• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

WTC what’s the point?

Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I hate it.

'Best case' scenario no-one really cares about it until the final, and then the final is treated as a fun exhibition game.
Worst case scenario, rather than adding meaning to Test series it takes it away and creates 'JAM Tests'.

Test series never needed more context. They just needed more opportunities for poorer cricketing nations to play more Tests and longer series. It was entirely possible to create a binding FTP without also creating a contrived league no-one needed or asked for.
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Coronis said:
Please don’t tell me thats actually a common nickname for him.

I was already embarrassed enough sharing the same last name with the ****, don’t need the same nickname too.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the standard level of nickname for English players.

Athers, Nass, KP, Rooty, Jimmy, Broady, YJB, it doesn't take a brain genius to come up with those. Whoever came up with Chef for Alistair Cook had to explain the wordplay to the team about three times.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
CartyDurham said:
It’s just the protracted way of qualifying that confuses imo

you get points here but not there

they need to clean that up a bit to make it easier to follow
Click to expand...

9 of the test teams are in it (Zimbabwe, Ireland, & Afghanistan are not).

3 home and 3 away series* are taken over a 2 year period for each side. These are decided before each 2 year cycle. Sides are welcome to play additional tests but these do not impact the WTC.

Teams gain points for wins, ties, and losses. They lose points for overrate indiscretions. The % of total points accrued from potential points is assessed and those with the 2 highest percentages play the final.

(* NB: Series can be 2, 3, 4, or 5 tests in length).
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
'Best case' scenario no-one really cares about it until the final, and then the final is treated as a fun exhibition game.
Click to expand...
But like...this is demonstrably wrong in respect of the very first iteration. NZ fans were super invested in qualifying and then super invested in the final itself. And I guess this sort of simultaneously proves and disproves your point, because as much as people can take the piss out of small nations for daring to care about the WTC, the very reason that we DO care is because it's the best thing available to us.

This won't change not just until we get a better FTP arrangement, but until the "big boys" take the little guys seriously. You can slice it anyway you like, but until Australia/India/England decide that beating each other isn't the most important thing....well, that's always going to be perceived as the most important thing, and something like the WTC is always going to be the next best for the little guys. So while the big guys may never care about the WTC, the little guys will never care that the big guys don't care, because we've accepted that they're always going to focus on their own stuff.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
I hate it.

'Best case' scenario no-one really cares about it until the final, and then the final is treated as a fun exhibition game.
Worst case scenario, rather than adding meaning to Test series it takes it away and creates 'JAM Tests'.

Test series never needed more context. They just needed more opportunities for poorer cricketing nations to play more Tests and longer series. It was entirely possible to create a binding FTP without also creating a contrived league no-one needed or asked for.
Click to expand...
I love it. I've found myself following series overseas that I normally wouldn't be that interested in bcos of the WTC.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
Oh yeah but I think that's bad and leads us closer to worst case scenario I mentioned.
Click to expand...
I don't really see how. I'm not sure what a JAM test would even be, but from an NZ point of view I'd say playing SL/Bangladesh/WI/Pakistan at home can sometimes be treated as close to JAM (ironically moreso since we got gud). The WTC served entirely to enhance the perceived value of those series imo.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
thierry henry said:
I don't really see how. I'm not sure what a JAM test would even be, but from an NZ point of view I'd say playing SL/Bangladesh/WI/Pakistan at home can sometimes be treated as close to JAM (ironically moreso since we got gud). The WTC served entirely to enhance the perceived value of those series imo.
Click to expand...
Some Tests aren't actually part of the WTC, and sometimes teams are obviously out of contention mid-cycle.

Watch these games be used to trial and rotate players, or 'rebuild for the next cycle'. This is exactly what happened to ODIs just after World Cups, and then it gradually spread like a social contagion.

Under the old model, losing a Test series was always bad. Over-focus on the WTC could make such an event meh. That's seriously dangerous IMO.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Ideally we should do 4 year cycles and then have a play off series somewhere for the "finals" -

12 test teams - split them into two tiers - top 6 in Tier 1, next 6 in Tier 2. - Each team plays every other team in their tier home and away in minimum 3 test series. They also play every other team in the other tier ( 3 home and 3 away) in 2 test series. This gives every team about 42 tests every 4 year cycle. The top 2 can then play off in a 3 match series for the championship and we can have 1 team promoted/relegated and so on.

And for LO cricket, just have every team in the full member 12 play each other home and away iin min. 3 match series in both formats. That means about 66 ODIs and T20Is every 4 year cycle for each team. Again the top 2 can play off in a 3 match series for the championship.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
honestbharani said:
And for LO cricket, just have every team in the full member 12 play each other home and away iin min. 3 match series in both formats. That means about 66 ODIs and T20Is every 4 year cycle for each team. Again the top 2 can play off in a 3 match series for the championship.
Click to expand...
lol what?

We already have World Cups for LO cricket champions.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
Some Tests aren't actually part of the WTC, and sometimes teams are obviously out of contention mid-cycle.

Watch these games be used to trial and rotate players, or 'rebuild for the next cycle'. This is exactly what happened to ODIs just after World Cups, and then it gradually spread like a social contagion.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's fair. I guess relatively speaking the WTC isn't as bad in that respect as most World Cups, because it's a format where the majority of games are actually part of the "World Cup".

I totally agree that hyper-focus on World Cups is a negative (not a union fan but I see this as a major negative with the RWC where all other tests become preparation for the next RWC) but then I wouldn't want to see the end of World Cups either, so tbh I'm not sure what the answer is.
 
R

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
For me the biggest problem is that half the team is going to be different during the course of the tournament. In tournaments you pick a squad that stays until the end. For other sports leagues the competition lasts less than a year at most and you build the squad in the off-season. A lengthy test cricket league cycle necessitates that you can't really risk trying out new guys unless you just tank.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
thierry henry said:
Yeah that's fair. I guess relatively speaking the WTC isn't as bad in that respect as most World Cups, because it's a format where the majority of games are actually part of the "World Cup".

I totally agree that hyper-focus on World Cups is a negative (not a union fan but I see this as a major negative with the RWC where all other tests become preparation for the next RWC) but then I wouldn't want to see the end of World Cups either, so tbh I'm not sure what the answer is.
Click to expand...
I don't think we can put in the genie back in the bottle with World Cups - if we got rid of them I think ODIs would just die at this point. Probably worth the trade-off given how awesome they've always been as events anyway.

We were lucky with Test series because they already had their own inherent context. There might not have been as much hype for a NZ-Aus series as the Ashes or whatever, but if it looked like Australia were going to lose you can bet fans on both sides would be absolutely pumped for the next Test. If Aus had decided to rest five players because the series wasn't part of the WTC or because they didn't need the points though it'd be really hollow.

I will also add that if the #BigThree don't really care much about the WTC but the other teams do, it probably still doesn't really change much in a positive sense. NZ fans are usually pretty pumped for a series against Aus or India in a way the fans of the other team aren't... and that probably carries on to the WTC at the moment as well if there was that sort of matchup. I reckon NZ fans would be similarly as thrilled to beat India in India or Australia at all as they would be to win the WTC. I don't think there's really much upside in telling people normal Test series didn't have enough riding on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top