The Inaugural World Test Championship

[Victor Ian]

I see the only problem being the points awarded from draws. It doesnt matter if you play a short series or a long one if the points for the match are split with no loss of points in draws. If you play a short series you risk much more per test. If you play a longer series you risk less per test. Australia was not better than England so both teams should have gone home with 60 points. It is only the draws that messed with this.

I guess the problem with Draws is that they can be affected by weather. The longer the series, the more chance that two teams split points along the way, even when one is vastly superior. But again, that is just risk/reward for series length.

 

[CricAddict]

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

It is quite sad that Burgey is banned right now but I am genuinely eager to know his answer if he will rate Kohli ahead of Smith if India gets into the final of WTC and Kohli scores a century in it.

 

[Victor Ian]

It is quite sad that Burgey is banned right now but I am genuinely eager to know his answer if he will rate Kohli ahead of Smith if India gets into the final of WTC and Kohli scores a century in it.

It takes time for these kinds of things to be taken seriously. For instance, none of the first 3 world cups should count as no one realy gave a **** about them. The same thing applies to this WTC. If it is still a thing in 12 years, then maybe it will be worth something.

 

[Chewie]

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

How many points though?

I think one underlying question is whether the total points available to be split between the two teams in a series should be greater if the series is longer. If the answer is no, then the question becomes how do you split the amount of points available between the two teams

 

[harsh.ag]

How many points though?

I think one underlying question is whether the total points available to be split between the two teams in a series should be greater if the series is longer. If the answer is no, then the question becomes how do you split the amount of points available between the two teams

The total points available could be more in a longer series but with maximum limits set for fairness. So, a 3-2 (5 match series) win would give the winning side the same number of points as 2-1 (3 match series) winners, while still being able to give the losers of 3-2 more points than the losers of 2-1.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It takes time for these kinds of things to be taken seriously. For instance, none of the first 3 world cups should count as no one realy gave a **** about them. The same thing applies to this WTC. If it is still a thing in 12 years, then maybe it will be worth something.

What a ludicrous statement. Presumably they only count from when Australia started winning them.

 

[Victor Ian]

What a ludicrous statement. Presumably they only count from when Australia started winning them.

Yep - You get it. Also counts now, So England are equal with India on relevant world cups.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yep - You get it. Also counts now, So England are equal with India on relevant world cups.

Even not counting the first 3 India have won twice as many World Cups as England. 1 v 0.5

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Agnew has already started with the BS saying England should blood youngsters in New Zealand because the matches don't have points riding on them. I really hope that is never factored in to selection meetings.

 

[the big bambino]

said without a trace of concern for the host country. NZ should just call off the series if England treat it as a Lions tour.

 

[Starfighter]

In fairness, NZC don't exactly treat test tours seriously themselves.


England need to play youngsters because the likes of Roy and Buttler are not viable long term options.

 

[the big bambino]

Ah fair enough. I may have misunderstood Agnew's point. If he is saying youngsters should come in then that is fine. I thought he was alluding to England resting their best players and playing youngsters ahead of them. Sending a second rate side.

 

[Flem274*]

if england do that then if nz aren't up to kill an opponent they never will be. first the jammy world cup umpire assisted tie for england, then that?

break them

i expect it to be a close series tbh. england have their problems but they also have several players who could win the game by themselves.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Agnew said England have the opportunity to blood youngsters because there are no points at stake. We need to try new players because the batting is substandard, but the points not being at stake shouldn’t come into it. There’s no necessity to rest players to get them in. The top 7 is full of holes.

 

[Bahnz]

I see the only problem being the points awarded from draws. It doesnt matter if you play a short series or a long one if the points for the match are split with no loss of points in draws. If you play a short series you risk much more per test. If you play a longer series you risk less per test. Australia was not better than England so both teams should have gone home with 60 points. It is only the draws that messed with this.

I guess the problem with Draws is that they can be affected by weather. The longer the series, the more chance that two teams split points along the way, even when one is vastly superior. But again, that is just risk/reward for series length.

I can see the logic in awarding less points for draws though. The same principle holds in a lot of competitions where draws are a frequent result - it's to discourage teams from playing highly defensive lineups. The last thing you want is to see heavily outmatched sides playing 9 specialist batsmen in the hope they'll scrape out some points from a bore draw.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ah fair enough. I may have misunderstood Agnew's point. If he is saying youngsters should come in then that is fine. I thought he was alluding to England resting their best players and playing youngsters ahead of them. Sending a second rate side.

Any side England send will be second rate tbf

 

[NZTailender]

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

The frankly average efforts of the teams ranked 4 & 5? The only thing world class in that otherwise poor quality series was Smith, one innings by Stokes and some seam bowlers feasting on average techniques.

if you want to find an argument for why some sides deserve more points in a longer series vs shorter series, rating the efforts of the teams involved probably isn't it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The frankly average efforts of the teams ranked 4 & 5? The only thing world class in that otherwise poor quality series was Smith, one innings by Stokes and some seam bowlers feasting on average techniques.

Hard truths. Steve Smith should break away and form his own Test playing nation and he'd be ranked higher than both England and Australia

 

[the big bambino]

I think calling the (batting) techniques average is flattering.

 

[aussie tragic]

I've read online that some people are questioning why not have longer series, but just count the first 2-3 tests for WTC points. Interestingly, this would give the following if the Ashes followed that process.

2 Tests (points 60/0/20): Aus 1-0-1 Eng: points Aus 80 Eng 20
3 Tests (points 40/0/13): Aus 1-1-1 Eng: points Aus 53 Eng 53
4 Tests (points 30/0/10): Aus 2-1-1 Eng: points Aus 70 Eng 40
5 Tests (points 24/0/8): Aus 2-2-1 Eng: points Aus 56 Eng 56

So I guess this proves that all Ashes series in future should be only 2 Tests in order to identify the real World Test Champions