World Test Championship

[Hrithik]

World Test Championship

World Test Championship

Test cricket calender is in a chaos and confusion and so it should be integrated in a single tournament called the World Test Championship.

It will be played on a 4 year basis beginning with the end of 2011 World Cup and end before 2015 ICC World Cup.

It will consist of two leagues.

1.Major League (W.G. Grace Trophy/Bradman Memorial Trophy)

2.League Cup

The Major League will consist of 8 Nations.

Australia
England
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
New Zealand
South Africa
West Indies


Each nation will play mandatory 12 Tests per year ( Home & Away basis).

It will include 3/4/5 match serieses not 2 Test serieses.

Thus a nation will play 48 Tests in the Major League.

A nation will score points on winning or drawing a series extra point for away win.

The nation with maximum points will be crowned the Ultimate Test Champions (of the 4 year span).

Test match format will be 5 days 90 ovs per day no such thing as day night match only pure white cricket.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The League Cup will consist of 10 Nations.

Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Canada
Kenya
Holland
Scotland
Argentina
Afghanistan/UAE
Namibia


The format here will be First Class not Test.

Each nation will play mandatory 12 FCs per year ( Home & Away basis).

It will include 3 match serieses not 2 match serieses.

Thus a nation will play 48 FC s in the League Cup.

A nation will score points on winning or drawing a series extra point for away win.

The nation with maximum points will be crowned winner of the Cup.

First Class match format will be 4 days 100 ovs per day no such thing as day night match only pure white cricket.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The winner of League Cup will face the bottom team of Major League in a play off series and if the win they will be promoted to the Major League and loser relegated to the League Cup.

All the players will be given full time contracts and this will be a good exposure for the associate nations.

This is the ultimate system which can save Test cricket.Please show this to the ICC.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: World Test Championship

It is a very good idea however I think the League Cup has too many sides. Instead of 10, I think it should only have six nations (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Canada, Kenya, Holland) as the bottom four you've listed would be fairly uncompetitive. Even then with only six teams Bangladesh will dominate in my opinion with Zimbabwe and Ireland clearly second and third.

Your idea is still very good though and one worth implementing by the ICC. Unfortunately it will be a matter of time before anything like this is actually discussed by the council due to their complete incompetence. A system like this has been mentioned in the media though, I think Steve Waugh was the last person to bring this up but that was a while ago now.

 

[mas cambios]

Re: World Test Championship

Like the idea but as Ljp says, the second league is too big. Half it to 5 or add teams to make two leagues of 6.

 

[lewissaffin]

Re: World Test Championship

What would happen to The Ashes?

 

[SteveyD]

Re: World Test Championship

What would happen to The Ashes?

That can be the 5 match series between Eng and Aus (home and away) over the 4 years...

 

[Hrithik]

Re: World Test Championship

That can be the 5 match series between Eng and Aus (home and away) over the 4 years...

yup rt eng vs aus test series will be clld Ashes

 

[Hrithik]

Re: World Test Championship

Like the idea but as Ljp says, the second league is too big. Half it to 5 or add teams to make two leagues of 6.

rethink coz all those teams can beat each other chck stats

 

[Boris]

Re: World Test Championship

I'm not convinced it's a sure way to go with the Test playing nations. What they do now is fine.

I'm a very big fan, however, with the idea of that second tier. It would be great if some of those nations could actually get some long games in and start to get competitive. There has to be some sort of system for them to be able to move up to the 'major league' though, otherwise you are encouraging them to play to become the top of their tier... in first class games. They have to have that opportunity to step up somehow to the next level.

But that brings the problem with having to push someone out of the Major League. The only way to solve it is to have a qualification system. But that doesn't work with Tests, because to qualify you are looking at another at least one year long process.

Tests are just too long for this, and that's what's great about them. Tests are one on one, not one on everyone else.

Agree with using the second tier as a sort of qualification to the Test playing nations.

 

[Hrithik]

Re: World Test Championship

I'm not convinced it's a sure way to go with the Test playing nations. What they do now is fine.

