5th Test at The Oval, London

[Lillian Thomson]

Going by the points system England and Australia are lucky to have any considering the 2 point deduction per over behind the required rate.

 

[Spark]

I usually try not to comment on this sort of stuff because I hate giving oxygen it doesn't merit -- see last week's "controversies" for examples of such -- but this latest effort by the Sun wrt Ben Stokes and his family is so truly, despicably low it really shouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[StephenZA]

****ing pathetic. And it says a lot about people that it works and how popular the rag is.

 

[ImpatientLime]

You couldn't format that?

England does not have the Ashes. Celebrating a home tie against a team with 1 batsman, for a championship after the first round, seems like you are searching for cheer that is not there.

you drew with a team with 0 specialist batsman.

get on our level.

 

[Groundking]

The Ashes is an outlier. How many 5 test series are there? England and Aus get this special little thing to play each other in every 4 or so years, the cricket world can't peel itself away from it (and rightly so), and it's treated as the pinnacle of the cricketing calendar, even more so than the world cup to some extent. It's the price to pay for getting extra revenue, prestige and focus. I'd love for NZ to play Aus, Eng, India or SA in a 5 match series. I'm sure most sides would. The rest of the world get their 2/3 match series and 6-8 tests a year while England get a buttload. You reap what you sow and this is it for England and Aus. On top of that, it's not like the ICC scheduled all the matches - England have opted the NZ series to be not included for example. Each board gets to pick and choose, and everyone will get their chance for 2-0 120 point easy pickings.

Once everyone gets back to playing 2/3 Test series it won't be an issue. Give it ****ing time ffs.

The England vs India series have also been 5 match series recently, then I think it's only SA who get 4 match series and everybody else are consigned to 2 and 3 match series IIRC.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I usually try not to comment on this sort of stuff because I hate giving oxygen it doesn't merit -- see last week's "controversies" for examples of such -- but this latest effort by the Sun wrt Ben Stokes and his family is so truly, despicably low it really shouldn't go unnoticed.

Sickening but par for the course for red tops in this country. Will be interesting to see what happens with the England team and that rag now.

 

[Prince EWS]

You quite literally have to win 5-0 to get the same number of points as 2-0. It's farcical.

I think this is perfectly fine tbh. There shouldn't be more points available just because the series is longer or some teams will end up actually playing for more points across the championship, which is unacceptable. And if you sweep someone you should take all the points.

I'm more annoyed at how drawn games aren't just given half points. The 2-2 Ashes should be worth the same as any other drawn series.

 

[NZTailender]

England and Aus get less points for this series than NZ and SL got for 1-1 draw make sense of that

Considering, on average, England, Aus and India play more tests than the other teams, it works out perfectly fine for the elite money makers to not get potentially 300 points for their circle jerk series. Every board had the opportunity to schedule knowing the rules laid out and have done so. The alternative is England and Australia could've opted to have the Ashes not be included in the championship. No issue with the points system whatsoever.

 

[morgieb]

I think this is perfectly fine tbh. There shouldn't be more points available just because the series is longer or some teams will end up actually playing for more points across the championship, which is unacceptable. And if you sweep someone you should take all the points.

I'm more annoyed at how drawn games aren't just given half points. The 2-2 Ashes should be worth the same as any other drawn series.

Yeah I don't really get the "need to encourage results" in the Championship. At this point it's only a draw if 1. there's lots of rain about, 2. the pitch is flat beyond words or 3. one side clings on for dear life on a flattish deck. Rarely is there negative play from both sides unless the pitch is literally that slow (and in that case the pitch gets penalised) I guess they'd want to discourage 2 and 3 but there's already penalties for 2 with pitch warnings and 3 is still enthralling in its own right.

Personally I'd make it so that all Tests are a standardised 3 Test series, with any extra matches in the series for big events not being worth WTC points.

