World Test Championship

[Owzat]

Just reading War's thread about a "heavyweight battle being denied" and looking at links I started wondering about the 16 Tests minimum in four years.

ICC news : Test Championship to replace Champions Trophy | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

ICC World Test Championship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the info on the format, I was trying to work out how England might schedule. I can't see much to suggest you couldn't just gorge yourself on weak opposition, but wondered if you could play everyone home and away in four years without drastically reducing the number of Tests you'd usually play.

To fit in four summers and four winters requires three sides in one summer, assuming all to be played home and away over four years. I find it odd not to see any clear info on who you have to play, you could deliberately avoid a tough series say in India and play 2-3 series extra against whipping boys.

Below are the Test series lengths England normally play, like to play, or could play without compromising the status quo

5 : Australia
4 : South Africa, India
3 : Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Pakistan, West Indies
2 : Bangladesh, Zimbabwe

I'd suggest England and Australia would like to stick to five Test Ashes, they have played West Indies and South Africa in similar length series, but with West Indies not the force they are, and needs must, both could be dropped down a Test or two. India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan tend to be what fits, New Zealand is traditionally three Tests and the bottom of the pile get minimum to make them series not one-off Tests.

So is the format compatible with those numbers of Tests? This is a feasibility Test, I can't see England only play 16 Tests in four years so I suspect that is for the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe who have to beg for series, and perhaps so India can fit in the IPL and lots of ODIs instead. Four Tests a year seems incredibly low, I reckon the minimum should be 21-24 over the four years instead of 16.

So here's a mock-up England Test schedule :

21/22 (7) : Bangladesh (2), Sri Lanka (2), West Indies (3)
2022 (8) : New Zealand (3), Australia (5)
22/23 (7) South Africa (4), Pakistan (3)
2023 (7) : India (4), Pakistan (3)
23/24 (7) : Zimbabwe (2), Australia (5)
2024 (8) : Bangladesh (2), Zimbabwe (2), South Africa (4)
24/25 (7) : New Zealand (3), India (4)
2025 (6) : West Indies (3), Sri Lanka (3)

I've made the shortest summer the last in the cycle assuming the Championship taking place in that year. 57 Tests over four years, possibly a strain but not many more than the 6-7 England already play.

It could be revamped a bit to reduce the fixtures by a few, this is all of course assuming England have to or try to play everyone inside four years which it may well be they don't have to. Seems a bit pointless to me have a league and play-offs if sides can still decide who and how much they play any given opponent.

It would be much better if all series were 2-3 Tests and sides had to play exactly five Tests against each opponent covering both home and away, and inside four years thus making a standardised 45 Tests over four years. I'm guessing the ICC think that even if they just take the Test table at the end of four years and play-off it will be a Championship, maybe it will be but as I say there could be some fiddling if sides are given carte blanche over who they play

 

[sifter132]

I'm guessing that instead of forcing teams to play the exact same schedule as each other, the ICC will go the easy route and rely on the Test rankings as the baseline for the Test Championship. The rankings are supposed to take into account opponent strength, so giving yourself an easy schedule shouldn't make too much difference.

Balancing the schedule would be a nightmare in negotiations, and they have enough trouble trying to get DRS in, let alone making everyone play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe home and away every 4 years.

I think the home-away cycle should be 5 years to give teams more space in the schedule, and if teams want to play each other more often eg. Aus-Eng for the Ashes, then they have to make the time for it off their own bat. 5 years would let you get rid of an 8 Test summer, make them all 6, maybe 7 each which seems a reasonable workload.

 

[War]

I'm guessing that instead of forcing teams to play the exact same schedule as each other, the ICC will go the easy route and rely on the Test rankings as the baseline for the Test Championship. The rankings are supposed to take into account opponent strength, so giving yourself an easy schedule shouldn't make too much difference.

Balancing the schedule would be a nightmare in negotiations, and they have enough trouble trying to get DRS in, let alone making everyone play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe home and away every 4 years.

I think the home-away cycle should be 5 years to give teams more space in the schedule, and if teams want to play each other more often eg. Aus-Eng for the Ashes, then they have to make the time for it off their own bat. 5 years would let you get rid of an 8 Test summer, make them all 6, maybe 7 each which seems a reasonable workload.

