Cricket Player Manager

View Poll Results: Which team would win the Test Match World Cup, if it was staged this year?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Australia (1877)

    23 45.10%
  • England (1877)

    7 13.73%
  • South Africa (1889)

    0 0%
  • West Indies (1928)

    1 1.96%
  • New Zealnd (1930)

    1 1.96%
  • India (1932)

    6 11.76%
  • Pakistan (1952)

    6 11.76%
  • Sri Lanka (1982)

    2 3.92%
  • Zimbabwe (1992)

    2 3.92%
  • Bangladesh (2000)

    3 5.88%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 57

Thread: How About a Test Match World Cup?

  1. #16
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Odd indeed. Now corrected. :rolleyes: :duh:
    It doesn't matter who was ranked number-one; the system worked on a consistent, transparent basis. The end doesn't de-justify the means. The means is what matters.
    The current system is farcical, and works on fluctuating values. Often unreliable fluctuating values.
    If Australia weren't one, they had no-one to blame but themselves.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #17
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,857
    Actually this current rating is every bit as consistent and transparent IMO.

    Just because the layman doesn't immediately understand it doesn't make it wrong.

    If you took that attitude you'd replace D/L with a simple runs per over calculation.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  3. #18
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Originally posted by marc71178
    That was by no mean sane when it ranked SA as number 1 in the world.
    It isnt as though they didnt earn it.

    After all they won in India, drew in Sri Lanka (Australia didnt in India and SRL), won in the Caribbean (Australia drew) and beat a New Zealand side deprived of its best players, Australia drew.

    And get rid of this idea that Australia are some unbeatable force. Its that thinking why England havent won the Ashes in over 18 years.
    Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever...

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi, a true legend of CW

    Quote Originally Posted by Boobidy View Post
    Bradman never had to face quicks like Sharma and Irfan Pathan. He wouldn't of lasted a ball against those 2, not to mention a spinner like Sehwag.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Actually this current rating is every bit as consistent and transparent IMO.

    Just because the layman doesn't immediately understand it doesn't make it wrong.

    If you took that attitude you'd replace D/L with a simple runs per over calculation.
    No, because anyone who knows the facts knows that D\L is in fact fairer than run-rate comparisons. In fact, in Wisden last year they referred to "the nice-and-simple scoring-rate method". I emailed them and asked why it was called that when "the nasty-and-simple scoring-rate method" would have been far more accurate and appropriate. Never know, they might print a correction in the one about to be released! :saint:
    However, the current Championship has faults, not just complications. In awarding differing points for different games, it is inconsistent in a way that cannot IMO be justified. It might seem fairer to some; to me it seems less fair. Also, in taking account of every game it causes dead games to be reckoned upon. IMO series are a much better thing to use, regardless of the scoreline. A win is a win, whether it's 4-0 or 2-1.


  5. #20
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,857
    Come off it!

    A 4-0 win in a series requires much more credit than a 2-1 does.

  6. #21
    State 12th Man
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    773
    I agree with Richard about the old championship style. For some reason people kept wanting to perceive it as official rankings though.

    To me it was more like a football league table, with one excellent team having games in hand.

    But then someone said "I know! Let's make wins by 3+ goals against Arsenal worth 6 points, and let's make draws against Blackburn worth 0.43 points, and, and let's make..."
    Last edited by Kent; 06-03-2004 at 03:33 PM.

  7. #22
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Originally posted by marc71178
    Come off it!

    A 4-0 win in a series requires much more credit than a 2-1 does.
    Not if you ask me.
    A series win is a series win.

  8. #23
    U19 Vice-Captain Ford_GTHO351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    585
    It just wouldn't work.

    How on earth are you going to schedule the days for a test match WC, it would take forever to find the winner.

    It would never ever be as popular as the World Cup (ODI).
    My 2003 Australian Cricketers Rankings No.1's

    Test Batting: Mathew Hayden
    Test Bowling: Stuart MacGill
    ODI Batting: Ricky Ponting
    ODI Bowling: Brett Lee

    Ford Rules!

  9. #24
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,857
    Originally posted by Richard
    Not if you ask me.
    A series win is a series win.
    So you're saying that, for example, a team beating Bangladesh 1-0 in a 5 Test series at home is the same as winning 5-0 in Australia?

  10. #25
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bonn, BRD
    Posts
    22,992
    Originally posted by Ford_GTHO351
    It just wouldn't work.

    How on earth are you going to schedule the days for a test match WC, it would take forever to find the winner.

    It would never ever be as popular as the World Cup (ODI).
    Two groups of five:

    Day 1 - Day 5: Test 1 (4 games)
    Day 8 - Day 12: Test 2 (4 games)
    Day 13 - Day 17: Test 3 (4 games)
    Day 19 - Day 24: Test 4 (4 games)
    Day 27 - Day 31: Test 5 (4 games)
    Day 33 - Day 38: Test 6 (semi-finals, top two from each group. Six-day games, if draw count on first innings points)
    Day 40 - Day 46: Final.

    1 1/2 months, not much longer than the OD world cup...

    Or even four groups of four...would give the minnows some test experience, and would be shorter. Dead boring though...Australia would beat Scotland by an innings and 450 runs, for example
    Messi scores on the rebound.

    Founder of ESAS - Edgar Schiferli, the best associate bowler
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf Grünbaum
    Is the conduct approved by the gods right ("pious"), because of properties of its own, or merely because it pleases the gods to value or command it?

  11. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future)
    Posts
    1,258
    Mate you've got one back to back test there, and several with less than 3 days break.

    Haven't you heard the players saying lately they don't need more cricket.

  12. #27
    International Vice-Captain Linda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Perth, West Aus
    Posts
    4,705
    Originally posted by Samuel_Vimes
    1 1/2 months
    So like a month of constant cricket... perhaps not so great.:rolleyes:

    "I know I underperformed but after the past 18 months I thought I might have received more than four Test matches' grace."
    - DR Martyn.

    "Is there any way to make it longer?"
    Peter English on Twenty20


    Official Face of the v. hip 'Twenty20 Is Boring Society'

  13. #28
    World Traveller Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Super Happy Fun Sugar Lollipop Land!
    Posts
    34,131
    Originally posted by furious_ged
    Mate you've got one back to back test there, and several with less than 3 days break.

    Haven't you heard the players saying lately they don't need more cricket.
    That's why I said you would need to wipe about three months off the calander.

  14. #29
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bonn, BRD
    Posts
    22,992
    Originally posted by Linda
    So like a month of constant cricket... perhaps not so great.:rolleyes:
    Very true that...

    With four groups of four, it could be easier (3 tests, 3 five-day breaks = 30 days + 6 days semi-final + 5 days break + 6 days final = 47 days). Just saying that it is possible if the ICC want to scringe money out of it...I'm not in favour of the idea though. ODI World Cup is enough.

  15. #30
    First Class Debutant SquidAU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    One Eyed Pirate Island!
    Posts
    853
    It could work but only if they dropped some of the useless ODI tournaments they have throughout the year and also have that year off from test matches as well....but then, I wouldn't sit there and watch a Test match tourney...too boring.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •