The Inaugural World Test Championship

[StephenZA]

In theory yes, in practice no

Thank goodness this was not around during the SL/SA tour...

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, think eventually it will come down to a "Win Series - X points, Draw Series - Y points" system. With some marginally extra points for margins of victory (4-1 better than 2-0). And maybe a few points for the series losing side winning a game or two.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thank goodness this was not around during the SL/SA tour...

good point

yet both sides would still have gotten more points from that series than England or Australia for this Ashes

Yeah, think eventually it will come down to a "Win Series - X points, Draw Series - Y points" system. With some marginally extra points for margins of victory (4-1 better than 2-0). And maybe a few points for the series losing side winning a game or two.

That's very sensible. Make the series result be what determines 80-90% of the points, and the margin of victory and results of individual tests be sort of "bonus points" worth 10-20%.

 

[StephenZA]

Yeah, think eventually it will come down to a "Win Series - X points, Draw Series - Y points" system. With some marginally extra points for margins of victory (4-1 better than 2-0). And maybe a few points for the series losing side winning a game or two.

The problem with this is that it does not encourage longer series against the 'smaller' teams. It effectively makes it better to have shorter series. At least in this manner, there is some encouragement to give a longer series to the 'smaller' teams, and also allows that the smaller teams to still be competitive in the championship if they win tests in those short series.

Ultimately, I can't really see a solution here as long as the bigger associations don't give enough tests to the smaller associations and are willing to compromise on some of the timetable structures.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's very sensible. Make the series result be what determines 80-90% of the points, and the margin of victory and results of individual tests be sort of "bonus points" worth 10-20%.

As a practical example of this, say comparing a 2-0 result from 2 Tests to a 2-1 result form 5 Tests:

Current system:
2-0 (2) = winner gets 120 pts
2-1 (5) = winner gets 48 pts

Proposed system:
2-0 (2) = 80 pts for series win + 20 pts for margin = 100 pts
2-1 (5) = 80 pts for series win + 10 pts for margin = 90 pts

Obviously made up the numbers a bit but the second would make a lot more sense IMO

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

This tournament is worth it just for the amount of waaaahs it generates.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This tournament is worth it just for the amount of waaaahs it generates.

It's really not tbh. That's like saying NZ getting screwed over by the rubbish tie rule was worth it for the lulz but it honestly wasn't for me.

 

[Spark]

People won't complain endlessly about it if they find the points system too silly. They just won't care, and this will be seen as a short-lived experiment rather than catching on.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

They're both funny and show how ridiculous cricket is.

 

[SteveNZ]

Stupid format that no one will give a **** about. Except potentially the team that wins it, and even then not really.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It will be funny if England finish second and India finish first, then they have to play the final in England and of course England win

 

[aussie tragic]

This would require the ashes and every other ad-hoc series to be cancelled. You will essentially have to wipe the slate clean and start over. But obviously the big 3 will not want to do that so we're back to square one.

Not really. ICC #1 India just played #8 WI and #4 Eng just played #5 Australia so all we need is #2 NZ to play #7 Pakistan and #3 South Africa to play #6 Sri Lanka and first round over....

...not sure what we do about Aus Eng 2-2 draw though...who's got the boundary count?

 

[Chewie]

Yep, WTC confirmed as crap.

India beat WI 2-0-0 and have 120 points
NZ tie SL 1-1-0 and have 60 points each
Aus tie Eng 2-2-1 and have 56 points each

I know which cricket efforts I rate the highest and they're currently ranked =4th in the WTC even though they've played 3 more tests than the teams ranked 1-3

I think this is perfectly fine and the problem is not with the points system but with the length of the series.

As a practical example of this, say comparing a 2-0 result from 2 Tests to a 2-1 result form 5 Tests:

Current system:
2-0 (2) = winner gets 120 pts
2-1 (5) = winner gets 48 pts

Proposed system:
2-0 (2) = 80 pts for series win + 20 pts for margin = 100 pts
2-1 (5) = 80 pts for series win + 10 pts for margin = 90 pts

Obviously made up the numbers a bit but the second would make a lot more sense IMO

If you win 2-1 in a 5 test series, the points are split 64 - 40

Which I think is not a problem - you win the series you get more points. Just because you scheduled a longer series doesn't mean you should get more points.

If a team won a series 3-2, I'd hate to be the team that won two games in a closely fought series and get 0 points.

 

[harsh.ag]

If a team won a series 3-2, I'd hate to be the team that won two games in a closely fought series and get 0 points.

It would work if the series losing side got points for the tests won.

 

[sunilz]

Not really. ICC #1 India just played #8 WI and #4 Eng just played #5 Australia so all we need is #2 NZ to play #7 Pakistan and #3 South Africa to play #6 Sri Lanka and first round over....

...not sure what we do about Aus Eng 2-2 draw though...who's got the boundary count?

RPW ratio in case teams have same points
https://www.wikiowl.com/enhttps:/wiki/Runs_Per_Wicket_Ratio

This is used in current WTC rankings.

 

[aussie tragic]

I've just read that the WTC final will be played at Lords, the rain capital of the cricket World, and that in the event of a draw the 2 teams will be joint champions.

Better than the team at top of table just needing a draw, but after all this we may still not end up with a WTC champion....really!

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The rain capital of the cricket world was obviously Bourda.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Which I think is not a problem - you win the series you get more points. Just because you scheduled a longer series doesn't mean you should get more points.

If a team won a series 3-2, I'd hate to be the team that won two games in a closely fought series and get 0 points.

Doesn't seem like you paid any attention to what I said. I've reiterated a couple of times now that I'm not suggesting that a longer series should be more points so I don't know where you've got that from.

Nor did I suggest at any stage that a losing team gets 0 points

 

[Flem274*]

bonus points would really help with this, similar to what you see in super rugby and itm cup.

under the 10 points win, 5 points drawn series system you could have 2 or 3 bonus points for narrow losses like rugby has for finishing within 7 points. a 3-2 scoreline for example could earn some bonus points.

similarly if you annihilate the opposition you could pick up bonus points like 4 tries earns in rugby.

 

[TheJediBrah]

bonus points would really help with this, similar to what you see in super rugby and itm cup.

under the 10 points win, 5 points drawn series system you could have 2 or 3 bonus points for narrow losses like rugby has for finishing within 7 points. a 3-2 scoreline for example could earn some bonus points.

similarly if you annihilate the opposition you could pick up bonus points like 4 tries earns in rugby.

much better than what we have now, ie. literally just giving points per Test match regardless of the result of the series