The bold is what i fear the ICC will do, although the test championship idea is the correct idea to help revive the importance of test cricket.

The ranking system as all sane cricket fans know is flawed and the FTP although they say each team has to play a minimum of 16 tests in 4 years is equally flawed.

I fear a scenario come 2017 test championship that based on the quality of teams certain teams play - it could cause a unfair reflection on the ranking system. Thus the top 4 team that qualify for the 2017 TC, could have some controversy.

I've always believed that before the test championship was announced the FTP had to scrapped & started from scratch.

Let each team in a series should really play 3 tests, 3 od's , 3 t20s. Only the Ashes 5- tests , England vs S Africa - 4 tests, S Africa vs AUS 3/4 tests, India vs Pakistan 3-5 tests should have more than 3 tests.

Also Bangladesh & ZIM test status should have been reviewed in my view because its hard to validate letting certain teams play either of them for more than 2 tests.

 

[Owzat]

I'm guessing that instead of forcing teams to play the exact same schedule as each other, the ICC will go the easy route and rely on the Test rankings as the baseline for the Test Championship. The rankings are supposed to take into account opponent strength, so giving yourself an easy schedule shouldn't make too much difference.

Fair point re the rankings taking account of opponent strength, but if you need to shift up a gear to make the top four then you could work out which side a win or series win or even series of wins against would move you up.

That said if they're announcing schedules years in advance there should be less scope for working out what results would get you points, but there could be some calculations say to work out whether three wins over New Zealand would be better for your points than say chancing a 0-3 defeat in India.

But the main point is it isn't looking like being standardised which is a weakness.

Balancing the schedule would be a nightmare in negotiations, and they have enough trouble trying to get DRS in, let alone making everyone play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe home and away every 4 years.

I think tiers would have worked better, reduce the top sides contesting the Championship to 6-7 and thus making a four year cycle more realistic.

I think the home-away cycle should be 5 years to give teams more space in the schedule, and if teams want to play each other more often eg. Aus-Eng for the Ashes, then they have to make the time for it off their own bat. 5 years would let you get rid of an 8 Test summer, make them all 6, maybe 7 each which seems a reasonable workload.

It would be rather hectic, although the problem is and maybe always has been sides wanting to persist with five Test series. Until more recently when West Indies declined and England became a little more flexible, maybe because of the hectic schedule, they don't always play five Tests now against South Africa and West Indies.

The Ashes will be a hard one to wean off five, even though there have been few truly competitive Ashes in 25 years - 2005 was very close, others more in margin than actuality if at all.

----------

The bold is what i fear the ICC will do, although the test championship idea is the correct idea to help revive the importance of test cricket.

The ranking system as all sane cricket fans know is flawed and the FTP although they say each team has to play a minimum of 16 tests in 4 years is equally flawed.

The problem is the rankings mean little, they shift up and down as sides play with no start and end. It's the lack of an 'end' that I think has motivated the move since a World Cup idea was probably impractical with Tests - you'd need 2-3 matches at five days apiece, not viable.

Let each team in a series should really play 3 tests, 3 od's , 3 t20s. Only the Ashes 5- tests , England vs S Africa - 4 tests, S Africa vs AUS 3/4 tests, India vs Pakistan 3-5 tests should have more than 3 tests.

It is the adherence to an existing structure/tradition, and the boards all wanting their own thing that makes a Championship struggle. I know England and the Aussies wouldn't want to reduce the Ashes, but it might be the only sensible way to make a Championship work.

There is always the option to play five Tests in the Ashes of which only the first X count towards the Test Championship, or to counter the effect of potential dead rubbers and sides taking time to adjust to the very different conditions, the last X.

Say England had already won the current Ashes 3-0 by the final two Tests, they couldn't throttle back if the last two plus the previous one all counted toward the Championship as they could lose 2-1

Also Bangladesh & ZIM test status should have been reviewed in my view because its hard to validate letting certain teams play either of them for more than 2 tests.

I think it was a mistake to admit Bangladesh in the first place, but I am not a fan of axing them from the Test fold. I don't like the elitist "invitation only" nature of the Test set up, it's all too 19th century for my liking and holding cricket back. If you want to make it global then other countries need to be involved in the proper international set up (as opposed to the ICC whatever for non-Test nations), that way the fans from other countries can follow their team.

I've said many a time tiers is the way to go, allows you to add countries while dealing with the relative weakness of sides like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and to a lesser degree West Indies and New Zealand. They and Holland, Ireland, Kenya, Afghanistan (keep forgetting they're quite good) and Scotland in particular will benefit from playing sides around their ability rather than getting thrashed all the time.

I've heard people quote the theory that you learn from playing the best. Nonsense. It's done nothing for Bangladesh, Zimbabwe were only ever handy because they had some very good players like the Flowers, Strang, Campbell, Goodwin and Whittall.

While I don't particularly like the county set up, it does do more for the weakest sides. You make a small step up to competing for promotion, then you are as ready as you can be for the bigger challenge of staying up. If you can't consistently beat the weaker sides around you, you've no chance against the best.

I remember a friend, Keith, telling me this theory of playing better players (at snooker). I was a very good referee by the end of it, with all the practice at respotting balls. Every mistake I made was pounced upon, my enthusiasm dampened. I played more people my own ability, slightly above usually was a good thing, and so I was focused enough as I knew I could beat them while it was neither too hard nor too easy.

So while Bangladesh will learn little from the current structure, very slowly at best, they will learn nothing by being ejected. The ICC is obviously still stuck in the last century, able to see they need to do something but still working within their own (mental) constraints of an archaic system

 

[sifter132]

The ranking system as all sane cricket fans know is flawed and the FTP although they say each team has to play a minimum of 16 tests in 4 years is equally flawed.

Sure, you love the rankings system! I'd like to see a better one, but I think the ICC (and I) would see a mathematical problem of a rankings system much easier to solve than a political/financial one of scheduling. There used to be a few maths guys out there fiddling around, maybe something better can be found that reflects the fanbase a bit better.

Thankfully cricket has it relatively good at this stage. Try watching college sports in the USA, they have so many colleges that no schedules can be balanced. There is constant argument over which rankings are best, whose schedules have been soft etc.

It would be rather hectic, although the problem is and maybe always has been sides wanting to persist with five Test series. Until more recently when West Indies declined and England became a little more flexible, maybe because of the hectic schedule, they don't always play five Tests now against South Africa and West Indies.

The Ashes will be a hard one to wean off five, even though there have been few truly competitive Ashes in 25 years - 2005 was very close, others more in margin than actuality if at all.

2009 was a good series too. A series where Australia had better averages, but lost the big moments and lost the series (see Aus vs SA 12/13 for a repeat...)
And I'd personally rather have a 5 Test series every 5 years, than try and wedge 3 or 4 Test series into 4 years. I'm growing to like the idea of less is more. I say let's treasure our big clashes, rather than demanding they happen again straight away.

 

[Owzat]

2009 was a good series too. A series where Australia had better averages, but lost the big moments and lost the series (see Aus vs SA 12/13 for a repeat...)

I nearly mentioned 2009, but there's been so few through aussie domination and now a seeming English domination that five too often just seems overindulgent - a word I think very apt

And I'd personally rather have a 5 Test series every 5 years, than try and wedge 3 or 4 Test series into 4 years. I'm growing to like the idea of less is more. I say let's treasure our big clashes, rather than demanding they happen again straight away.

As long as the series are close I'm not sure 5 Tests gain much on 5 Tests. Theory has it that odd length series makes for a result, but frankly with drawn Tests it doesn't - and there's nothing wrong with a drawn Test series.

The idea that a series needs to be 5 Tests to reflect it's stature is old hat, out of date and laughable. The windies slowly but surely lost their 5 Test series against us because of their decline, it's only the perception of the Ashes that keeps that right up there in the old skool. These days there is too much cricket and something has to give, I'd rather play more frequently but a tad fewer matches, than play less often but the same number of matches.