I'm a very big fan, however, with the idea of that second tier. It would be great if some of those nations could actually get some long games in and start to get competitive. There has to be some sort of system for them to be able to move up to the 'major league' though, otherwise you are encouraging them to play to become the top of their tier... in first class games. They have to have that opportunity to step up somehow to the next level.

But that brings the problem with having to push someone out of the Major League. The only way to solve it is to have a qualification system. But that doesn't work with Tests, because to qualify you are looking at another at least one year long process.

Tests are just too long for this, and that's what's great about them. Tests are one on one, not one on everyone else.

Agree with using the second tier as a sort of qualification to the Test playing nations.

Arre i said one on one only for example india tours aus and plays a 4 test match series you have misunderstood it ?

I also wrote about the qualification system plzzz read again.

 

[Boris]

Re: World Test Championship

Arre i said one on one only for example india tours aus and plays a 4 test match series you have misunderstood it ?

I also wrote about the qualification system plzzz read again.

I don't like the playing Tests for world championship points. I believe you play Tests for a cup, and that cup is exclusive amongst the two countries. One on one. ODIs and T20s are suited to championships, Tests aren't. This would effectively become the world's longest World Cup of any sport, and Test cricket already has a reputation of being slow and boring, let alone trying to hold someone's attention for 4 years straight.

And the qualification system needs revising. In that 'play off game', if the minor country beats the major country, does the major country lose its eligibility to play in the major league, or is a 9th country added to the list?

If there are only 8 countries, this means that the country that misses out (a major Test playing nation that has played for decades) doesn't play a Test for 4 years straight and are left to beat up minnows, only degrading their skill even more. If 9 get added to the list, then the list just grows and grows until it can grow no more.

And if this is a world championship, that means the best 8 countries play, you don't just gain entry for nothing, for simply having a reputation. It could be argued that at this point in time, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could possibly have a run at the West Indies and win. Does this mean that because the Windies are a Test playing nation they automatically gain entry, despite perhaps not being in the 8 strongest nations? If it is a world championship, it has to be played out fairly, everyone has equal chance.

To determine these rankings (not just the ICC ones, they apply for many years, not necessarily stating what team is the best at any point in time) they would need a bunch of qualification games. This you would think would go for a year. Then how do you qualify for the next one around 4 years later? Do you go by how you played in the last championship?

Four years is just too long. I'm all for the minnows having their series (though perhaps in two separate groups that go for only a couple of years), but for the Test playing nations it's bulky and unnecessary. I wouldn't like saying, "Well we may have lost this game, but we still have a chance in the championship, the finals are still four years away." Four years is enough to make or break a team. By the end of that period of time you could have gone through two separate first XIs easily, and effectively you aren't even playing the same team.

There's a reason this hasn't already been implemented. Great idea, but not going to work.

 

[Hrithik]

Re: World Test Championship

I don't like the playing Tests for world championship points. I believe you play Tests for a cup, and that cup is exclusive amongst the two countries. One on one. ODIs and T20s are suited to championships, Tests aren't. This would effectively become the world's longest World Cup of any sport, and Test cricket already has a reputation of being slow and boring, let alone trying to hold someone's attention for 4 years straight.

And the qualification system needs revising. In that 'play off game', if the minor country beats the major country, does the major country lose its eligibility to play in the major league, or is a 9th country added to the list?

If there are only 8 countries, this means that the country that misses out (a major Test playing nation that has played for decades) doesn't play a Test for 4 years straight and are left to beat up minnows, only degrading their skill even more. If 9 get added to the list, then the list just grows and grows until it can grow no more.

And if this is a world championship, that means the best 8 countries play, you don't just gain entry for nothing, for simply having a reputation. It could be argued that at this point in time, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could possibly have a run at the West Indies and win. Does this mean that because the Windies are a Test playing nation they automatically gain entry, despite perhaps not being in the 8 strongest nations? If it is a world championship, it has to be played out fairly, everyone has equal chance.

To determine these rankings (not just the ICC ones, they apply for many years, not necessarily stating what team is the best at any point in time) they would need a bunch of qualification games. This you would think would go for a year. Then how do you qualify for the next one around 4 years later? Do you go by how you played in the last championship?

Four years is just too long. I'm all for the minnows having their series (though perhaps in two separate groups that go for only a couple of years), but for the Test playing nations it's bulky and unnecessary. I wouldn't like saying, "Well we may have lost this game, but we still have a chance in the championship, the finals are still four years away." Four years is enough to make or break a team. By the end of that period of time you could have gone through two separate first XIs easily, and effectively you aren't even playing the same team.

There's a reason this hasn't already been implemented. Great idea, but not going to work.

Arre it will be individual cups in a big championship

exmple : when ind-aus play it will be called Border-Gavaskar Trophy

and what you said later is good we will add 10 countries to the major league after first 4 years (2 top qualifiers from league cup) then start the relegation system for the next span

but less than 4 years it cant be.

 

[Boris]

Re: World Test Championship

Arre it will be individual cups in a big championship

exmple : when ind-aus play it will be called Border-Gavaskar Trophy

and what you said later is good we will add 10 countries to the major league after first 4 years (2 top qualifiers from league cup) then start the relegation system for the next span

but less than 4 years it cant be.

Yes you have the individual cups, but then you get an overall picture behind it, and you get countries playing for the world championship as they would. I wouldn't like to hear about the world championship all the way through the Ashes, but that may just be me. You understand you still have them, but what I oppose is the idea as a whole.

The main problem is as you say, it can't be any shorter than 4 years. Four years ago Australia had Warne, McGrath etc and were number one in the world easily, unbeatable. Now they are down to normal level and much more beatable. If those four years went over this span, you would be playing against at least two completely different teams. I don't like this idea, a world championship decides who is the best team in the world at any one time, not who is the best sustained team across this four years. The ICC Rankings take care of that.

The other argument I have heard for it is that Tests have no context, and they need to be put in context. They have their context already and have for centuries, this is a marketing ploy more than anything. I have lost respect for domestic competitions that have an unlimited overs 'final'. You don't play finals in Test cricket, you grind your opposition to a pulp over many weeks, not just one game.

There are complaints about the ODI World Cup being too long, and that goes for a month. This goes for FOUR years. And how would you give points to teams?

Another thing is equity. Everything will have to be more even than it is now. Australia plays England for a five Test series, and India play Pakistan for a five Test series, they are the only two series like that aren't they? (Correct me if I'm wrong). This means South Africa get away with playing Australia for only 3 Tests, meanwhile England have either the chance to flog Australia for 5 Tests, or the other way around, there's a big loser and a big winner out of a longer series.

There's too much hassle for a system that I think would make Test cricket boring. Give me an answer to why. Why would you want this?

 

[Hrithik]

Re: World Test Championship

Yes you have the individual cups, but then you get an overall picture behind it, and you get countries playing for the world championship as they would. I wouldn't like to hear about the world championship all the way through the Ashes, but that may just be me. You understand you still have them, but what I oppose is the idea as a whole.

The main problem is as you say, it can't be any shorter than 4 years. Four years ago Australia had Warne, McGrath etc and were number one in the world easily, unbeatable. Now they are down to normal level and much more beatable. If those four years went over this span, you would be playing against at least two completely different teams. I don't like this idea, a world championship decides who is the best team in the world at any one time, not who is the best sustained team across this four years. The ICC Rankings take care of that.

The other argument I have heard for it is that Tests have no context, and they need to be put in context. They have their context already and have for centuries, this is a marketing ploy more than anything. I have lost respect for domestic competitions that have an unlimited overs 'final'. You don't play finals in Test cricket, you grind your opposition to a pulp over many weeks, not just one game.

There are complaints about the ODI World Cup being too long, and that goes for a month. This goes for FOUR years. And how would you give points to teams?

Another thing is equity. Everything will have to be more even than it is now. Australia plays England for a five Test series, and India play Pakistan for a five Test series, they are the only two series like that aren't they? (Correct me if I'm wrong). This means South Africa get away with playing Australia for only 3 Tests, meanwhile England have either the chance to flog Australia for 5 Tests, or the other way around, there's a big loser and a big winner out of a longer series.

There's too much hassle for a system that I think would make Test cricket boring. Give me an answer to why. Why would you want this?

Changes in team over 4 year periods is a lame reason

It will be a 3+4+5 system of serieses every year ie 12 Tests per year for every nation not more nor less

2 pnts for winning at home 3 for away series its simple as test cricket

Honestly its fun to see a big loser and a big winner out of a longer series.

Just think

 

[Boris]

Re: World Test Championship

Changes in team over 4 year periods is a lame reason

It will be a 3+4+5 system of serieses every year ie 12 Tests per year for every nation not more nor less

2 pnts for winning at home 3 for away series its simple as test cricket

Honestly its fun to see a big loser and a big winner out of a longer series.

Just think

Not being lame isn't a very good reason for it either.

What it is is pretty much playing every series of cricket there is now, and then getting points from every win. Over a four year period (depending on which four years is used in the cycle), Australia could play a maximum of 10 Tests against England, but only a maximum of 6 Tests against South Africa. Whereas South Africa plays a maximum of 6 Tests against Australia and 6 against England. And so on.

If I could be bothered finding out exactly how many teams play against each other, it's not fair. Sri Lanka plays Bangladesh quite a lot, and they are easy wins. This means they get extra points. Whoever verses the West Indies the most will probably end up with the most points.

Over such a lengthy period of time where all teams get the chance to play every opponent and there is no 'luck of the draw' (as it will be the exact same in the next four year period), not playing an even number of games against everyone will hinder equality. It's like in the AFL Collingwood playing Richmond in 6 games throughout the season, but Geelong playing on 2 games against them. That's not fair.

I can't see any good coming from it. What will this add to the game?

 

[Hrithik]

Re: World Test Championship

Not being lame isn't a very good reason for it either.

What it is is pretty much playing every series of cricket there is now, and then getting points from every win. Over a four year period (depending on which four years is used in the cycle), Australia could play a maximum of 10 Tests against England, but only a maximum of 6 Tests against South Africa. Whereas South Africa plays a maximum of 6 Tests against Australia and 6 against England. And so on.

If I could be bothered finding out exactly how many teams play against each other, it's not fair. Sri Lanka plays Bangladesh quite a lot, and they are easy wins. This means they get extra points. Whoever verses the West Indies the most will probably end up with the most points.

Over such a lengthy period of time where all teams get the chance to play every opponent and there is no 'luck of the draw' (as it will be the exact same in the next four year period), not playing an even number of games against everyone will hinder equality. It's like in the AFL Collingwood playing Richmond in 6 games throughout the season, but Geelong playing on 2 games against them. That's not fair.

I can't see any good coming from it. What will this add to the game?

What you have said now is a shock ?

I said points on the basis of series wins so how does no. of matches affect it.

What you said is totally out of topic plz read it again carefully.

 

[SteveyD]

Re: World Test Championship

Not being lame isn't a very good reason for it either.

What it is is pretty much playing every series of cricket there is now, and then getting points from every win. Over a four year period (depending on which four years is used in the cycle), Australia could play a maximum of 10 Tests against England, but only a maximum of 6 Tests against South Africa. Whereas South Africa plays a maximum of 6 Tests against Australia and 6 against England. And so on.

If I could be bothered finding out exactly how many teams play against each other, it's not fair. Sri Lanka plays Bangladesh quite a lot, and they are easy wins. This means they get extra points. Whoever verses the West Indies the most will probably end up with the most points.

Over such a lengthy period of time where all teams get the chance to play every opponent and there is no 'luck of the draw' (as it will be the exact same in the next four year period), not playing an even number of games against everyone will hinder equality. It's like in the AFL Collingwood playing Richmond in 6 games throughout the season, but Geelong playing on 2 games against them. That's not fair.

I can't see any good coming from it. What will this add to the game?

