The Inaugural World Test Championship

[Burgey]

“We’re so far in front/ we’re cemented in X place/ we’re last anyway. Player welfare is paramount”, said Janes Sutherland as he walked out the door while Jolimont Street burned to the ground.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But the final will feel farcical if fans feel that both teams did not face a comparable set of challenges to make it there.

Yeah just using India as an example, depending on the scheduling you could practically guarantee that they'll win the thing, or conversely you could practically guarantee that they won't make the finals

Na, with cycles only having a home away disparity, it will make these statements even stronger. Scheduling is going to determine finalists in some iterations if the format stays the same.

Yeah was just about to say this. Using a 2 year cycle it actually enhances the importance of home v away.

 

[cnerd123]

Has anyone actually read the FTP yet?

https://www.icc-cricket.com/future-tours-and-events

The PDF file is better.

I'm reading it now. It's not great tbh. Lots of cricket scheduled for BD, which is good to see, but not much at all for Afghan and Ireland on initial reading.

 

[_Ed_]

the Windies are set to tour India, and New Zealand host Sri Lanka, both in July

Wait, what?

 

[Gnske]

I like that we get for Ireland vs Afghanistan next year 1 test, 5 ODIs and 3 T20Is

Excellent balance, the perfect series.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I like that we get for Ireland vs Afghanistan next year 1 test, 5 ODIs and 3 T20Is

Excellent balance, the perfect series.

Nah way too many Tests

 

[Daemon]

Who will host the World Test Championship final? - ESPNcricinfo

ESPNcricinfo has learned that there is a difference of opinion over where the final should be held. The ICC and most member boards have agreed that the first two finals - in 2021 and 2023 - should be held in the country where the game originated; for instance, New Zealand's FTP schedule for 2019-23, released by NZC on Wednesday, had the final pencilled in for June 2021, with England as the host.

The BCCI, however, is believed to be of the view that the final should be hosted by whichever team finishes at the top of the championship table at the cut-off date for championship matches - which is the end of March 2021 in the case of the inaugural edition.

I think I agree with the BCCI. Fair enough that the top team gets to have an advantage.

Issues of timing for the final led most countries to conclude that the English summer was the most practical place for the final to be played, potentially with a showpiece week at Lord's, the traditional home of the game. "Being a new concept and a Test match being a one-off, what we've decided and agreed is the best timing for the Championship playoff will be the June-July period," Sutherland said.

Good point as we all know it never rains in England in June

 

[harsh.ag]

Also, England will lose at Lord's so it's hardly home advantage.

 

[Borges]

Wouldn't the WC final be played at Lords? Food for thought for the English bovine.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Who will host the World Test Championship final? - ESPNcricinfo



I think I agree with the BCCI. Fair enough that the top team gets to have an advantage.



Good point as we all know it never rains in England in June

First time the BCCI is the voice of reason. Obviously the season thing is an issue but either the team on top should 100% get any home advantage, or it should be a neutral venue.

If England finish 2nd and India finish on top it would be extremely unfair for it to played in England.

 

[Starfighter]

Like England's gonna finish in the top two.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's just a hypothetical

 

[S.Kennedy]

The only way you'll fill up a Lord's finale if it includes Australia is if London's bar staff go on strike for five days coterminously.

 

[StephenZA]

Who will host the World Test Championship final? - ESPNcricinfo

I think I agree with the BCCI. Fair enough that the top team gets to have an advantage.

Good point as we all know it never rains in England in June

In all honestly it would be terrible if the host nation was SA (not saying SA will be no1!) Have to play it in CT only chance to get a full stadium, really. Of course if played in Eng, India or Aus no real problems. I am still a fan of having it at Lord's, to start at least.

 

[Bolo]

Having the winner get home advantage might seem like the most logical thing to do, but the scheduling is going to cause problems. Take two teams like AUS and India, who always beat each other at home. India is number 1, AUS number 3 in the world. If India plays away vs AUS only, they lose. This catapults AUS to number 1 in the period, so they play home and win again. Who hosts the first series now (to a fair degree) determines the result of that series, the group pool, the one off test, and the entire tournament.

In two year increments, it might be best to go neutral, which based on pitches and crowds should either be England or India.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Having the winner get home advantage might seem like the most logical thing to do, but the scheduling is going to cause problems. Take two teams like AUS and India, who always beat each other at home. India is number 1, AUS number 3 in the world. If India plays away vs AUS only, they lose. This catapults AUS to number 1 in the period, so they play home and win again. Who hosts the first series now (to a fair degree) determines the result of that series, the group pool, the one off test, and the entire tournament.

In two year increments, it might be best to go neutral, which based on pitches and crowds should either be England or India.

I'm not seeing what you're getting at here at all. The team would be playing at home because they finish on top. Therefore they deserve the advantage. If the final is Aus v Ind and it's in Australia, then it means Aus finished on top and deserve the advantage, and vice-versa.

The tour programme rotates anyway, so if Aus v Ind series is in Aus one time, it will be India the next.

 

[Bolo]

I'm not seeing what you're getting at here at all. The team would be playing at home because they finish on top. Therefore they deserve the advantage. If the final is Aus v Ind and it's in Australia, then it means Aus finished on top and deserve the advantage, and vice-versa.

The tour programme rotates anyway, so if Aus v Ind series is in Aus one time, it will be India the next.

They finish on top not because they deserve it, but because of scheduling.

Yes, the scheduling will rotate. All this means is that a different (less deserving) team could win it each time. Next rotation England could be the best with AUS still at 3. AUS only play England home, and win the tournament again. Cycles are not always going to even out because team strength is dynamic, and even if they did it still leaves a problem with each event.

 

[Bolo]

I'm not seeing what you're getting at here at all. The team would be playing at home because they finish on top. Therefore they deserve the advantage. If the final is Aus v Ind and it's in Australia, then it means Aus finished on top and deserve the advantage, and vice-versa.

The tour programme rotates anyway, so if Aus v Ind series is in Aus one time, it will be India the next.

They finish on top not because they deserve it, but because of scheduling.

Yes, the scheduling will rotate. All this means is that a different (less deserving) team could win it each time. Next rotation England could be the best with AUS still at 3. AUS only play England home, and win the tournament again. Cycles are not always going to even out because team strength is dynamic, and even if they did it still leaves a problem with each event.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They finish on top not because they deserve it, but because of scheduling.

Yes, the scheduling will rotate. All this means is that a different (less deserving) team could win it each time. Next rotation England could be the best with AUS still at 3. AUS only play England home, and win the tournament again. Cycles are not always going to even out because team strength is dynamic, and even if they did it still leaves a problem with each event.

Yeah I agree, I said the same thing earlier. Unless you make the final every 4-5 years though there's no way around it.

 

[Bolo]

Yeah I agree, I said the same thing earlier. Unless you make the final every 4-5 years though there's no way around it.

Which is probably not frequent enough for the ICC.

No way to completely get around the problem, but playing the final at a neutral venue- means it is substantially less impactful- while the two best teams may not qualify for the final the best of the two should win at a neutral venue