Test World Championship

[BoyBrumby]

World Cups have ruined Tests matches in Soccer and Rugby Union lets hope it never comes to cricket

I don't think WCs have done any harm to international football, as we don't have test matches, just friendlies, which nobody tends to give a **** about.

As GIMH says there's never really been a concept of "tests" in football per se (although England's obsession with the world cup and European championships has cost us the British championships), but there's no doubt in my mind that the WC in union has devalued non-WC tests (even those played in the 6 Nations & Tri-Nations) because the Webb Ellis trophy is seen as the ultimate prize. SA (now world champs) fielded weakened teams in their antipodean Tri-nations games this year & who's to say the end didn't justify the means? It would be a massive pity if cricket went the same way. Tests are quite special enough (IMHO, obv) without the need for some spurious world championship tournament.

 

[Neil Pickup]

In the length of time they took over the last ODI World Cup they could almost have a played a straight knock-out Test World Cup.

Never mind the almost, they could have.

 

[welshplato]

I understand the general view that a proper cricket WC would de-value regular test matches - but remember, I'm only advocating such a competition once every 4 years. The arguments about football and rugby don't really hold much water do they. In football, we are told that the primacy of the WC has cost us the British Championship - I can't think that is such a loss is it? Was that tournement ever better than the WC? And in rugby, S.Africa's decision to play a weakened team - we are talking about 2 matches in 4 years! And, as a Welshman, I can tell you that there was not one person in my country who was thinking about the WC when we won the Grand Slam in 2005 - not one. I was also there in the 70's when we last won the Grand Slam, and when there were no rugby WC's - the celebrations were absolutely no different - indeed, they were probably greater in 05, because it was so unexpected.
Secondly, many people have said that Tests are special enough - that we don't need a WC (I don't quite understand why it would be 'spurious'). Yes, tests are special, yes they are the greatest 'test' the sport has. But why should that mean we can't have a WC every 4 years? I want a WC of tests - because they are special, and because we don't have a meaningful competition at the top of our sport - which seems to me ridiculous.
Test cricket is under threat from the shorter forms - a WC would give it the impetus and credibility it needs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I understand the general view that a proper cricket WC would de-value regular test matches - but remember, I'm only advocating such a competition once every 4 years. The arguments about football and rugby don't really hold much water do they. In football, we are told that the primacy of the WC has cost us the British Championship - I can't think that is such a loss is it? Was that tournement ever better than the WC? And in rugby, S.Africa's decision to play a weakened team - we are talking about 2 matches in 4 years! And, as a Welshman, I can tell you that there was not one person in my country who was thinking about the WC when we won the Grand Slam in 2005 - not one. I was also there in the 70's when we last won the Grand Slam, and when there were no rugby WC's - the celebrations were absolutely no different - indeed, they were probably greater in 05, because it was so unexpected.
Secondly, many people have said that Tests are special enough - that we don't need a WC (I don't quite understand why it would be 'spurious'). Yes, tests are special, yes they are the greatest 'test' the sport has. But why should that mean we can't have a WC every 4 years? I want a WC of tests - because they are special, and because we don't have a meaningful competition at the top of our sport - which seems to me ridiculous.
Test cricket is under threat from the shorter forms - a WC would give it the impetus and credibility it needs.

Quite a few points there:

1) The British Championship was quite a big deal as I remember it from my long-vanished childhood; the obvious correlation being union's 5/6 Nations without France and Italy. No-one is claiming that it was as important as the world cup or European nations tournament, but then the 6 Nations isn't as important as the union WC and I think that would definitely be a loss to our sporting calendar. It was certainly rather more interesting than the surfeit of meaningless international friendlies we have currently that clog up our fixture list and annoy club managers. Plus, of course, England used to occasionally win...

2) Wales definitely did have an eye on the WC in the warm-up "test" v England @ Twickers this year. A second/third choice team shipped a record score, which is exactly the kind of devaluing of the concept of tests I was referring too. In fact, were it not for the WC, there's no way England would have been playing the Welsh in the northern hemisphere summer.

3) It'd be spurious because everyone knows who are the quote-unquote test "world champions" already. Australia's pre-eminence has been established over the preceding years & series. World cups may give us a world champion, but does anyone seriously think that Italy are the best football team? A test world championship could throw up similar anomalies .

4) If test cricket is under siege from its illegitimate offspring I think that's more because of the nature of the format conflicting with people's lifestyles and, ultimately, the subcontinental TV stations' demand for the abbreviated formats. In England (& Australia from what I can see) at least test cricket's standing as the gold-standard of the sport is still undisputed.

