ICC could use 'timeless' Test for World Championship final

[BlazeDragon]

ICC news: ICC could use 'timeless' Test for World Championship final | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, has suggested that the final of the inaugural World Test Championship, which will be held in England in 2013, could be a 'timeless' Test.

Lorgat said that a prestigious event like the first-ever Test Championship final deserved a clear winner. It is why the 'timeless' Test - a match that only ends when one team wins outright - is one of the options being considered by the ICC's think-tank led by general manager and former South African wicketkeeper Dave Richardson.

The latest ICC Future Tours Programme (FTP) comprises a Test league running over four years with the top four teams at the end of each period qualifying for a play-off event. The first play-off is scheduled for 2013, the same year England are due to host the Ashes, and Lord's is the favoured venue for the final. The biggest hurdle the organisers face is a Test that is drawn over a conventional five days of play.

Lorgat said that finding an eventual solution to a draw was still a "work in progress". At a press conference at Lord's Lorgat said: "We've still got to decide how we determine a winner in case of a draw or if the draw will be the end result. I would favour a winner because you want somebody to be a Test champion.

"That is what Dave Richardson and the committee is currently on working on because it is not a good idea to end up with a drawn Test match," Lorgat said. "You have got to determine a winner - whether it is on the first-innings basis, or the runs [scored] in the game - they will come up with a viable formula to determine a winner in case of a drawn Test match. The final may well be a 'timeless' Test. We don't know that yet but we are looking into the mechanics of that. Although looking at the statistics today most of the games have ended in results."

Lorgat said the discussions aimed at settling the issue are ongoing and that he is personally eager that an option is found "before the end of the year".

The 2011 Lord's Test may have been sold out for the first four days but the sparse crowds witnessed during the twin Test series in the Caribbean involving Pakistan and India have brought back the question of overall viability of Test cricket in most parts of the world.

Lorgat was stubborn in his defence of the game and said that the format is not an issue of concern but the general lack of context in Test cricket is. "Bilateral series will have a lot more meaning if you are aspiring or playing towards something at the end. It is what the Test Championship aims to be."

In the past, Lorgat said, ODIs were always promoted in a much more meaningful way than Test cricket and it was one reason the value of one-day cricket had increased in comparison to Tests. "I'm confident that as we produce context in a Championship for Test cricket and we get better contests, as we have seen in the last few series, you will get back the interest and then see what the World Test Championships can do for us. People back winners when they see challenging matches."

According to Lorgat, top cricketing nations have displayed an aggressive brand of Test cricket because, he believes, of their aspiration to be at the top tier of the ICC's rankings. "Already we can see the amount of interest there is on the rankings table. If we look at the moment, between South Africa, England, Sri Lanka, Australia and India, one of those teams would fall out of the top-four.

 

[cpr]

Would a 'Timeless' test encourage overtly defensive batting and limit risk-taking, and thus expressive shot selection, as the knowledge that grinding out a large score isn't going to hinder the chances of a win.

Likewise deciding a game on 1st innings would encourage the same.


Going to be interesting how they solve that one without compromising the spectacle

 

[vic_orthdox]

Such a bad idea, can create a very ordinary spectacle. Games need some sort of time limit. IIRC the "Supertest" was 6 days, there's no need for any longer than that.

 

[Cevno]

Would love to see Sehwag playing in a timeless test.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Would rather timeless than decide on the basis of first innings' scores. Ranji Trophy shows how bad an idea the latter is.

 

[Cruxdude]

Have mixed feelings. No time pressure would take a lot out of the game, but cannot imagine any other way to go about solving this issue. First innings lead should not be used. Think the county point system might be a bit more useful than first innings lead.

But there is a chance that timeless test can result in ultra aggressive field set and we all know when a team goes on the ultra defensive it ends up losing a bunch of wickets. Could be interesting.

 

[Cevno]

Just prepare a bowler friendly pitch?

 

[BlazeDragon]

I kind of don't like this idea. We all saw how boring it was in the last Ashes when wickets doesn't fall. If minnows are playing top teams the score can easily go up to 700-800 runs an innings or even more if a team decides they don't wanna declare . Now that's just boring as hell.

On the other hand there will be an end to the match so that's something positive I guess.

 

[Jarquis]

How many games in recent times could've conceivably lasted more than 6 days? Not very many would be my guess.
Don't think the fact its timeless would change the attitude of players too much either before that Vegas brought up.
What are the slowest 4th innings chases in recent times? Even if teams have a **** load of time they.don't often us it, batsmen like scoring runs.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha love it! What's old is new again.

TV people will go mad but I think it's a good idea. I doubt it'll last more than six days as most as marcuss says - and having a clear winner at the end is a worthwhile pursuit for a Test championship. Having it determined by things like a first innings score is a ridiculous rule.

 

[silentstriker]

I kind of don't like this idea. We all saw how boring it was in the last Ashes when wickets doesn't fall. If minnows are playing top teams the score can easily go up to 700-800 runs an innings or even more if a team decides they don't wanna declare . Now that's just boring as hell.

On the other hand there will be an end to the match so that's something positive I guess.

But it's the Test championship...so it'll be #1 vs. #2....

 

[silentstriker]

Such a bad idea, can create a very ordinary spectacle. Games need some sort of time limit. IIRC the "Supertest" was 6 days, there's no need for any longer than that.

While six days would be long enough the time might be missed due to rain, etc. Instead of days, maybe they should do it by a certain number of overs that must be bowled or something.

 

[BlazeDragon]

But it's the Test championship...so it'll be #1 vs. #2....

So only the top four teams playing then?

 

[silentstriker]

The way it's structured now...yes.


Though I do think you should be given some sort of an advantage for being a higher ranked....assuming the venue is neutral than maybe if it's a draw then the higher ranked team is declared the winner in the first round? Second round you must win outright...

Of course, that could lead to defensive play from one side, so I don't know if that's a good idea either.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Just prepare a bowler friendly pitch?

^Easier said than done, but this is the AWTA.

 

[Burgey]

So in order to decide the best team in one format of the game, they change the final to a different format?

Just have a Twenty-20 then, it's a different format too.

 

[robelinda]

So we get a bat-a-thon for 10+ days, great. Excellent advertisement for test cricket. Anyone need their average upped a few points? The ICC should find a way of making dead road pitches extinct.

 

[Spikey]

Just prepare a bowler friendly pitch?

this isn't the 1910's ****


i'd rather this than the **** we get served up in the shield final. a bowler friendly pitch is indeed the only correct solution but that won't happen.

 

[Burgey]

Just play it at a neutral venue over 5 days. If it's a draw then there ought to be a process in the lead up games whereby, in the even of a no result in the final, it gets awarded to one team or the other.

It doesn't really matter what system they come up with, as long as everyone knows what it is going in, they're all on an equal footing.

 

[vcs]

Since it's a final, why can't they have a replay in case of a draw? Definitely don't want first innings lead to be a decider though.

Then again, this issue is bound to crop up in earlier rounds as well and replays aren't exactly a scalable solution.