If England win this Test then that's 3-0, series decided. Two more might give you the chance to make it 3-2, or us 5-0, but what's in a number? Does it matter if it is 2-2 in a 4 or 5 Test series? Does it make a difference if it is 3-1 or 3-2? As I say, tradition is holding cricket back and partly why so many view it with such contempt. The world won't wake up to cricket while it's 10 countries playing, most are the old British empire so the view it's for upper class prannies isn't dampened despite an upper class aussie being a contradiction

About time cricket climbed down and welcomed the rest of the world to cricket. Let's move into this century by reviewing and dumping a few of the old 'values'

 

[War]

The problem is the rankings mean little, they shift up and down as sides play with no start and end. It's the lack of an 'end' that I think has motivated the move since a World Cup idea was probably impractical with Tests - you'd need 2-3 matches at five days apiece, not viable.

It is the adherence to an existing structure/tradition, and the boards all wanting their own thing that makes a Championship struggle. I know England and the Aussies wouldn't want to reduce the Ashes, but it might be the only sensible way to make a Championship work.

There is always the option to play five Tests in the Ashes of which only the first X count towards the Test Championship, or to counter the effect of potential dead rubbers and sides taking time to adjust to the very different conditions, the last X.

Say England had already won the current Ashes 3-0 by the final two Tests, they couldn't throttle back if the last two plus the previous one all counted toward the Championship as they could lose 2-1


I think it was a mistake to admit Bangladesh in the first place, but I am not a fan of axing them from the Test fold. I don't like the elitist "invitation only" nature of the Test set up, it's all too 19th century for my liking and holding cricket back. If you want to make it global then other countries need to be involved in the proper international set up (as opposed to the ICC whatever for non-Test nations), that way the fans from other countries can follow their team.

I've said many a time tiers is the way to go, allows you to add countries while dealing with the relative weakness of sides like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and to a lesser degree West Indies and New Zealand. They and Holland, Ireland, Kenya, Afghanistan (keep forgetting they're quite good) and Scotland in particular will benefit from playing sides around their ability rather than getting thrashed all the time.

I've heard people quote the theory that you learn from playing the best. Nonsense. It's done nothing for Bangladesh, Zimbabwe were only ever handy because they had some very good players like the Flowers, Strang, Campbell, Goodwin and Whittall.

While I don't particularly like the county set up, it does do more for the weakest sides. You make a small step up to competing for promotion, then you are as ready as you can be for the bigger challenge of staying up. If you can't consistently beat the weaker sides around you, you've no chance against the best.

I remember a friend, Keith, telling me this theory of playing better players (at snooker). I was a very good referee by the end of it, with all the practice at respotting balls. Every mistake I made was pounced upon, my enthusiasm dampened. I played more people my own ability, slightly above usually was a good thing, and so I was focused enough as I knew I could beat them while it was neither too hard nor too easy.

So while Bangladesh will learn little from the current structure, very slowly at best, they will learn nothing by being ejected. The ICC is obviously still stuck in the last century, able to see they need to do something but still working within their own (mental) constraints of an archaic system

Sir Owzat, i know you a BIG proponent of tiers in test cricket. I fundamentally disagree. And i'm going mention this one last to get it off m chest why tiers shouldn't be allowed & can't work for test cricket.


Using football as an example - ts is far easier for most teams in the world to become good at the basics of football quickly. Which is why in league But its takes YEARSS for teams to be good at the basics of test cricket - that has been conclusively shown through 135 years of test cricket.

This is why as i've consistently said. Associates needs to prove their consistently in ODI & T20 first before they are even considered for tests. How would they prove this?:

Well firstly for international tournaments, i'm in favour of the 50 overs world cup being a similar format the 1992 world cup. Top 8 teams + the best associate (this would decided in a play-off competition), each teams plays each other once in the group, then the top 4 teams into semi's. Or the now scrapped champions trophy format

While the T20 world-cup would involve mostly all the better associates. 16 teams, 4 groups. Because t20 is format where you will popular cricket to the associates & have a better chance of an upset.


If via the t20 world-cup associates show much improvement on the field & the country starts likening cricket more. Then we can consider getting more teams involved in the 50 overs cup, which would mean an adjustment in the format.

If now finally an associate team now makes good progression into the 50 overs cup as a odi team, along with the country getting more into cricket, plus doing well in a-team tours one-day & first-class 4-day games vs major nations - then i'd say they should be considered for tests status.

All these factors need to work hand in hand. We cant go about giving a associate test status just because they caused an upset in a few world cups like what bangladesh did in 1999 & why people have been calling for ireland to get test status based on upsets they achieved vs pak & england in the 07 & 2011 cups.