 

[Goughy]

Quite a few points there:

1) The British Championship was quite a big deal as I remember it from my long-vanished childhood; the obvious correlation being union's 5/6 Nations without France and Italy. No-one is claiming that it was as important as the world cup or European nations tournament, but then the 6 Nations isn't as important as the union WC and I think that would definitely be a loss to our sporting calendar. It was certainly rather more interesting than the surfeit of meaningless international friendlies we have currently that clog up our fixture list and annoy club managers. Plus, of course, England used to occasionally win...

A primary reason for its cancelation was its history of crowd violence and scrapping it had half an eye on reducing the violence that went hand in hand with this tournament.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A primary reason for its cancelation was its history of crowd violence and scrapping it had half an eye on reducing the violence that went hand in hand with this tournament.

Not too sure about that. The England v Scotland fixture continued for a few years after the Home International Championships were scrapped and the Scots invasion of Wembley was the greatest source of trouble.

 

[kiwipostereborn]

Well, I seem to have got my answer if these replys represent anything. I can't believe that people would prefer the ridiculously arcane rolling Test Championship - be it Engel's or the ICC. But the fact that a major chunk of the discussion revolved around the virtues or not of 1-0, 2-0 or 5-0 series wins shows how out of touch many cricket fans are. Nobody outside the very precious centre of cricket cares! Furthermore, nobody outside cricket knows or cares about the rolling Test Champ.
Other people seem to think that any kind of World Cup - any kind of formal competition would be bad for cricket. Can you name me any other sport at all that doesn't have a World Champ? Don't tell me, they are all wrong, and cricket has got it right!
And yes, it was palpably obvious to everyone that the Rugby WC was the best thing that has happened to their sport since...well, the last WC probably.
Cricket is a sport. Sport implies competition. Competition implies discovering who is the best.
Without a proper World Cup we are left with the 1 Day and 20-20 formats. They might be fun, but they don't tell us who are the best Test cricketers, and they don't represent the sport very well. Once again I say, cricket needs a Test World Cup.

I disagree with you. Who cares if people who aren't fans don't care anyway?
I think a rolling championship would be great, top ranked team keeps it until someone can take it from them. like a heavy weight championship but losing one test/series doesnt mean you lose it. Its all down to rankings.

You say having a world championship will prove who the best test side is, well thats rubbish, winning a football world cup only shows you played the best in knockout games, not that you were the best. And rugby world cups are awesome but since it started the game on the whole has gotten worse with teams resting players in between, anyway we already have an odi world cup which is just like a Rugby world cup imo.

Anyway, People who dont like test cricket wont start liking it just because there is a world cup.

Sport is about finding who the best is consistently and we already know that in Test cricket.

I would love like a official trophy to be given to the no 1 ranked side.
Also the acheivements possible are limitless, in a world cup you can only win it- then its finished. If its based on rankings there is more you can achieve like how long you can hold on to that trophy for etc.

 

[Goughy]

Not too sure about that. The England v Scotland fixture continued for a few years after the Home International Championships were scrapped and the Scots invasion of Wembley was the greatest source of trouble.

Its probably my fault. Obviously they are not the same but I consider the Rous Cup as a form of continuation of the Home Nations.

The England-Scotland fixture continued for another five years but was beset by biennial bouts of English hooliganism in Glasgow before being abandoned after 1989.

Interesting (and something I didnt know until now) was that the Home International Championship was beset by poor attendance at the end. It was seen as carrying little value in a changed envionment.

In its last year less than 15 000 watched Wales beat England in Wrexham, less than 8 000 watched Wales draw with Northern Ireland in Swansea and only 24 000 watched England beat Northern Ireland at Wembley.

Its time had passed

 

[welshplato]

On the Home Internationals being sadly missed, and it's demise being the fault of World Cups, Goughy took the words out of my mouth - and backed it with research.

Interesting (and something I didnt know until now) was that the Home International Championship was beset by poor attendance at the end. It was seen as carrying little value in a changed envionment.

In its last year less than 15 000 watched Wales beat England in Wrexham, less than 8 000 watched Wales draw with Northern Ireland in Swansea and only 24 000 watched England beat Northern Ireland at Wembley.

