Test World Championship

[GIMH]

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

I don't think WCs have done any harm to international football, as we don't have test matches, just friendlies, which nobody tends to give a **** about.

 

[Richard]

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

Interesting thought, actually.

Obviously, I'd never, ever want to see England vs South Africa, England vs Australia, etc. go down to 3-game series. Therefore, that'd mean 5 or nothing, which would be damn difficult to implement.

 

[Richard]

I don't think WCs have done any harm to international football, as we don't have test matches, just friendlies, which nobody tends to give a **** about.

Indeed, football is World Cup \ Euro Championship or nothing.

(At least, in Europe)

 

[GIMH]

Interesting thought, actually.

Obviously, I'd never, ever want to see England vs South Africa, England vs Australia, etc. go down to 3-game series. Therefore, that'd mean 5 or nothing, which would be damn difficult to implement.

Would be hard to implement but fairer nonetheless.

Could move down to 4, of course, which allows for the likelihood of a draw. I think our series against the Saffies next summer is a 4-test series.

As it's unlikely ever to happen, I guess there is nothing to worry about. But for mine, any championship has to be fair, and England/Australia/SA playing more games than the rest due to longer series gives them either an advantage or disadvantage, but one way or another makes it an uneven championship.

 

[The Sean]

Interesting thought, actually.

Obviously, I'd never, ever want to see England vs South Africa, England vs Australia, etc. go down to 3-game series. Therefore, that'd mean 5 or nothing, which would be damn difficult to implement.

England v SA next year is actually only going to be a four Test series, in order to fit in three against NZ.

The five Test series is a sadly diminishing beast - there will be a time in the pretty near future IMO that The Ashes will be the only one left.

 

[andruid]

Bangladesh got Test status more on the hope that they would be able to cope with Test status than any reality on the ground and that's been cruelly exposed time and time again especially by Sri Lanka recently but because they were granted Test staus in a boardroom rather than on the field as long as they keep the boad members who granted them Test status happy then it won't matter as much how competitive or poor their team is.

I wish the ICC could find some way to get the best FC side outside the Current 10 Test to prove their worth or ability on the test stage on the field. After all the test of the pudding is in the eating. That way we would be able to say team x deserves or doesn't deserve test status because they proved on the field that they can or cannot compete against other teams who likewise have proven their ability by showing a said level of competitiveness on the Test arena and ensure that the 10 odd nations in the Test Championship table are truly the ten best cricketing nations in the world.

My proposal would be perhaps after a given period the top 8 teams in the Test Championships would be automatically renewed. The teams ranked 9 and 10 would play each other to get the ninth slot and the loser would then play the winner of the Intercontinental cup for example for the right to feature on the top tier of the Test Championships.

Any takers

 

[welshplato]

Well, I seem to have got my answer if these replys represent anything. I can't believe that people would prefer the ridiculously arcane rolling Test Championship - be it Engel's or the ICC. But the fact that a major chunk of the discussion revolved around the virtues or not of 1-0, 2-0 or 5-0 series wins shows how out of touch many cricket fans are. Nobody outside the very precious centre of cricket cares! Furthermore, nobody outside cricket knows or cares about the rolling Test Champ.
Other people seem to think that any kind of World Cup - any kind of formal competition would be bad for cricket. Can you name me any other sport at all that doesn't have a World Champ? Don't tell me, they are all wrong, and cricket has got it right!
And yes, it was palpably obvious to everyone that the Rugby WC was the best thing that has happened to their sport since...well, the last WC probably.
Cricket is a sport. Sport implies competition. Competition implies discovering who is the best.
Without a proper World Cup we are left with the 1 Day and 20-20 formats. They might be fun, but they don't tell us who are the best Test cricketers, and they don't represent the sport very well. Once again I say, cricket needs a Test World Cup.

 

[Richard]

I think our series against the Saffies next summer is a 4-test series.

England v SA next year is actually only going to be a four Test series

I know.

 

[Richard]

Other people seem to think that any kind of World Cup - any kind of formal competition would be bad for cricket. Can you name me any other sport at all that doesn't have a World Champ? Don't tell me, they are all wrong, and cricket has got it right!

World Cups by nature don't neccessarily find the best team, though - a league pretty much invariably does that. Therefore, yes, I like the way Test cricket does it better than the way other sports do. For "World Champions" we have the ODI format - there, too, the best side isn't neccessarily going to be the winners - in that tournament never mind in the format at large.

Without a proper World Cup we are left with the 1 Day and 20-20 formats. They might be fun, but they don't tell us who are the best Test cricketers, and they don't represent the sport very well. Once again I say, cricket needs a Test World Cup.

As long as we have Test-cricket, we know who the best Test-cricketers are. It doesn't require a one-off tournament for that.

 

[welshplato]

Fair point - no, World Cups don't necessarily find the best team, and yes, we do know who are the best cricketers by virtue of Test cricket as it stands. And yes, this is the same for other sports.
But this is not a reason to reject the idea (I admit I did cite it as a reason for having WC's - I was wrong). In other sports, we can argue over the best team / players despite their WC performance - but we still don't make that judgement based on a series of meaningless friendlies - as we have to in cricket. In other sports, the WC is still the gold standard, and on the occasions where the best are the world champs - their place in history is assured.
The problem with cricket is what we have as an alternative. OK, I know the Ashes aren't 'meaningless friendlies' or India v Pakistan Tests. But a lot of Test series are just that - by the way, why are NZ playing in SA again?
Test cricket needs a structure (and not just the rolling system). My plan just takes 1 calender year out of every 4 - with room within it for 'traditional' tests even during that year.
Imagine the difference if Eng played India in a 3 Test World Cup Semi Final compared to last year's series. What was the outcome for last year's winners? A couple of extra points in the ICC rankings. Compare that to an outcome of getting to the World Cup Final.