 

[NZTailender]

England and Aus get less points for this series than NZ and SL got for 1-1 draw make sense of that

besides, why should the teams ranked 4 and 5 get more points than the teams ranked 2 and 6?

 

[TheJediBrah]

There shouldn't be more points available just because the series is longer or some teams will end up actually playing for more points across the championship, which is unacceptable.

I've seen like 3 people say this when no one, anywhere, is suggesting the opposite.

besides, why should the teams ranked 4 and 5 get more points than the teams ranked 2 and 6?

No one said they should

 

[NZTailender]

No one said they should

"why should a 2 test NZ vs Sri Lanka series be worth more points than the Ashes?" has cropped up a few times.

 

[TheJediBrah]

"why should a 2 test NZ vs Sri Lanka series be worth more points than the Ashes?" has cropped up a few times.

You've lost me, I don't see the relevance.

I'm saying that no one said "the teams ranked 4 and 5 should get more points", which is what you seemed to be responding to

 

[NZTailender]

You've lost me, I don't see the relevance.

I'm saying that no one said "the teams ranked 4 and 5 should get more points", which is what you seemed to be responding to

Maybe, but I would think it's pretty academic.

"It's a farce that these teams get less points than the NZ vs Sri Lanka 2 match series" - either implies that the quality of the latter isn't as good, or the person making the statement is too stupid to realise that Australia and Eng;and will be able to play as many two match series as they want for the same point opportunities.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe, but I would think it's pretty academic.

"It's a farce that these teams get less points than the NZ vs Sri Lanka 2 match series" - either implies that the quality of the latter isn't as good, or the person making the statement is too stupid to realise that Australia and Eng;and will be able to play as many two match series as they want for the same point opportunities.

I still don't think you get it. No one is saying that either should get more points. They should get the same points.

 

[NZTailender]

I still don't think you get it. No one is saying that either should get more points. They should get the same points.

It would result in more points though. Unless there's a quota to play the exact same amount of games, which there isn't - they have to play 6 of 8 teams - means a team that regularly players 5, 4 and 3 match series will end up naturally with more points than teams that get 3 match series at best, 2 match series as normal.

I mean, the same amount of points is up for grabs in each series, so theoretically they can get the same points - they just have to be good enough to win them all.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It would result in more points though.

Bro I think you still aren't getting it. How can giving them the same points result in "more points"?

1-1 = 60 pts each
2-2 = 60 pts each

the same

 

[NZTailender]

Bro I think you still aren't getting it. How can giving them the same points result in "more points"?

1-1 = 60 pts each
2-2 = 60 pts each

the same

Teams need to schedule 6 different series for the championship; they don't have to play the same amount of matches though. If we give every win the same points, one team could schedule 6 series of 3 tests and get up to 1080 points, whereas another side might end up with 6 series of 2 tests each for a potential 720 points. As it stands, everyone gets the potential for 720 points and it's been up to the boards to schedule how they get there.

Unless you're talking about ignoring how many games are played in a series and just awarding points based on series outcome, then yeah that'd make more sense. Though you'd still get someone whining about Bangladesh beating Zimbabwe 1-0 in a 1 off match netting the same points as a 4-0 or 3-2 victory.

 

[DriveClub]

You can get around this by mandating a minimum of 3 tests per series but then ICC will have to start financing tours by getting involved in the selling of broadcasting rights of some of the less wealthy cricket boards. But that doesn't look like happening

 

[Bahnz]

I still don't think you get it. No one is saying that either should get more points. They should get the same points.

As previously stated, I can understand why a draw is worth less than half the points available for winning, so in principle I don't have a problem with 2-2 in a 5 game series being worth slightly less than 1-1 in a 2 game series. However, I do feel matches where a significant amount of time is lost to rain (i.e. more than a days play) should be treated as no-result for the purposes of allotting points. So yeah, in the case of the recent Ashes series I agree that it should be worth the same as the recent 1-1 in Sri Lanka.