5th Test at The Oval, London

[TheJediBrah]

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.

Of course that's what I'm talking about, that's what everyone is talking about, comparing the points awarded for the 2 series. Why did you think I kept telling you that you weren't getting it? I thought I was being pretty clear

 

[Daemon]

Of course that's what I'm talking about, that's what everyone is talking about, comparing the points awarded for the 2 series. Why did you think I kept telling you that you weren't getting it? I thought I was being pretty clear

That's not what a few people were talking about though? They were saying that 2-0 shouldn't equal 5-0, implying the latter should be worth more points?

 

[mr_mister]

Why would you punish the minnows who only get 2 match series even more

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's not what a few people were talking about though? They were saying that 2-0 shouldn't equal 5-0, implying the latter should be worth more points?

Yeah look that's a whole different discussion though. 5-0 should probably be worth more, it's a bigger achievement, but then of course it actually shouldn't because you need a level playing field because not everyone plays the same length Test series.

The discussion we've been having here is about the comparison between the 2 drawn series and the difference in points. Analysing points for hypothetical results is a perfectly valid and relevant discussion to have but not really what we were doing here at this time.

 

[Victor Ian]

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.

This is the best solution Ive seen. Allowance for rain, and I can accept draws being worth a bit less.

 

[Prince EWS]

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

The post I replied to literally said that 5-0 and 2-0 sweeps getting the same amount of points was farcical. I think that's exactly how it should be.

I have other gripes with the points system as I explained but I think that's fine. I don't think you really have a problem with it either, but that's why I replied to Spark and not you.

 

[NZTailender]

Yeah look that's a whole different discussion though. 5-0 should probably be worth more, it's a bigger achievement, but then of course it actually shouldn't because you need a level playing field because not everyone plays the same length Test series.

The discussion we've been having here is about the comparison between the 2 drawn series and the difference in points. Analysing points for hypothetical results is a perfectly valid and relevant discussion to have but not really what we were doing here at this time.

The discussion is purely based on there being more matches, as you say, therefore the resulting points should be the same if not more because winning a 5 match series is harder than a 2 match series. So if points are equalised for series result, as opposed to individual match, how many points is the loser awarded from a 1-0 series lost compared to a 3-2 series loss? the same? 4-0 and 1-0 series win the same amount of points?

Whichever way you look at it, there's going to be some kind of perceived imbalance, unless everyone plays the same amount of games in a series. Saying 2-2 and 1-1 should get the same points is pointless because that system is flawed from the get go.

 

[Spark]

Bit of a misunderstanding over what I said before. When I say "It's farcical that 2-0 in a 2 match series is equivalent to 5-0 in a 5 match series", I don't mean that it's farcical that these are worth the same amount. Indeed it's the exact opposite; it's farcical that this is the only way to get the same points tally in a 5-match series as 2-0 in a 2 match series.

I find the "it all balances out" in the end argument thoroughly unconvincing. That is not a sound rationale for creating a fair and reasonable competition that hasn't been jury-rigged to favour or disfavour certain outcomes for external reasons.

 

[Daemon]

The discussion we've been having here is about the comparison between the 2 drawn series and the difference in points. Analysing points for hypothetical results is a perfectly valid and relevant discussion to have but not really what we were doing here at this time.

you replied to pews replying to spark saying no one has said this when spark did

emphatic loss for tjb

 

[TheJediBrah]

The discussion is purely based on there being more matches, as you say, therefore the resulting points should be the same if not more because winning a 5 match series is harder than a 2 match series. So if points are equalised for series result, as opposed to individual match, how many points is the loser awarded from a 1-0 series lost compared to a 3-2 series loss? the same? 4-0 and 1-0 series win the same amount of points?

Whichever way you look at it, there's going to be some kind of perceived imbalance, unless everyone plays the same amount of games in a series. Saying 2-2 and 1-1 should get the same points is pointless because that system is flawed from the get go.

Obviously the ideal system would be everyone plays the same number of series, same number of matches, same opponents both home and away. Equally obviously that's never going to happen.

So with that off the table I think the fairest system (which I suggested in the WTC thread) would be awarding the same number of points for a series win, or draw, regardless of the number of Tests, with potential for bonus points per match to award teams that don't lose the series badly. But the bonus points should only be a small percentage of the overall points on offer. The system in place now is essentially only the bonus points with series results being irrelevant.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The post I replied to literally said that 5-0 and 2-0 sweeps getting the same amount of points was farcical. I think that's exactly how it should be.

I have other gripes with the points system as I explained but I think that's fine. I don't think you really have a problem with it either, but that's why I replied to Spark and not you.

It still doesn't sit quite right with me that 5-0 and 2-0 are awarded the same. There's a big difference between the 2 but you can't really award more for the 5-0 without a potential unfair imbalance for the lower profile teams that play shorter series. Not that 5-0 really happens that much anyway. How many 5-0s have there been this millennium? 4 or 5?

 

[harsh.ag]

The post I replied to literally said that 5-0 and 2-0 sweeps getting the same amount of points was farcical. I think that's exactly how it should be.

I have other gripes with the points system as I explained but I think that's fine. I don't think you really have a problem with it either, but that's why I replied to Spark and not you.

2-0 and 5-0 victories should give the same number of points to the winner as per a "series win" metric but the higher margin of victory should be given additional bonus points.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Hire a panel of 5 judges to award bonus points based on the aesthetic quality of the match.

 

[aussie tragic]

So that's why Siddle was so crap

"Australia captain Tim Paine has revealed he broke his thumb during the fifth Ashes Test, while he's*praised paceman Peter Siddle for bowling through the pain of a hip injury for most of the match."

 

[TheJediBrah]

Oh has he had the hip injury for the last 5 years then?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He really needs to explain why he was selected in the first place.

 

[aussie tragic]

He really needs to explain why he was selected in the first place.

Yeah when I read the headline I thought they were going to say Pattinson and Starc were injured, therefore explaining Siddle.

And I guess Paine broke his thumb when trying to steal that catch from Warner.

 

[harsh.ag]

Wasn't it unwise of him to continue to keep when Wade was available?

 

[aussie tragic]

Yeah that is strange. Given his history he could have ended his career if he was hit on the thumb again. Maybe he didn't want to show he's expendable with Wade keeping well and scoring hundreds

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah that is strange. Given his history he could have ended his career if he was hit on the thumb again. Maybe he didn't want to show he's expendable with Wade keeping well and scoring hundreds

heh that's actually not a silly suggestion. One of the biggest thing stopping Paine's place being questioned with Wade there is the old "hurr Wade bad keeper durr" meme that is ingrained in the minds of the casual fans. Wade goes out there and takes a couple of great catches and people are going to start asking questions.