 

[Richard]

Can't agree that all Tests are meaningless friendlies TBH. I'm as enthusiastic about any top-8-vs-top-8 clash as any other. I hope this is a shared emotion with the majority of cricket fans.

Obviously, for those who were of a different opinion, a Test World Championship would be essential. That doesn't include myself, however.

 

[welshplato]

You misunderstand me - I don't know if we're among 'the majority of cricket lovers' - but I too am one of those sad people who look forward to all test matches - and I can't wait for next week when the 20 plus winter tests get started. Even SA v NZ, although they played, in SA, in May 06.
But the point remains that these matches are 'friendlies' (they are not involved in any meaningful competition), and they are 'meaningless' (in terms of the result signifying anything outside pride for the teams concerned).
I come to this subject as someone wanting to make the sport I love better. Why is the status quo a better system? I see no virtues in it as a way of organising international cricket.
I'll be watching all the cricket that Sky (and my family) allows me to this winter, and I know we'll see some fantastic stuff. And I'm one of those people who used to try to hunt down the scores of, say, Pak v NZ before Sky and the Internet - and it was next to impossible to get full scorecards untill ther following month's edition of The Cricketer'.
But I digress. If there was something at stake like qualifying for the World Cup Finals - I'm sure that edge would enhance it for players, fans, cricket lovers and sports fans in general.

 

[The Sean]

Not wanting to get into the debate right now, but as an aside - welcome to the forums mate.

 

[Richard]

You misunderstand me - I don't know if we're among 'the majority of cricket lovers' - but I too am one of those sad people who look forward to all test matches - and I can't wait for next week when the 20 plus winter tests get started. Even SA v NZ, although they played, in SA, in May 06.
But the point remains that these matches are 'friendlies' (they are not involved in any meaningful competition), and they are 'meaningless' (in terms of the result signifying anything outside pride for the teams concerned).
I come to this subject as someone wanting to make the sport I love better. Why is the status quo a better system? I see no virtues in it as a way of organising international cricket.
I'll be watching all the cricket that Sky (and my family) allows me to this winter, and I know we'll see some fantastic stuff. And I'm one of those people who used to try to hunt down the scores of, say, Pak v NZ before Sky and the Internet - and it was next to impossible to get full scorecards untill ther following month's edition of The Cricketer'.
But I digress. If there was something at stake like qualifying for the World Cup Finals - I'm sure that edge would enhance it for players, fans, cricket lovers and sports fans in general.

I wasn't trying to doubt any of that. That's fantastic - me, I only started following global cricket in 2000, by which time CricInfo and one or two other sites allowed up-to-the-second scores via a few mouse-clicks. I cannot imagine what it'd have been like in the days when there wasn't even Ceefax to check these things.

For me, though, I look upon the matter differently. To me, every Test - even the dead ones - is as meaningful a competition as you're going to get. Even if there's no table or Championship of any sort, your next Test-series is always huge. The result of it is the biggest thing in cricket, pretty much (though there are some Test-series - and I mean proper ones, not the crap like the series against Bangladesh - which I'd take a World Cup victory ahead of). Now, you say there should be something bigger still - well, if enough people want it, maybe there might one day be. As I say, though - myself, I'm perfectly happy with the way things are currently. If widescale discontent starts to set-in at any point, maybe it's time for a rethink.

And yeah - as Sean says - welcome aboard. Much more original first-topic than many.

 

[welshplato]

Once again, I can't disagree with what you say. A team's next test series is huge, and each series is an event in itself, and the level of competition is as good as you're going to get. And finally, I too am happy with Test cricket as it stands. Perhaps the only difference is that I think that some decent sort of formalised competition would make me even happier.
Although I have to say - now that I think about it - that perhaps such a formalised competition would reduce other test series into genuinely meaningless friendlies - which is a consequence I would not like to see.
And thanks for the welcome. If you can't play or watch cricket - what is better than talking about it with like minded people.

 

[anoop4real]

It will be a CRAZY idea to start a test cricket World Cup...... there will be many complication involved.....a very good schedule and planning will be required..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It will be a CRAZY idea to start a test cricket World Cup...... there will be many complication involved.....a very good schedule and planning will be required..

In the length of time they took over the last ODI World Cup they could almost have a played a straight knock-out Test World Cup.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Absolutely love the idea.

 

[welshplato]

I think that Goughy's idea is OK too. The thing is, once the general idea is accepted, then we can work on the details. I absolutely agree that it has to be done in as short a time as poss. so as to keep focus, and I agree with the second part of Anoop4real - it would need careful planning - but if there was the political will, I'm sure it could be done. As Lillian says, we probably could have had a decent test world cup in the time it took to play out the 1 day Cup.
You have to remember that any one of the big test playing countries could run 10 to 15 test matches in a season - especially if the first 10 were played concurrently (in batches of 2 say).
Eng, Aus, Ind and S.Africa all have more than enough test grounds. I personally would like to see it in England because we have such a wide fan base here - an India v Pakistan semi final at The Oval? It would be incredible.
My only real problem with Goughy's plan is that I think semi finals, or at least a Final (all over 3 tests) woud be a must.

 

[Goughy]

My only real problem with Goughy's plan is that I think semi finals, or at least a Final (all over 3 tests) woud be a must.

Tests are important and have to remain that way. A semi and a final is more of a single tournament format.

Test World Champs would have to be an effort to find the best team. In that regard a League>>>>>>>>>>>>Cup format.