## 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%

3 5.88%

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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. Come off it!

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

6. 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..."

7. Originally posted by marc71178
Come off it!

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

8. 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).

9. Originally posted by Richard
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. 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

11. 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. Originally posted by Samuel_Vimes
1 1/2 months
So like a month of constant cricket... perhaps not so great.:rolleyes:

13. 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. 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. 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 First 1234 Last