The sanctity & tradition of what makes a good test team must be preserved. If associates like ireland, scotland, afghanistan can successfully complete this progression then yea they should never play tests. If its has to be they are only proven to be good @ one or both of the limited overs formats then so be it. No team however must even be given the free ride into tests like bangladesh did.


We also have to look at where those countries are with the domestic structure & national interest in the game currently in a society that lives for fast sports that finish in 3 hours.

When it comes to the latter the top 8 nations have that equally. The difference between the top 8 nations since post war 1946 has always been in the domestic structures production line in producing test standard players.

Domestic structures comparison between aus/sa/wi/eng vs ind/pak/sri/nz since 1948

Australia, England, Windies, S Africa are the only teams teams that have been legitimate # 1 teams in test history. That is not a coincidence because while they were the best teams in the world. They had the domestic structures able to consistently produce good batsmen & bowlers for tests.

Windies of course declined in the last 15 years because the caribbean regional isn't has finally strong as the other 3 - which is highlighted by the fact they dont even have a sponsor for their domestic competitions. But once they get that back, the windies should be ok since the talent is around.

However the other 4 nations have had the same problems from the start that still affects them now.

Generally except for now gone tendulkar era of batsman, indian bats dont play pace well & they don't produce fast bowlers. Producing on 3 notable test bowlers since their inception in kapil dev, khan & srinath tells you everything. India of course given their financial power in the game have the unique ability to help fix this problem themselves - they dont need ICC help. But this problems is an age old one of indian cricket in tests, which really should have been eradicated to help them be a better test nation consistently.

N zealand problem is that they dont produce enough players of the crowe, hadlee, bond, astle, cairns type talent at once. Its sometimes one or two such players which such great talent among some hard working players.

They need the financial help to improve their grassroots so that they can produce more special talent players collectively.

Pakistan always have talent, especially since the 70s. Pretty much the best asian team of producing a good balance of batsmen & bowers that can regularly test the non-asian teams. But corruption & nepotism is their historical problem. Their domestic teams is run by company teams instead of the provinces, which is why imran khan himself said in the 80s he stopped playing cricket in pak domestically because its very poor way of identifying talent. ICC has failed them horribly in this front due to their poor leadership as a governing body.

Sri Lanka is sort of an unknown since they are potentially coming to end of their first great era of players in the short 30 year test history. But one suspects that given they are weak financial board, their don't have the ready made domestic talent to find new a new sangakkara, jaya, vaas, murali anytime soon.



While that's the state of all of them in tests, all of the top 8 nations for example have been the best in the world in odi's at some point in the rankings or won cup/champions trophy titles since 1975. This again shows how hard it is to be good a tests, so its ludicrous to even contemplate putting nz, sri, pak & windies in a lower tier just because their test performances have been below par most of time.

ICC can do a lot financially to help them bridge the gap, since they are done the hard yards of being test nations for 75+ years & it would be better for the test game if competition between all 8 is stronger.

 

[zeustrojanstark]

This should have come in a lot earlier.Now we wont be able to see Dravid,Sachin,VVS,Ponting,Lara,Langer,Kallis,Warne,McGrath,Lee,Bond,Fleming etc etc..Dissapointment yet again!

 

[sifter132]

.
The idea that a series needs to be 5 Tests to reflect it's stature is old hat, out of date and laughable. The windies slowly but surely lost their 5 Test series against us because of their decline, it's only the perception of the Ashes that keeps that right up there in the old skool. These days there is too much cricket and something has to give, I'd rather play more frequently but a tad fewer matches, than play less often but the same number of matches.

If England win this Test then that's 3-0, series decided. Two more might give you the chance to make it 3-2, or us 5-0, but what's in a number? Does it matter if it is 2-2 in a 4 or 5 Test series? Does it make a difference if it is 3-1 or 3-2? As I say, tradition is holding cricket back and partly why so many view it with such contempt. The world won't wake up to cricket while it's 10 countries playing, most are the old British empire so the view it's for upper class prannies isn't dampened despite an upper class aussie being a contradiction '

Maybe just first to 3 then I'm sure the players wouldn't mind some extra time off...TV might not be so happy about it!