OMG, Another Boring Test Champs Thread

[Goughy]

See the title

Im putting forward an idea that can be planned out in advance, run over a 2 year period (or so), allows every team the chance to win and still allow teams to play other series against the teams of their choice.

Simply take the rankings from a set date. Starting from the bottom, the bottom 2 teams would play a 3 match series, the winner would travel to the next ranked, the winner then travels to the next etc until the last remaining team plays the no. 1 ranked team in a 5 match series for the title.

After the final the new rankings would be used (the Champ not nec #1 ranked) and the process continues for the next 'season'.

So using todays rankings

1 India
2 South Africa
3 Australia
4 Sri Lanka
5 England
6 New Zealand
7 Pakistan
8 West Indies
9 Bangladesh

Series 1- Bang in WI
Series 2- Winner S1 vs Pak (neutral location)
Series 3- Winner S2 in NZ
Series 4- Winner S3 in Eng
Series 5- Winner S4 in SL
Series 6- Winner S5 in Aus
Series 7- Winner S6 in SA
Championship Series- Winner S7 in India

 

[G.I.Joe]

A ladder championship. I like the idea of India having to win just one series every two years to retain the #1 ranking

EDIT: Use the championship rankings for the next round, that is.

 

[Jarquis]

Winner stays on?

 

[Goughy]

Winner stays on?

Yeah and if you want a crack at #1 then you need to earn it.

Winning the Champ does not automaticaly have you at #1 in the rankings for the next round but it does give you the title.

 

[wpdavid]

A ladder championship. I like the idea of India having to win just one series every two years to retain the #1 ranking

And one home series at that.
If it's drawn, do they keep the title as well?

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah and if you want a crack at #1 then you need to earn it.

Winning the Champ does not automaticaly have you at #1 in the rankings for the next round but it does give you the title.

Does't your last sentence require there to be something like the current system to determine rankings then?

 

[G.I.Joe]

If there's a current system to determine the rankings for the next championship, it only confuses the picture. Who's the best team in the world? The winner of the championship or the #1 side according to the rankings?

Could someone apply this retrospectively, from say the 95 series between Aus and WI? Obviously needn't follow a 2 year timeframe, but it'd be interesting to note how many championships of this description would have been played from then ?

 

[Goughy]

If there's a current system to determine the rankings for the next championship, it only confuses the picture. Who's the best team in the world? The winner of the championship or the #1 side according to the rankings?

People must be easily confused then.

Rankings are for ranking, the title is for the title.

In most sports the rankings are seperate from the World Champs and it is possible to be World Champs without being ranked #1. We could also always look at cricket where the OD WC winners do not have to be ranked #1.

Look at the World Cup and the FIFA rankings for another example.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, but test cricket is unique in that we only have one best team at a time. ODI cricket works differently in that no one cares about the ICC rankings, but we do care about the world cup. I do think a ladder championship is a great idea and has the potential to inject meaning into some dull matchups, but then scrap the rankings imo.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah, but test cricket is unique in that we only have one best team at a time. ODI cricket works differently in that no one cares about the ICC rankings, but we do care about the world cup. I do think a ladder championship is a great idea and has the potential to inject meaning into some dull matchups, but then scrap the rankings imo.

Think of the rankings as we have them now as 'seeding' and the #1 being the number 1 seed rather than being ranked #1 in the world.