Test World Championship

[welshplato]

It is ridiculous that cricket does not have a world cup in what everyone agrees is the highest form of the game - test cricket. It could be easily arranged if there was enough political will. Here is one suggestion. For the sake of argument, starting May 2009.
1. Qualifying competition: matches based on ICC rankings (1 v 8, 2 v 7, 3 v 6, 4 v 5).
Preliminary Rnd. (8 v 9): WI v Bang (3T/May-June 09), Bang v WI (3T/Sept 09)
So Eng v Pak (3T/June-Jly 09), Pak v Eng (3T/Oct 09)
SL v SA (3T/Aug 09), SA v SL (3T/Jan-Feb 2010)
Ind v NZ (3T/Oct-Nov 09) NZ v Ind (3T/Jan-Feb 2010)
Aus v WI (3T/Nov-Dec 09) WI v Aus (3T/Mar-Apr 2010)
2. Finals. Held in 1 country with 4 finalists. Say Eng 2010.
Semi Finals based on ICC rankings (1 v 4, 2 v 3)
So, for sake of argument, let's say: SF1: Aus v SL and SF2: Eng v Ind.
SF1: 3 Tests: June 1, 15, 29
SF2: 3 Tests: June 8, 22, July 6
July 13 - 20: Play off Tests, if necessary.
Final: 3 Tests: July 27, Aug 10, Aug 24
Aug 31 - Sept 6: Play off match, if necessary.
Cricket needs a proper world cup.

[Richard]

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

I dunno about only series wins.

Because teams are going to start resting players if they've winning or losing a series 2-0 with a game in hand which is not good for Test Cricket in my opinion.

The only real advantage I see from having series points rather then each test, is that some countries it's harder to win on due to ****ty weather or flat pitches.

I would love to see it, would you or wouldn't you have a Test Series Final ?

[Richard]

Nah, bastardises the whole concept of Tests IMO. A series is the only thing of relevance. Hate the idea of "final"s of any sort. That's what ODI cricket is all about.

I also highly doubt that many players will be terribly keen to be rested for a Test. Should happen if the current insane schedule is continued (South Africa played six back-to-back Tests last "summer") but won't be neccessary if it's assauged, something I'd also do, as would almost anyone.

[skipper]

what happened to the asian test championship?

[archie mac]

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

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by archie mac

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

If anything, I would say club football has.

[simmy]

Originally Posted by archie mac

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

Oi. Rugby World Cups are awesome. Jeez... just because you are from Australia...

[Julian87]

You are kidding yourself.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Richard

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

My god you are a tool sometimes. "None of this every-Test-counts-crap" FFS it's Test cricket, of course every single game should count towards some sort of championship. There is a big difference being beaten 5-0 and being beaten 3-2 in a Test series.

[andruid]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'd be happier if they just re-adopted the sensible Test Championship format TBH. And excluded Bangladesh and, these days, Zimbabwe.

Everyone plays everyone home and away, two points for a win, one for a draw. Series only contribute to points, none of this every-Test-counts crap (if you want to make it that specific why not go the whole hog and count every run?). Series victories are the object of the exercise, no Test-series of less than 3 games, decent trophy that someone actually cares about lifting, you get to keep possession of it until someone else goes ahead of you in the table.

I wonder how that will help anyone except leave a few less matches for the statisticians to tabulate

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Perm

My god you are a tool sometimes. "None of this every-Test-counts-crap" FFS it's Test cricket, of course every single game should count towards some sort of championship. There is a big difference being beaten 5-0 and being beaten 3-2 in a Test series.

If every Test counts, so should every run.

There's a reason performances in "dead" Tests tend not to be considered anywhere near as worthy as those in "live" ones - it's because winning the series is infinitely more important than anything else. A convincing scoreline is simply a bonus.

Obviously, a 5-0 whitewash is something a bit special, and also exceptionally rare so does not need to be considered much. I really don't see the point in bringing-up the fact that 5-0 and 3-2 are a fair bit different.

For the intents and purposes of a standard (ie, 3) Test-series, there's really no huge difference between 3-0 and 2-0.

And as I say - if you get pernickity about how the extra Test should count so much, you also need to start deciding that an innings-and-250-run victory cannot possibly be considered the same as a 53-run one, as there's such a big difference.

Matthew Engel's Test Championship generated huge interest even when it was unofficial; right now, who really takes any grand notice of the ridiculously complicated formula I$C$C currently have in place? Not many, I'll tell you.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by andruid

I wonder how that will help anyone except leave a few less matches for the statisticians to tabulate

It'll help everyone because you won't need to be a statistician to understand how it works.

A Test Championship simply must be straightforward and capable of appealing to the masses.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by simmy

Oi. Rugby World Cups are awesome. Jeez... just because you are from Australia...

When I was a boy the biggest Test was Aust V NZ now we have the joke where teams are playing 2nd 15s so as to protect their best players for the upcoming WC, lets hope it never happens to cricket

[Richard]

Originally Posted by skipper

what happened to the asian test championship?

'Twas abolished. One of its main raison d'etre was to test whether a Test World Championship would be possible, and instead I$C$C took (briefly) Matthew Engel's advice and instituted a rolling Championship.