I'm looking forward to the 2011 World Cup.

Especially because it might not happen until 2012. Or later...
ICC says pull your modding finger out.

Best it doesn't happen at all if it's going to be anythink like last year's shambles.

there should be a test world cup.

PlanetPakistan wrote:there should be a test world cup.

That would be unworkable, unless it was restricted to the top half-dozen sides at most.

Basil wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:there should be a test world cup.

That would be unworkable, unless it was restricted to the top half-dozen sides at most.

or have 2 groups

1 match per opposition

May be it could some thing like

Group A
AUS
PAK
SL
WI

DEC 20-24
PAK vs WI
AUS vs SL

Group B
SA
IND
NZ
ENG

DEC 26-30
ENG vs IND
SA vs NZ

then.....

JAN 2-6
Group A matches

Jan 6-10
Group B matches

Jan 11-15
Group A games

Jan 16-20
Group B games

Jan 27-31
Semis....

FEB 5-9
FINAL.

Shorter than the 50-50 WC.

PP, I'd love a proper Test WC, but it's unworkable.

Mind you, some sort of system where selected Tests count as WC qualifiers, with either semis or direct-to-final as and end result would be inetresting.

The significant possibility of draws would make knockout Test cricket impossible. Deciding it on first innings or similar would encourage negative play, while bowl-outs and Stanford-style "One1" tiebreakers wouldn't really fit with the longer form of the game.

beamer wrote:The significant possibility of draws would make knockout Test cricket impossible. Deciding it on first innings or similar would encourage negative play, while bowl-outs and Stanford-style "One1" tiebreakers wouldn't really fit with the longer form of the game.

Suppose you limited the first innings to 100 overs per side - I know, it's not true test cricket, but there would then be the best part of three days to achieve a result.

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:The significant possibility of draws would make knockout Test cricket impossible. Deciding it on first innings or similar would encourage negative play, while bowl-outs and Stanford-style "One1" tiebreakers wouldn't really fit with the longer form of the game.

Suppose you limited the first innings to 100 overs per side - I know, it's not true test cricket, but there would then be the best part of three days to achieve a result.

Some countries would still serve up roads.

Zat wrote:

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:The significant possibility of draws would make knockout Test cricket impossible. Deciding it on first innings or similar would encourage negative play, while bowl-outs and Stanford-style "One1" tiebreakers wouldn't really fit with the longer form of the game.

Suppose you limited the first innings to 100 overs per side - I know, it's not true test cricket, but there would then be the best part of three days to achieve a result.

Some countries would still serve up roads.

Have the ICC appoint inspectors to oversee pitch preparation.

Of course, the ICC, they're a really useful organisation with a great track record of getting member countries to do what's good for the game.

Zat wrote:Of course, the ICC, they're a really useful organisation with a great track record of getting member countries to do what's good for the game.

We could just give up and hand control of the game to Stanford and the BCCI. Oh wait.........

Aye Bas. Enjoy Tests while you can. The ADD generation is winning, and Tests will be increasingly marginalised.

Zat wrote:PP, I'd love a proper Test WC, but it's unworkable.

Mind you, some sort of system where selected Tests count as WC qualifiers, with either semis or direct-to-final as and end result would be inetresting.

well the first version will be far from perfect but i am sure its not an impossible to eventually get things right.

Unfortunately the administrators aren't really bothered about the health of test cricket

PlanetPakistan wrote: i am sure its not an impossible to eventually get things right.

You have more fath in the ICC than most, I would suggest.

Have definite, set tour programs, stricter than the current FTP, with a set number of test matches, and give away the World Cup after every 5 years to the country dong the best. I can't see it working otherwise.