The Inaugural World Test Championship

[TheJediBrah]

First innings lead is a bit of a crap tie-breaker. What's to stop teams batting on and on in the second innings of the match if they've crossed the side batting first, with no intention of going for the result at all? In fact, we'd even see teams reluctant to declare at 600/4 batting first, they'd go on to try and get 850.

Why does a team who made 850 all out deserve to win against the one who made 750/6 and ran out of time?

Ok but think about that for a second. Is that really a realistic issue? How often in Test matches do we actually have a situation where a team making 850 is actually on the cards?

No tiebreaker is going to be perfect but the issue you've identified with this one is so unlikely that it's virtually rendered irrelevant.

ftr I really like h-hurricanes "super wicket" idea. So much that it's got me annoyed that it's probably never going to happen. It would so tense.

 

[vcs]

Ok but think about that for a second. Is that really a realistic issue? How often in Test matches do we actually have a situation where a team making 850 is actually on the cards?

No tiebreaker is going to be perfect but the issue you've identified with this one is so unlikely that it's virtually rendered irrelevant.

ftr I really like h-hurricanes "super wicket" idea. So much that it's got me annoyed that it's probably never going to happen. It would so tense.

Not particularly common but you are basically guaranteeing that results like Adelaide 2003 and 2006 never happen.

 

[Chewie]

See, problem solved

timeless tests~!

hmm

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not particularly common but you are basically guaranteeing that results like Adelaide 2003 and 2006 never happen.

That's true. It still seems like the most practical option with the smallest problem though.

(not including super wicket)

 

[Jezroy]

This will never happen - but would love 2 pools of 5 teams each.

Each team in each pool gets 4 games. And also a bye each.

With the 2 pools, you can make sure that there is cricket (scheduled) each day.

Play 5 days on, 3 days off - keeping in mind that some games would finish in 4 days or less, so there will be some rest.

Round Robin would take around 38 days.

Then semis and final.

Whole thing would be about 8 weeks I guess? That's another reason why it wouldn't happen like that.

I used to like the 4 pools of 3 idea, with the top from each group going to semis. But I guess if you're only playing 2 games in the group stage, there's more of a chance of having a bad day and there being an upset.

NZ would be good at that format since we're so used to two test series.

Going off the current rankings - 12 team format would have the following pools

IND, AUS, BAN
NZ, SL, AFG
SA, PAK, ZIM
ENG, WI, IRE

But we all know Pakistan and India would end up in the same pool...

10 team format you'd get something like

IND, SA, AUS, PAK, BAN
NZ, ENG, SL, WI, AFG

Man I'd love that 10 team tournament. Could cut it down to 8 teams I guess, but no byes, and no Bangladesh (or West Indies... depending on who's ahead)

 

[morgieb]

Why does a team who made 850 all out deserve to win against the one who made 750/6 and ran out of time?

I think in that case the "first-innings lead" tiebreaker should be made redundant and the team that's further ahead on the league ladder goes through.

Still has there ever been a match where 5 days was not enough for both teams to bat once? (discounting rain instances)

EDIT: Actually super wicket makes sense.

 

[morgieb]

Timeless tests are a much simpler answer. Since no game is likely to go past Day 6 anyway.

Yeah I think at least the final should be timeless. Only worry is that we might see that infamous Cape Town game where they have to abandon the game after 10 days of play. Admittedly it's very unlikely but I do worry that Melbourne-esque roads might be encouraged too much.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I think at least the final should be timeless. Only worry is that we might see that infamous Cape Town game where they have to abandon the game after 10 days of play. Admittedly it's very unlikely but I do worry that Melbourne-esque roads might be encouraged too much.

Can you imagine how mentally ****ed you'd be after 7-8 days of straight cricket

 

[Daemon]

Can you imagine how mentally ****ed you'd be after 7-8 days of straight cricket

Imagine getting a pair and fielding for 5 days

 

[srbhkshk]

Imagine getting a pair and fielding for 5 days

Imagine doing that without a pair.

 

[Daemon]

Imagine doing that without a pair.

Women play tests too you know

 

[srbhkshk]

Women play tests too you know

Not the timeless ones.

 

[FBU]

13 October 2019

India 200 (4)
NZ 60 (2)
SL 60 (2)
Aus 56 (5)
Eng 56 (5)
SA 0 (2)
WI 0 (2)

 

[Daemon]

So the scheduling wasn’t fair, number of series too few, points table got dicked by the rona etc but is anyone else quite excited by this now that it’s on the horizon?

There’s been a bit of buzz about the various permutations which I find quite enjoyable.

I also probably wouldn’t have enjoyed watching Abbass and Naseem block 10 overs yesterday as much if it wasn’t for this.

 

[aussie tragic]

...but is anyone else quite excited by this now that it’s on the horizon?

Nah, Australia vs New Zealand at Lords just seems weird, especially since it's two practically Covid free nations having to go to heavily infected England.

If India get 2nd, play it in Adelaide under lights

 

[aussie tragic]

Seriously though it's too complicated now to work out who makes the final. As an example.

If 3rd placed NZ beat Pak in 2nd Test, they will have 420 points from 600 available (so 0.70). This means they can move to 2nd if in the last 2 Aus-Ind tests:

(1) Aus would need 1L, 1D (0.69) or 2L (0.67) to drop below NZ and India. Aus only need to draw both Tests to stay above NZ and India (Aus would be 0.71, India 0.68)

(2) India needs at least a win and a draw (0.72) to top the table. A win and a loss (0.70) would have them equal 2nd with NZ. 2 losses for India would have them 3rd way back with 0.65 fighting it out with Eng.

Of course if NZ don't win 2nd Test vs Pak, they drop to 0.60 for loss or 0.63 for draw. Even if one of Aus/Ind lost both Tests, NZ would still be below Aus (0.67) and India (0.65)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just make it a knockout tournament like the World Cup but with no group stage IMO

 

[Bahnz]

Worked out the scenarios for Aus to qualify in the NZ v PAK thread. Basically If they win this series 3-1, they just need just a 1-1 draw in SA, 2-1 and they need to win in SA with any scoreline, 2-2 and they need 2-1 in SA, 1-2 and they need 2-0, 1-3 and they need 3-0.

India I think need 4 wins out of their remaining 6 tests (which given they have a 4 test series at home v England that should be a doddle).

 

[Daemon]

4 test series at home v England

This may not even go ahead though

 

[James]

Nah, Australia vs New Zealand at Lords just seems weird, especially since it's two practically Covid free nations having to go to heavily infected England.

If India get 2nd, play it in Adelaide under lights

Totally agree. But if it's Australia v NZ, would rather it be at the Basin Reserve. Perhaps because of Covid, whoever finishes 1 has their choice of destination.

Worked out the scenarios for Aus to qualify in the NZ v PAK thread. Basically If they win this series 3-1, they just need just a 1-1 draw in SA, 2-1 and they need to win in SA with any scoreline, 2-2 and they need 2-1 in SA, 1-2 and they need 2-0, 1-3 and they need 3-0.

India I think need 4 wins out of their remaining 6 tests (which given they have a 4 test series at home v England that should be a doddle).

I assume this is subject to a 2-0 NZ series win though. Do you know what needs to happen if it finished 1-0 or 1-1?