thierry henry
International Coach
Yeah agree. Like, NZ beating up Bangladesh at home was "JAM thrashing of Bangladesh" until they beat us, which was a big ****ing problem
-
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?
- Thread starter loterry1994
- Start date
loterry1994
International Debutant
my problem isn’t with the teams in it but still how much matches and series the teams play and also whether it’s 2 match series or 3 or 5. I’m looking back at the first world test championship now the finalists,you had india played 17 and won 12 they had a 4 match series against aus and England. While New Zealand played only 11 games and mainly 2 match series most the way except against Australia.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
There's definitely no way to fix it without basically deleting Test cricket as we know it, which we definitely shouldn't.
loterry1994
International Debutant
They just need to re think the scheduling of it And that’s whole problem with it. There isn’t 100% fairness in the wtc and they can’t make the matches and series more similar between all teams cause of money and the big 3. I think there should be a thing where the other teams have to face at least 1 the big 3 in at least a 3 or 4 match series each cycle. The way like half the teams in the championship only play like 10 matches and mainly 2 match series just doesn’t cut it, and they could for sure change that I mean you have summers in most countries and they’ll just play 2 tests series and then the week after they’re facing another country in a two test series.
And I disagree with some people saying the teams outside the big three find this competition more important to them. I think they all feel around the same about it they’d still rather win an away series in a tough country to do it in a 4-5 match series than win this.
India for example just lost this I don’t think they’re hurting about it as much with the amount of times they’ve beaten Australia recently home and away
Athlai
Not Terrible
Who are you even speaking for
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
John Ruddick obviously.
-
Me, you idiot. I posted my opinion. Why does it have to be on behalf of someone else?
thierry henry
International Coach
Athlai why have you trapped yourself in a self-imposed Nietzschean JAMhellscape. Let it mean something my bro.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, Test series automatically take on meaning when their result is in doubt.
Aus vs WI was huge for ages because it was the best two teams in a close series. Once WI stopped being good it stopped mattering as much, but if they built up a good side and won the first Test of a series, it'd be huge again immediately.
The one exception to this is the Ashes in Australia. But **** the Ashes in Australia. Should be banned.
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
In an ideal situation every Test nation would be part if the World Test championship in some form or another.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Our 1949 side to England was one of our best ever: Cowie, Donnelly, Walter Hadlee, Sutcliffe, young John Reid etc. Mid 50s teams otoh were terrible
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
This would just result in fewer countries getting Test status.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think the downsides of the WTC in terms of potentially creating JAMTests where results are inconsequential are outweighed by the extra meaning it will bring to tests where a team is still in the hunt.
Comparing it to ODIs and how they’ve lost meaning is not fair. JAMODIS exist because they are entirely inconsequential, from the beginning of a WC cycle right to the end. This is not the case for WTC games where it will only apply to teams midway or at the latter stages of the cycle. And even then as long as one team has something on the line (it could even be a third team that’s not even playing), it’ll add meaning.
Yes there are tests that are not counted towards the tally but it’s likely a small proportion.
Comparing it to ODIs and how they’ve lost meaning is not fair. JAMODIS exist because they are entirely inconsequential, from the beginning of a WC cycle right to the end. This is not the case for WTC games where it will only apply to teams midway or at the latter stages of the cycle. And even then as long as one team has something on the line (it could even be a third team that’s not even playing), it’ll add meaning.
Yes there are tests that are not counted towards the tally but it’s likely a small proportion.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
I can agree with that.
thierry henry
International Coach
Everything is inconsequential, certainly all sport, if that's how you want to see it. If "meaning" can only be derived from a match being part of a World Cup or league structure then we've already lost our way.
It's one nation battling another to establish which nation consists of better human beings ffs
Flem274*
123/5
The WTC forces big money boards (and boards who think they're clever or boards who only see dollars) to actually play the damn game rather than kill it for what they think will be a never ending money printer in T20.
I guess you could say the WTC is a roundabout answer to the greatest threat to the game - our own cricket boards. NZC like to claim they lose 700k per game but never open the books for us to have a look, yet magic up money for things like equal pay (good) and the Ramiz Raja extortion racket (bad).
If the WTC convinces very middle aged and very boring men who are passionate about things like double stock bond profit revenues that test cricket is great then I'm all for it. Also, world championships are fun and I will not be ashamed of liking them. You can't hide not liking new things because Change Is Bad behind traditionalism.
I guess you could say the WTC is a roundabout answer to the greatest threat to the game - our own cricket boards. NZC like to claim they lose 700k per game but never open the books for us to have a look, yet magic up money for things like equal pay (good) and the Ramiz Raja extortion racket (bad).
If the WTC convinces very middle aged and very boring men who are passionate about things like double stock bond profit revenues that test cricket is great then I'm all for it. Also, world championships are fun and I will not be ashamed of liking them. You can't hide not liking new things because Change Is Bad behind traditionalism.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah, all the meaning here is entirely artificial. There's really no natural or inherent meaning to someone winning a ****ing cricket game.
We're essentially discussing here how it can be artificially created.
I think the ICC creating contrived lop-sided leagues for a format most people already read artificial meaning into the results of is a bad way to do that. But your mileage may vary.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
They could create the FTP without the league.
I love the binding matchups. I had the points table.