Simplest method to make test cricket competitive

[MagicPoopShovel]

What happens if the Final is a draw ? Is the trophy shared?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd rather watch Cook and K Braithwaite forced to play super over I feel.

Super over - but must use the same openers as the test match.

Don't think either of those teams are making a final or semi-final any time soon tbh

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Don't think either of those teams are making a final or semi-final any time soon tbh

England, they're in the running for a final only, if they can avoid most of Asia and Australia for 2 years. Easily done.

WI, yeah, good point, K Braithwaite is just one of the most dour opening bats I could think of besides Raval.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Still think it should be every 4-5 years. That way you can have a proper full rotation and scheduling won't decide the winner.

ODI World Cup is every 4 years, why does Test Championship have to be every 2?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Still think it should be every 4-5 years. That way you can have a proper full rotation and scheduling won't decide the winner.

ODI World Cup is every 4 years, why does Test Championship have to be every 2?

Agreed, there is a lot of merit to this. I guess the ICC want to keep the interest up by making it shorter, and cash in on twice as many finals.

Also - they have the nations not involved, gives them greater opportunity to get back into it.

 

[MagicPoopShovel]

Still think it should be every 4-5 years. That way you can have a proper full rotation and scheduling won't decide the winner.

ODI World Cup is every 4 years, why does Test Championship have to be every 2?

I guess they are looking at it from the "season" point of view. The WC is every 4 years but in 1 month you have a winner.

It takes 2 years of the same comp to find a winner in the WTC. Maybe they fear a lack of interest.

I do agree that it's good to be able to play everyone home and away to get a result. Also I think all tours in the comp should be 3 Test or 5. Nothing in between.

I think what they will eventually do is have 2 tiers ..this is probably their stepping stone to that..

 

[R!TTER]

Supersub, one per (two)innings & twice per side per match?Also fixing the last blunder they made with the rule in 2005 i.e.name them after the toss?

 

[cnerd123]

I guess they are looking at it from the "season" point of view. The WC is every 4 years but in 1 month you have a winner.

It takes 2 years of the same comp to find a winner in the WTC. Maybe they fear a lack of interest.

I do agree that it's good to be able to play everyone home and away to get a result. Also I think all tours in the comp should be 3 Test or 5. Nothing in between.

I think what they will eventually do is have 2 tiers ..this is probably their stepping stone to that..

The way it works is that you get points per game, not per series. So they're trying to make the length of the series irrelevant. You just take the total points available for the series and divide it per game.

 

[MagicPoopShovel]

The point system is also a bit iffy..Beating India in India is now the same as beating SL in Aus. I don't know what the right balance is but surely away wins should count for more points for eg.

Thinking about it maybe that;s how you'd split teams in a SF instance..compare home team points vs away points or the difference...

 

[MagicPoopShovel]

The point system is also a bit iffy..Beating India in India is now the same as beating SL in Aus. I don't know what the right balance is but surely away wins should count for more points for eg.

Thinking about it maybe that;s how you'd split teams in a SF instance..compare home team points vs away points or the difference...

I know but it makes beating India 4-0 in their backyard the same as beating SL 2-0 at home (say in Aus or SA). Does that tally?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I know but it makes beating India 4-0 in their backyard the same as beating SL 2-0 at home (say in Aus or SA). Does that tally?

Not really. Competition should treat all contenders as equals. We may marvel more as fans, but you should not treat competitors unequally in this way, and advantage and disadvantage sides.

The real question was an away split applying to all teams being worth more for away wins. But they decided against it.

 

[MagicPoopShovel]

Not really. Competition has to treat all contenders as equals.

Fair enough. Maybe I am thinking too old school here.

Either way, keen to see how it all pans out

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Fair enough. Maybe I am thinking too old school here.

Either way, keen to see how it all pans out

I edited as you replied.

What was debated and voted on was away worth more than home, like soccer comps often do with away goals.

It was decided against.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Supersub, one per (two)innings & twice per side per match?Also fixing the last blunder they made with the rule in 2005 i.e.name them after the toss?

I loved that about the Super-sub rule. You can make a specialist bat your supersub but then if you lose the toss and bat first you're ****ed.

Happened to England once, they had Solanki as their Supersub then batted first and were 5 or 6 for **** all. They then subbed out one of their bowlers (Simon Jones?), still in the 1st innings of the match mind you, to bring Solanki in and he made 63 not out (ish). That was a really interesting game. Sacrificed a bowler to give them a chance of making a defendable total.

edit: If you allowed choosing sub after the toss then it would completely defeat the purpose of the innovation. You'd might as well just name team of 12 players at the toss.

I know but it makes beating India 4-0 in their backyard the same as beating SL 2-0 at home (say in Aus or SA). Does that tally?

Too hard to quantify tho

 

[MagicPoopShovel]

I edited as you replied.

What was debated and voted on was away worth more than home, like soccer comps often do with away goals.

It was decided against.

Cheers. Didn't know that.

 

[R!TTER]

I loved that about the Super-sub rule. You can make a specialist bat your supersub but then if you lose the toss and bat first you're ****ed.

Happened to England once, they had Solanki as their Supersub then batted first and were 5 or 6 for **** all. They then subbed out one of their bowlers (Simon Jones?), still in the 1st innings of the match mind you, to bring Solanki in and he made 63 not out (ish). That was a really interesting game. Sacrificed a bowler to give them a chance of making a defendable total.

The rule was idiotic tbh, poorly implemented. If the super sub were to be named after the toss, LO games would be closer than they are today. Instead of tinkering with 2 new balls, field changes & PP they could've tweaked the super sub rule in 2006, before it was scrapped. I swear muppets would do a better job of managing the ODI game instead of whoever comes up with these rule changes every year!

 

[Mr Miyagi]

The rule was idiotic tbh, poorly implemented. If the super sub were to be named after the toss, LO games would be closer than they are today. Instead of tinkering with 2 new balls, field changes & PP they could've tweaked the super sub rule in 2006, before it was scrapped. I swear muppets would do a better job of managing the ODI game instead of whoever comes up with these rule changes every year!

Could have just handed in a bat first and bat 2nd team sheet to solve the super sub rule's inherent myopia.

 

[R!TTER]

Could have just handed in a bat first and bat 2nd team sheet to solve the super sub rule's inherent myopia.

There's that but then common sense is not a common virtue, is it?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

There's that but then common sense is not a common virtue, is it?

I entirely agree the way the rule was implemented was myopic and foolish. It just placed too much on either winning the toss (or getting able to do first what one intended on doing).

But do we really want a super sub? I mean I can tell you right now, as CdG and Corey Anderson are bowling rubbish and with Matt Henry on the sidelines, that NZ would benefit immensely from a super sub rule right now. Maybe less than India who have Shami/BK and Pant/Nair/whoever on the sidelines to replace Hardik with.

But doesn't this make the Shane Watto's et al so much more valuable and appreciated?

 

[R!TTER]

I entirely agree the way the rule was implemented was myopic and foolish. It just placed too much on either winning the toss (or getting able to do first what one intended on doing).

But do we really want a super sub? I mean I can tell you right now, as CdG and Corey Anderson are bowling rubbish and Matt Henry on the sidelines, that NZ would benefit immensely from a super sub rule.

But doesn't this make the Shane Watto's et al so much more valuable and appreciated?

It could do a lot more in lopsided games, for instance if there was Shamsi in this last test SA could've been a lot more competitive. Of course supersub won't have the same effect everywhere, every time but what it probably does is bridge the gab between different sides, especially away from home in tests. It won't help you win every game, but even in tests, or LO, it should make for a more even contest.