Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
well it does need to be 2 for the points to count, and there's one 3 test series in there.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* World Test Championship Final 2021
- Thread starter CricAddict
- Start date
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Matter of time Mags
Although I hope that "time" is after I die, really. I have grown increasingly wary of LO cricket, especially ODIs. Tests and T20s are awesome but ODIs just seem to meander along a lot more than they used to, although it may well be just personal bias here.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
I share that opinion And tbf NZC seem to do too. They load up on T20Is and don't too often play 50-over games unless there is World Cup prepared.
And tbf NZC seem to do too. They load up on T20Is and don't too often play 50-over games unless there is World Cup prepared.
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
Geez it will almost be a decade since Australia played tests in NZ by the end of 2023 ...GDI, I'd really love a NZ vs Aus at home. There's none this WTC cycle
England vs India to kick off the second World Test Championship
Each win now worth 12 points, a draw worth four points and a tie worth six pointswww.espncricinfo.com
BD, SA, SL at home (SA series could be great)
Ind, Eng, Pak away (all really challenging)
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
It was a joke, but probably not far from the truth.
Victor Ian
International Coach
I don't like a draw being worth 4 points. I get the reasoning but some team is going to get jibbed of points due to rain. If they had an allowance to split points for weather draws, it might be fairer.
I also don't like 1 point per over penalty. If you could gain points back for being ahead, then maybe.
These are like stupid administration penalties rather than assessments of play.
I also don't like 1 point per over penalty. If you could gain points back for being ahead, then maybe.
These are like stupid administration penalties rather than assessments of play.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Regarding over rates... The Windies would have beat most everyone, all the time on the 80s but never play a WTC due to come by out of each game with negative points.
I'm not quite sure how they apply this penalty, so maybe it's no big deal. Has anyone a link that explains this part in finer details?
I'm not quite sure how they apply this penalty, so maybe it's no big deal. Has anyone a link that explains this part in finer details?
Shady Slim
International Coach
wait a...
that's fine then! but maybe don't put that two paragraphs down else people might not realise because it certaintly threw me at first ffs
Bijed
International Regular
Yeah, there definitely needs to be a mechanism in place to stop teams taking the mickey with slow over-rates, which they could be tempted to do now that the difference between a draw/loss could be qualification for the final down the line (fines would not work (and have never worked) at all as a deterrent and even having the captain banned for the final is obviously better than just not being in it), but the penalty they're suggesting just seems out of proportion with how much it actually matters.
I'm not quite in the 'over-rates literally don't matter' camp which seems prevalent on here, obviously it's very much secondary to the actual quality of cricket but being at a match with repeated slow play and general faffing does genuinely make the viewing experience a bit more annoying imo.
Victor Ian
International Coach
I agree over rates matter. Sometimes I get my knickers in a knot though for what counts as slow. It should be something like, 'on average we expect you to bowl a team out in 1.25 days. If you go over this, then over rates matter. If you go under this, who gives a ****. I'm not really sure. I'm hoping others have better ideas, or, as asked for earlier, a link to the actual rules, because if I could read them I might find I have no issue at all and am only getting annoyed at my imaginary rules.
Victor Ian
International Coach
One thing that pisses me off is when the batting team causes the problems. Batsmen who take forever to face up, or hit way too many runs. Do the umpires take this all into account, as in, properly record all the little non bowling team time wastages. I don't know.
_00_deathscar
International Regular
So in short, what you’re saying is that the answer, as always, is Jadeja.
Victor Ian
International Coach
OK. Aside from the level of punishment, I think I'm a bit less annoyed by the over rates thing.
wisden.com
Explained: Why The ICC's 'Minimum Over Rate' Requirement Is Anything But
Over rates have once again been in the spotlight, with the first England-New Zealand Test ending drawn after 346 overs were bowled in the game
wisden.com
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
And that Lords test is a perfect example of why the penalty is needed ... it was excruciating to watch England's bowling efforts at times.OK. Aside from the level of punishment, I think I'm a bit less annoyed by the over rates thing.
Explained: Why The ICC's 'Minimum Over Rate' Requirement Is Anything But
Over rates have once again been in the spotlight, with the first England-New Zealand Test ending drawn after 346 overs were bowled in the game
ParwazHaiJunoon
First Class Debutant
Don't you know by now that in 3rd decade of 21st century only those teams win away series who play their second string side?
You should be happy now