Its time had passed

I don't think any comparison can be made between that and the Six Nations. Maybe in the future, if and when rugby becomes truly global, the 6 Nations will diminish - but that will be the nature of sporting evolution.
As far as the Welsh debacle at Twickers before the WC - I thnk Boybrumby answered his own question - it was a warm up match - just like you get in cricket - and as such must be taken with a pinch of salt. Do you remember the warm up games before the cricket WC?
It has no real implications for this discussion.
As far as my arguing for a test WC because it will produce the best team - as Kiwiposter says, that's stupid. I did apologise for implying that in discussion with Richard earlier in the thread.
But to say that makes a WC 'spurious' is a different matter. On that view, all World Championships in all sports are spurious - unless they come up with the commonly accepted best team. All golf majors are spurious unless Tiger Woods wins, all Olympic winners, all Wimbledon winners, etc., etc.
The point is that a test WC would be great - Full Stop. Just like the Rugby WC, the Football WC, the Olympics - like all the major sporting events. We haven't got one in cricket.
Kiwipostereborn's point about the rolling champ. is fine. Why can't we have both? Indeed, my WC draw would be based on the rolling champ. rankings. Once again, my WC would only take 1 season in every four.
I really think such a WC would attract more people to the sport - maybe not those who actively don't like cricket, but plenty of floating sports fans I believe. I repeat, if last year's Eng v Ind series were a WC match, don't tell me it wouldn't have garnered much more interest.
Finally, I think that 3 match test series (you'd need to win 4 series in a row under my system) are far less likely to produce freak winners - and that if we'd had a WC over the last decade, my bet is that the Aussies would have won everytime.

 

[andruid]

Some of the Ideas here were in this tread anybody think they are viable

 

[BoyBrumby]

On the Home Internationals being sadly missed, and it's demise being the fault of World Cups, Goughy took the words out of my mouth - and backed it with research.

Interesting (and something I didnt know until now) was that the Home International Championship was beset by poor attendance at the end. It was seen as carrying little value in a changed envionment.

In its last year less than 15 000 watched Wales beat England in Wrexham, less than 8 000 watched Wales draw with Northern Ireland in Swansea and only 24 000 watched England beat Northern Ireland at Wembley.

Its time had passed

I don't think any comparison can be made between that and the Six Nations. Maybe in the future, if and when rugby becomes truly global, the 6 Nations will diminish - but that will be the nature of sporting evolution.

Hooliganism (& doubtless money too considering the poor attendances) may have been a factor; but ultimately the Home Internationals ended because England (in full-on perfidious Albion mode) resigned. Our FA thought we'd grown too big for it &, by extention, too big for our celtic neighbours.

It's hardly unbiased, but here's the Northern Irish take on the end of the championship: Linky.

"The excuse at the time was that England and Scotland wanted more competitive opposition, basically England and Scotland thought they were too good for us."

As far as the Welsh debacle at Twickers before the WC - I thnk Boybrumby answered his own question - it was a warm up match - just like you get in cricket - and as such must be taken with a pinch of salt. Do you remember the warm up games before the cricket WC?
It has no real implications for this discussion.

It was a cap international, so by definition a test match. I may be wrong but I don't even think the pre-WC games had List A status.

It's hardly the only example of a weakened team being fielded in a test because of the WC either, I just used it because: a) you appear to be Welsh; & b) I was there. £55 I paid for me ticket too....

But to say that makes a WC 'spurious' is a different matter. On that view, all World Championships in all sports are spurious - unless they come up with the commonly accepted best team. All golf majors are spurious unless Tiger Woods wins, all Olympic winners, all Wimbledon winners, etc., etc.

To be fair, winning majors in golf or grand slam tournaments in tennis doesn't make you "world champion", it makes you the US PGA winner or the French Open winner.

All of the other sports are rather more truncated affairs too; their brevity lends them to tournaments. Test cricket is different; a single test series between two nations can extend over 30 days' of cricket. A grand slam tennis tournament whittles a field of 128 down to a winner in a fortnight.

My big worry would be that tests would become divided into "world cup" & "non world cup" and clearly it doesn't take too big a leap of imagination to see where boards' priorities are going to lie.

The point is that a test WC would be great - Full Stop. Just like the Rugby WC, the Football WC, the Olympics - like all the major sporting events. We haven't got one in cricket.

It could be great, but quite equally it could end up like the ODI WC which, I think it's fair to say, was somewhat less than great.

