Rnd. (8 v 9): WI v Bang (3T/May-June 09), Bang v WI (3T/Sept 09)
So Eng v Pak (3T/June-Jly 09), Pak v Eng (3T/Oct 09)
SL v SA (3T/Aug 09), SA v SL (3T/Jan-Feb 2010)
Ind v NZ (3T/Oct-Nov 09) NZ v Ind (3T/Jan-Feb 2010)
Aus v WI (3T/Nov-Dec 09) WI v Aus (3T/Mar-Apr 2010)
2. Finals. Held in 1 country with 4 finalists. Say Eng 2010.
Semi Finals based on ICC rankings (1 v 4, 2 v 3)
So, for sake of argument, let's say: SF1: Aus v SL and SF2: Eng v Ind.
SF1: 3 Tests: June 1, 15, 29
SF2: 3 Tests: June 8, 22, July 6
July 13 - 20: Play off Tests, if necessary.
Final: 3 Tests: July 27, Aug 10, Aug 24
Aug 31 - Sept 6: Play off match, if necessary.
Cricket needs a proper world cup.

 

[Richard]

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

 

[NUFAN]

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

I dunno about only series wins.

Because teams are going to start resting players if they've winning or losing a series 2-0 with a game in hand which is not good for Test Cricket in my opinion.

The only real advantage I see from having series points rather then each test, is that some countries it's harder to win on due to ****ty weather or flat pitches.

I would love to see it, would you or wouldn't you have a Test Series Final ?

 

[Richard]

Nah, bastardises the whole concept of Tests IMO. A series is the only thing of relevance. Hate the idea of "final"s of any sort. That's what ODI cricket is all about.

I also highly doubt that many players will be terribly keen to be rested for a Test. Should happen if the current insane schedule is continued (South Africa played six back-to-back Tests last "summer") but won't be neccessary if it's assauged, something I'd also do, as would almost anyone.

 

[skipper]

what happened to the asian test championship?

 

[archie mac]

World Cups have ruined Tests matches in Soccer and Rugby Union lets hope it never comes to cricket

 

[NUFAN]

World Cups have ruined Tests matches in Soccer and Rugby Union lets hope it never comes to cricket

If anything, I would say club football has.

 

[simmy]

World Cups have ruined Tests matches in Soccer and Rugby Union lets hope it never comes to cricket

Oi. Rugby World Cups are awesome. Jeez... just because you are from Australia...

 

[Julian87]

You are kidding yourself.

 

[Perm]

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

My god you are a tool sometimes. "None of this every-Test-counts-crap" FFS it's Test cricket, of course every single game should count towards some sort of championship. There is a big difference being beaten 5-0 and being beaten 3-2 in a Test series.

 

[andruid]

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

I wonder how that will help anyone except leave a few less matches for the statisticians to tabulate

 

[Richard]

My god you are a tool sometimes. "None of this every-Test-counts-crap" FFS it's Test cricket, of course every single game should count towards some sort of championship. There is a big difference being beaten 5-0 and being beaten 3-2 in a Test series.

If every Test counts, so should every run.

There's a reason performances in "dead" Tests tend not to be considered anywhere near as worthy as those in "live" ones - it's because winning the series is infinitely more important than anything else. A convincing scoreline is simply a bonus.

Obviously, a 5-0 whitewash is something a bit special, and also exceptionally rare so does not need to be considered much. I really don't see the point in bringing-up the fact that 5-0 and 3-2 are a fair bit different.

For the intents and purposes of a standard (ie, 3) Test-series, there's really no huge difference between 3-0 and 2-0.

And as I say - if you get pernickity about how the extra Test should count so much, you also need to start deciding that an innings-and-250-run victory cannot possibly be considered the same as a 53-run one, as there's such a big difference.

Matthew Engel's Test Championship generated huge interest even when it was unofficial; right now, who really takes any grand notice of the ridiculously complicated formula I$C$C currently have in place? Not many, I'll tell you.

 

[Richard]

I wonder how that will help anyone except leave a few less matches for the statisticians to tabulate

It'll help everyone because you won't need to be a statistician to understand how it works.

