5th Test at The Oval, London

[TheJediBrah]

That's not that crazy. If you treat each series as an isolated 'match' of the WTC, then that's not unusual at all. The same basically applies in all sports tournaments - in the soccer world cup you still get the same number of points for beating Brazil as you do for beating North Korea.

Yeah, I get that treating 2 test series as being equivalent to 5 test series is awkward, but seriously what else are you going to do? No one's ever going to set up 5 test series between WI and Bangladesh, and nobody in Australia or England would ever consent to truncating the Ashes down to 3 matches.

The biggest problem (as you note) - is that each side doesn't play everyone else. Would be much more sensible to do it over a 4 year cycle, with everyone committed to playing everyone home and away, finishing with the top 4 proceeding to a semi-final and final round.

We're discussing that in the other thread. I think that's "crazy" for a 2-0 win to be worth 120 points and, say, a 3-1 win over 5 Tests to be worth not much more than half that.

Are you telling me India should get nearly twice as many points for beating WI 2-0 than if hypothetically Aus beat England 3-1? As the system stands it undeniably favours teams playing more short series.

 

[Midwinter]

Seriously though,who really wants a test championship ?

What purpose does it serve ?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Just organise one-test series at home against Bangladesh, not really that difficult.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd prefer something like Aussie Tragic suggested earlier, take the top 4 teams per the rankings, play a couple of semi-finals, then play a final. Only needs to be a couple of weeks long.

The whole idea to "give more meaning to every Test match" is unnecessary and just muddying the waters IMO

 

[quincywagstaff]

Seriously though,who really wants a test championship ?

What purpose does it serve ?

Ian Chappell has bee n arguing for it since the early 90s.

FWIW I'm so-so about it. Could work but the constant talk about cricket matches to have 'meaning' really irritates.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've never really understood "context" thing. All series already have their own storyline and context attached to them. The system only provides more meaning to dead rubbers, it doesn't automatically make a WI vs SL series more interesting to a neutral fan. People who find the less glamorous series boring are going to find it boring still.

 

[Spark]

That's not that crazy. If you treat each series as an isolated 'match' of the WTC, then that's not unusual at all. The same basically applies in all sports tournaments - in the soccer world cup you still get the same number of points for beating Brazil as you do for beating North Korea.

Yeah, I get that treating 2 test series as being equivalent to 5 test series is awkward, but seriously what else are you going to do? No one's ever going to set up 5 test series between WI and Bangladesh, and nobody in Australia or England would ever consent to truncating the Ashes down to 3 matches.

The biggest problem (as you note) - is that each side doesn't play everyone else. Would be much more sensible to do it over a 4 year cycle, with everyone committed to playing everyone home and away, finishing with the top 4 proceeding to a semi-final and final round.

Just treat each series as a block. If you are going to treat them the same, treat them as actually the same. 1 point for a home series draw, 2 for an away series draw, 3 for a home series win, 4 for an away series win, or something along those lines.

 

[Daemon]

Just treat each series as a block. If you are going to treat them the same, treat them as actually the same. 1 point for a home series draw, 2 for an away series draw, 3 for a home series win, 4 for an away series win, or something along those lines.

Nah, that’ll just encourage the stronger teams to tour the weaker ones for 2 test walkovers

 

[SteveNZ]

I've never really understood "context" thing. All series already have their own storyline and context attached to them. The system only provides more meaning to dead rubbers, it doesn't automatically make a WI vs SL series more interesting to a neutral fan. People who find the less glamorous series boring are going to find it boring still.

This is exactly right. The only game that will have more context is a final, in which there never was one before therefore no improvement in context. It just adds one semi-meaningful, only to two teams, match to a lot more that will be the same as they ever were - except potentially, again briefly, for a side who needs a certain result to reach the final.

 

[Spark]

Nah, that’ll just encourage the stronger teams to tour the weaker ones for 2 test walkovers

Encouraging strong teams to tour weaker ones isn't a bad thing imo.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Are you telling me India should get nearly twice as many points for beating WI 2-0 than if hypothetically Aus beat England 3-1? As the system stands it undeniably favours teams playing more short series.

Well, that same WI beat Eng earlier in the year, not to mention India's win down under, soooo on recent form the more competitive series was or ought to have been Ind-WI.

 

[Ulzan69]

Wonder why player of Series / man of series award given to both Eng ( Stokes) and Aus (Smith)

If the World cup only
England but not NZ too?

Since Ashes starts Player of series or man of series only 1 person from either side.

 

[Ulzan69]

Steve Smith in Ashes 2019: 144, 142, 92, 211, 82, 80, 23
Innings: 7 | Runs: 774 | Average: 110.57 | 100s: 3 | 50s: 3


Most runs in an Ashes series:
974 Don Bradman 1930
905 Wally Hammond 1928/29
839 Mark Taylor 1989
810 Don Bradman 1936/37
774 Steve Smith 2019


England's home Tests with Sam Curran:
WON (vs Pak)
WON (vs Ind)
WON (vs Ind)
WON (vs Ind)
WON (vs Ind)
WON (vs Ire)
WON (vs Aus)


Ashes series drawn level (previous winner):
1-1 in 1938 (Aus)
1-1 in 1962/63 (Aus)
1-1 in 1965/66 (Aus)
1-1 in 1968 (Aus)
2-2 in 1972 (Eng)
2-2 in 2019 (Aus)





Steve Smith receives the Compton-Miller Medal for the second consecutive ashes series

 

[GIMH]

Wonder why player of Series / man of series award given to both Eng ( Stokes) and Aus (Smith)

If the World cup only
England but not NZ too?

Since Ashes starts Player of series or man of series only 1 person from either side.

We always have a MOTS from each side in Test series over here. It's a bit participation trophy for my liking buit whatever.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There's always a separate Man of the Series from the sponsors as well as the one adjudicated by the opposition coach. It's generally likely to be the same two players in contention.

You're not going to have a Man of the Match each in a World Cup Final.

 

[Starfighter]

I wonder who would've got England's MotS awards in 13/14 and 17/18 if they did the one-for-each-team thing here. I'm guessing Broad for the first but the second is a bigger tossup. Anderson's economical but unspectacular bowling or Root's parade of fifties. I think the batsman might edge it as usual.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I wonder who would've got England's MotS awards in 13/14 and 17/18 if they did the one-for-each-team thing here. I'm guessing Broad for the first but the second is a bigger tossup. Anderson's economical but unspectacular bowling or Root's parade of fifties. I think the batsman might edge it as usual.

Anderson quite easily one would think

 

[Starfighter]

Anderson quite easily one would think

Where do 17 wickets and 378 runs really stack up though? Don't forget these are always batting biased.

 

[Cabinet96]

Root got it in 2015 instead of Broad so it wouldn't be surprising if he got it instead of Anderson in 17/18.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Root got it in 2015 instead of Broad so it wouldn't be surprising if he got it instead of Anderson in 17/18.

2017/18 was much more batsman bominated. The feeling after that Ashes was that anderson was the only established member of the side who had a respectable series. Don't think Root even outperformed Malan with the bat in the eyes of many people.