 

[welshplato]

I think it's been a good discussion, and I take on board many of the points made.
Test cricket is special, it is the gold standard of our sport.
A WC might undermine non WC Tests.
The examples of rugby and football haven't been entirely sucessful - their WC's have undoubtedly led to negative tactics in both sports.
A WC would not necessarily find the best team.
And finally, I have to accept, if this thread is in any way representative, that a test WC is not a popular idea.
One day I'm sure it will happen - and then I'll start another thread, either saying 'I told you so' or 'you lot were right all along'.
For now, I'm really looking forward to Aus v SL tonight, even if it's only for the 'Warne - Muralitharan Trophy'. The Aussies will probably win, but you never know - if Jayasuriya is in the mood and Jayawardene and Sangakkara rediscover the form we all know they're capable of... We could be seeing the start of the changing of the guard.

 

[wpdavid]

Hooliganism (& doubtless money too considering the poor attendances) may have been a factor; but ultimately the Home Internationals ended because England (in full-on perfidious Albion mode) resigned. Our FA thought we'd grown too big for it &, by extention, too big for our celtic neighbours.

It's hardly unbiased, but here's the Northern Irish take on the end of the championship: Linky.

"The excuse at the time was that England and Scotland wanted more competitive opposition, basically England and Scotland thought they were too good for us."

That sounds about right. I had wondered when I read Goughy's stats for attendances, but by the sound of it, the TV rights was the thing. To be fair to Ingerland, it was the Scots who pulled out as well. On purely footballing grounds, you can see why the FA & SFA wanted to free up the fixture list to play games against non-British sides, but it did smack of ingratitude given how much our league had benefited from Celts over the years. I wondered at the time if playing games alternating between Wales & NI each year might have been a decent solution, but obviously that never happened. Of course, with the ridiculous number of qualifying games nowadays, it would be out of the question.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it's been a good discussion, and I take on board many of the points made.
Test cricket is special, it is the gold standard of our sport.
A WC might undermine non WC Tests.
The examples of rugby and football haven't been entirely sucessful - their WC's have undoubtedly led to negative tactics in both sports.
A WC would not necessarily find the best team.
And finally, I have to accept, if this thread is in any way representative, that a test WC is not a popular idea.
One day I'm sure it will happen - and then I'll start another thread, either saying 'I told you so' or 'you lot were right all along'.
For now, I'm really looking forward to Aus v SL tonight, even if it's only for the 'Warne - Muralitharan Trophy'. The Aussies will probably win, but you never know - if Jayasuriya is in the mood and Jayawardene and Sangakkara rediscover the form we all know they're capable of... We could be seeing the start of the changing of the guard.

Spoken like a gentleman. You argued your case articulately & passionately, but took note of others' opinions. You'll do ok here with that attitude, mate.

Dare say one or two could do well to learn from it.

 

[anoop4real]

In the length of time they took over the last ODI World Cup they could almost have a played a straight knock-out Test World Cup.

I dont think so!!! playing a knockout is not that much interesting .......we might not be able to see some of the cricket giants collide each other....

 

[andruid]

I dont think so!!! playing a knockout is not that much interesting .......we might not be able to see some of the cricket giants collide each other....

Also the length of the previous World cup was from rather absurd scheduling and could very well have been avoided. In any case a straiught knockout Test championship would undermine all the interesting subplots, rivalries and drama that surrounds a typical test series

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I dont think so!!! playing a knockout is not that much interesting .......we might not be able to see some of the cricket giants collide each other....

Just in case anyone else took it seriously it was a facetious comment, not a suggestion.

 

[The Sean]

I think it's been a good discussion, and I take on board many of the points made.
Test cricket is special, it is the gold standard of our sport.
A WC might undermine non WC Tests.
The examples of rugby and football haven't been entirely sucessful - their WC's have undoubtedly led to negative tactics in both sports.
A WC would not necessarily find the best team.
And finally, I have to accept, if this thread is in any way representative, that a test WC is not a popular idea.
One day I'm sure it will happen - and then I'll start another thread, either saying 'I told you so' or 'you lot were right all along'.
For now, I'm really looking forward to Aus v SL tonight, even if it's only for the 'Warne - Muralitharan Trophy'. The Aussies will probably win, but you never know - if Jayasuriya is in the mood and Jayawardene and Sangakkara rediscover the form we all know they're capable of... We could be seeing the start of the changing of the guard.

Well said mate.

Gun new poster, ladies and gents.

 

[Richard]

Dare say one or two could do well to learn from it.

Without taking note of others' opinions, you form no opinions of your own.