A Test Championship simply must be straightforward and capable of appealing to the masses.

 

[archie mac]

Oi. Rugby World Cups are awesome. Jeez... just because you are from Australia...

When I was a boy the biggest Test was Aust V NZ now we have the joke where teams are playing 2nd 15s so as to protect their best players for the upcoming WC, lets hope it never happens to cricket

 

[Richard]

what happened to the asian test championship?

'Twas abolished. One of its main raison d'etre was to test whether a Test World Championship would be possible, and instead I$C$C took (briefly) Matthew Engel's advice and instituted a rolling Championship.

 

[Goughy]

There is a simple method for a World Test Championship.

Annual Comp with promotion and relegation. Things that take 2-4 years lose focus.

3 Test divisions with promotion and relegation of 3 Teams and 3 FC divisions below that.

Allows teams to progress and avoid mismatches.

Each team would play the others in their division in a 3 match series home and away every year
.
Something like 5 pts for a series win and 1 bonus point per victory in a series.

Every Test match would be vitally important and each team has a lot to play for.

Example Structure

Test Divisions

Division 1
Australia
England
India

Division 2
Pakistan
South Africa
Sri Lanka

Division 3
New Zealand
West Indies
Bangladesh

FC Divisions

Division 4
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Kenya

Division 5
Netherlands
Scotland
Bermuda

Division 6
Canada
Namibia
UAE

Each Team would play 12 Test/FC games (6 home and 6 away) each year and the bottom of each division would be relegated and the top would be promoted.

The winner of Division 1 at the end of each year/season would be the World Champions for that Year.

The beauty of this IMO is its simplicity, no overscheduling, competetive cricket and the ability for teams to find their natural level.

Now, if things like the Ashes are forsaken by this it is possible to say that in an ODI WC year (ie once every 4 years) that this format takes a break and that historical and traditional fixtures can be played.

 

[Richard]

Don't like the idea TBH. The series (be it 3-match or 5-match) with all Test-playing teams as equals has always been the way, alongside the full tour, and I'm happiest if it stays that way.

The whole point of the Test Championship, meanwhile, is that it does indeed not take 2-4 years - it's a rolling thing. It has no end and no beginning.

 

[Goughy]

The series (be it 3-match or 5-match) with all Test-playing teams as equals has always been the way, alongside the full tour, and I'm happiest if it stays that way.

Well they are all still equal in that all the games have Test status. It isnt any different in the 1 or the 3rd division. Call it something less harsh or less divisive if you want but all teams are stil playing Test cricket.

Also, full tours are virtually a thing of the past now anyway. Teams barely play warm-ups and are in and out of a country as fast as possible.

The above format would be more structured and reduce player burnout as well as dramatically improve attendances, sponsorship and ad revenue.

Im sure there are legitimate concerns over why it should not be introduced, but just saying it has been one way for a long time and must always stay the same isnt one of them.

 

[Richard]

Also, full tours are virtually a thing of the past now anyway. Teams barely play warm-ups and are in and out of a country as fast as possible.

I know, and I'm saying I'd like them to be put back to how they were 35 and even 10 years ago.

The above format would be more structured and reduce player burnout as well as dramatically improve attendances, sponsorship and ad revenue.

Not terribly sure about that TBH. Test attendances in England, Australia, West Indies and India are in perfectly rude health. Has it ever attracted massive crowds in New Zealand or Sri Lanka? And when was the last time it did in Pakistan?

AFAIK, it's only South Africa that has experienced worrying decline in Test attendances of late.

Also - is there any immediate worry that sponsorships are falling away? If so, it's news to me.

Im sure there are legitimate concerns over why it should not be introduced, but just saying it has been one way for a long time and must always stay the same isnt one of them.

That's not what I'm aiming to say - I'm aiming to say I'm happy with the way it's always been; that it's always been that way for good reason.

 

[GIMH]

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

Agree pretty much entirely with this, except that if you have a championship then all series should be the same length IMO. Like the fair test principle for experiments in Science lol