It would add series that werent around previously I guess. When was the last Sri Lanka Series in England for example?

 

[Boris]

Re: World Test Championship

What you have said now is a shock ?

I said points on the basis of series wins so how does no. of matches affect it.

What you said is totally out of topic plz read it again carefully.

So you are saying that a three match series between South Africa and the West Indies is as fair and as hard to compete in as a 5 match Ashes series? Yes the series idea means everyone plays an equal number of series, but it still does mean that some teams play less games than others. IIRC India play the most games out of anybody. This will either give them an advantage or a disadvantage, dependant on the situation.

If it is a competition with enough time to not rely on luck of the draw, like it is, everyone has to play equally and have just as much a chance as each other.

It would add series that werent around previously I guess. When was the last Sri Lanka Series in England for example?

Not sure about the Sri Lanka/England situation there, but everyone should already have series against everyone, home and away.

Are there really any benefits to it? Test cricket isn't suited to a World Cup situation.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: World Test Championship

It's a good idea that could do with some tweaking. Dead rubbers being scrapped is a key IMO for a Championship to work. All teams must play each other home & away in the cycle. A ODI Championship and T20 Champioship should revolve around the series as well. Each team must play a minimum of four series in a calendar year.

Teams to play a maximum of 15 tests in a calendar year, 30 ODI's (not including WC/Champions Trophy year) and 24 T20's (not including WC year).

 

[Boris]

Re: World Test Championship

It's a good idea that could do with some tweaking. Dead rubbers being scrapped is a key IMO for a Championship to work. All teams must play each other home & away in the cycle. A ODI Championship and T20 Champioship should revolve around the series as well. Each team must play a minimum of four series in a calendar year.

Teams to play a maximum of 15 tests in a calendar year, 30 ODI's (not including WC/Champions Trophy year) and 24 T20's (not including WC year).

If you include ODIs and T20s with it, though, is that it would render the World Cups/Champions Trophy etc redundant. They are the competitions that rank everyone against everyone else there.

The Test Championship is the attempt at trying to make a Test World Cup, just like most other popular sports. The only problem is that you cannot hold a Test World Cup in one or even two months, it would take, as has been said, four years.

This to me is a ridiculously long time. Would you like it if the ODI World Cup took that long, and the only games you ever saw were World Cup games, and not your run of the mill series games?

I think it will drag down the importance of the individual series, and you won't see the brilliance you can get out of a 3 match Test series. Instead things are drawn out and boring. Four years is a very long time, a long time for someone to say "don't worry, we'll get 'em next time". Next time you might not even be in the team.

 

[OhMyGodTheChips]

Re: World Test Championship

If you include ODIs and T20s with it, though, is that it would render the World Cups/Champions Trophy etc redundant. They are the competitions that rank everyone against everyone else there.

I don't see how it makes it redundant. There is currently a ranking system in place, it would be no different to what is happening now, just legitimate in the fact that teams are played in a more equal fashion and that a team can claim the number one status for a period rather than it being speculative.

The Test Championship is the attempt at trying to make a Test World Cup, just like most other popular sports. The only problem is that you cannot hold a Test World Cup in one or even two months, it would take, as has been said, four years.

As previously said, this is pretty much in place already but the system is extremely poor because of the FTP agreements.

This to me is a ridiculously long time. Would you like it if the ODI World Cup took that long, and the only games you ever saw were World Cup games, and not your run of the mill series games?

Keep it in perspective.

I think it will drag down the importance of the individual series, and you won't see the brilliance you can get out of a 3 match Test series. Instead things are drawn out and boring. Four years is a very long time, a long time for someone to say "don't worry, we'll get 'em next time". Next time you might not even be in the team.

How can it drag down the importance of a series? Seriously, what you're saying already happens in test cricket, there is no difference to what is being suggested by yourself to what is already occurring. What it does do is gives a structured result that gives teams a clear indication of where they stand, gives teams something to aim for and also gives each team relevance rather than huge bias towards the money teams, a proper competition can be formed and a tier structure for expansion of test cricket can also be instigated.