How About a Test Match World Cup?

[StUEy]

All the excitement of the One day International World Cup, most recently hosted and and well celebrated throughout South Africa, isn't it time for the ICC to organise a Test Match World Cup.

Guessing that the Test Match World Cup, would comprehensively cover a fair amount of the year, but it would add more passion and people into the game.

The best team would win the Test Match World Cup, would have achieved alot. Since a game can pe played between 5 days, the exhaustion and fitness would play a big role, for every eam but the best team would cope the best.

Australia has been the fore front of One Day International calender for the past 5 years, with them celebrating two World Cups, could they match that peak if the Test Match World Cup was introduced, or would their new rival India steal the Australians odds.

If a Test Match World Cup was introduced this year, which country do you think would win the tournament and why, and list the top 10 that you think would finish in their respective places from Winners (first) to 10.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Erm, if it were to be staged this year, then all those teams of yesterday are kind of irrelevant, now aren't they?

And how about no? You'll find no sane person interested in a test match world cup.

 

[Andre]

A Test match World Cup is a nice idea, but it's a logistical nightmare. Hence, it will never happen.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

because it would never happen,I voted that bangladesh would win.They would thrash everyone.

 

[Craig]

It would be great. But you would need to scrap about two/three months off the calender.

I figured it would be more of a knockout tournament, where if you lose or draw and lose on 1st innings points, you get knockedout out.

So the winners to play off in the quarter final with the number 1 ranked team from the final, the four teams then play off in the quarters, the two winners play each other in the semi final, then the winner plays the the no.1 ranked team in the final.

Thoughts?

 

[Prince EWS]

Ged, the years in brackets are referring to the year in which that country played its first test.

 

[Tim]

It won't happen in the forseeable future....the amount of matches required to find a winner means the amount of days required to play the event is huge.

 

[Mingster]

It would be great. But you would need to scrap about two/three months off the calender.

I figured it would be more of a knockout tournament, where if you lose or draw and lose on 1st innings points, you get knockedout out.

So the winners to play off in the quarter final with the number 1 ranked team from the final, the four teams then play off in the quarters, the two winners play each other in the semi final, then the winner plays the the no.1 ranked team in the final.

Thoughts?

Nasser Hussian would rule in this format. He would bat everyone out of the game and set negative fields.

 

[Craig]

However, that should be used in Tests affected by rain.

 

[Linda]

You'd be waiting 5 years for the result:rolleyes: :P

 

[Craig]

Why is that?

 

[Richard]

It looked like ICC had finally managed to take the need for a Test-match World Cup out of the equation, by officialising a sane Test Championship.
Sadly, they then had to mess it up again.
IMO a Test Championship in the Wisden and original ICC format, plus a ODI World Cup every 2 years, is the best idea. Plus a 12 or 14-year plan, rather than a 10-year one. That, if you ask me, would be the best way to balance cricket played and entertainment derived.

 

[marc71178]

I don't see the point in a Test Championship that would take months to show that Australia are the best team...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I don't see the point in a Test Championship that would take months to show that Australia are the best team...

Yup.

Who voted for England?

 

[marc71178]

That was by no mean sane when it ranked SA as number 1 in the world.

I really don't see why you felt the need to double post.

 

[Richard]

Odd indeed. Now corrected. :rolleyes: :duh:
It doesn't matter who was ranked number-one; the system worked on a consistent, transparent basis. The end doesn't de-justify the means. The means is what matters.
The current system is farcical, and works on fluctuating values. Often unreliable fluctuating values.
If Australia weren't one, they had no-one to blame but themselves.

 

[marc71178]

Actually this current rating is every bit as consistent and transparent IMO.

Just because the layman doesn't immediately understand it doesn't make it wrong.

If you took that attitude you'd replace D/L with a simple runs per over calculation.

 

[Craig]

That was by no mean sane when it ranked SA as number 1 in the world.

It isnt as though they didnt earn it.

After all they won in India, drew in Sri Lanka (Australia didnt in India and SRL), won in the Caribbean (Australia drew) and beat a New Zealand side deprived of its best players, Australia drew.

And get rid of this idea that Australia are some unbeatable force. Its that thinking why England havent won the Ashes in over 18 years.

 

[Richard]

Actually this current rating is every bit as consistent and transparent IMO.

Just because the layman doesn't immediately understand it doesn't make it wrong.

If you took that attitude you'd replace D/L with a simple runs per over calculation.

No, because anyone who knows the facts knows that D\L is in fact fairer than run-rate comparisons. In fact, in Wisden last year they referred to "the nice-and-simple scoring-rate method". I emailed them and asked why it was called that when "the nasty-and-simple scoring-rate method" would have been far more accurate and appropriate. Never know, they might print a correction in the one about to be released! :saint:
However, the current Championship has faults, not just complications. In awarding differing points for different games, it is inconsistent in a way that cannot IMO be justified. It might seem fairer to some; to me it seems less fair. Also, in taking account of every game it causes dead games to be reckoned upon. IMO series are a much better thing to use, regardless of the scoreline. A win is a win, whether it's 4-0 or 2-1.

 

[marc71178]

Come off it!

A 4-0 win in a series requires much more credit than a 2-1 does.