World Test Championship - here we go again

Zat wrote:

Hass wrote:have the top four sides play semi-finals and a final in England every year.

Sorry Hass, old bean, but f*ck that for a game of soldiers.

I'd be happy with that. It is the home of the game and commercial arrangements could be struck with participating Boards. Coming back to the same venue helps to build "tradition". Putting it out on rotation just invites bastardry from the the BCCI.

of course you prefer the paksters. the poms have not beat india in a series since 1996

Frank

The Frank Worrell Trophy - Windies v Aus.

and having the finals at the same venue favours that country a bit too much. better to have it at the home ground of the higher ranked team but with icc appointed curators

of course you prefer the paksters. the poms have not beat india in a series since 1996

Ah, you mean over 2 or 3 test match mini-series ... yeah, maybe, but right now I'd wager a skinfull that over a 5 test series England will kick BanIndia's arse so hard they'll acquire a Bangles status for several years hence...

Since '96, these are the no. of tests Eng has played against India in each series, home or away.

1996: 3 tests, Result: Eng 1-0
2001: 3 tests, Result: Ind 1-0
2002: 4 tests, Result: 1-1
2006: 3 tests, Result: 1-1
2007: 3 tests. Result: Ind 1-0

I don't see any 2-test series there unless Merlin sees it differently. If you can't defeat us in a 3-test series, how can one guarantee that you'll defeat us in a 5-test series especially knowing that historically India have been slow starters.

Oh apologies ... no 2 test series!

The guarantee lies in the fact that God was a very small boy when India last played in a 5 test series (have they ever?) ... whereas England do it every 2 years at least with several 4 test series sprinkled in.
The Poms, you see, value Test cricket.

It's called endurance ... and let's just say it's a feeling in me bones that I believe India lack said endurance (IN TEST'S) ... as your mob seem to have the impression that, having invented IPL, you therefore excel in the circus arena that is T20 ...errr... wait a moment .... well that too is history now!

a 5 test series will only improve india's chances considering they are poor starters

india has played 5 test series in 1992, 1997 and 2002. the last two against the windies

we have played a fair few 4 test series though. mostly against the aussies

The One wrote:and having the finals at the same venue favours that country a bit too much. better to have it at the home ground of the higher ranked team but with icc appointed curators

Really, how often has the home team won the 50 over WC? Besides, under Hass's proposal only the top 4 teams qualify.

i think seeing the success of teams at home in tests may be more of a pointer

and the 50 over world cup is not held in one country either. well, not anymore at least thank god

would be silly for a world cup of any sport to be held in only one country

Mick Sawyer wrote:

The One wrote:and having the finals at the same venue favours that country a bit too much. better to have it at the home ground of the higher ranked team but with icc appointed curators

Really, how often has the home team won the 50 over WC? Besides, under Hass's proposal only the top 4 teams qualify.

Sort-of only the Lankans. They were co-hosts in the 1995/96, but the Final was played in Lahore.

1975 - Hosts Eng - Winner WI
1979 - Hosts Eng - Winner WI
1983 - Hosts Eng - Winner Ind
1987 - Hosts Ind - Winner Aus
1991/92 - Hosts Aus/NZ - Winner Pak
1995/96 - Hosts Ind/Pak/SL - Winner SL
1999 - Hosts Eng - Winner Aus
2003 - Hosts SAf - Winner Aus
2007 - Hosts WI - Winner Aus

The idea of playing it in England every year is an attempt to make the whole shebang work.

Playing the final at Lord's each year would make it special and help set up a tradition. The idea is to make it like the FA Cup final, which is always held at Wembley even if the two finalists are from up north. Or compare it to Wimbledon - England hosts the most important tennis tournament every year even though an Englishman hasn't made the final since 1938!

It's also easier logistically. You can play it in the same three weeks every year, allowing it to become a fixed part of the sporting calendar. Rotating the tournament around would mean shuffling it about to fit around the different seasons. Playing it in the country of the number one ranked team would make it difficult to schedule far ahead.

The playoffs would also be guaranteed to draw a crowd in England - I shudder to think what the crowds would look like in some of the other Test nations. I also think English conditions make for good Test cricket.

Skully may not give a stuff about winning this tournament at the moment, but that's because it doesn't exist yet! I think it would quickly become quite prestigious. To help matters along I'd name the trophy after Don Bradman. Sure an Ashes win may remain the pinnacle for England and Australia. But Test cricket is about more than just England and Australia. If India were to win the final at Lord's it could well do for Indian Test cricket what the 1983 World Cup did for the one-day game.

I didn't say I wouldn't give a stuff, Hass, you did. I repeat, I don't believe winning the World Test Championship or becoming the no. 1 cricketing nation rates higher than winning the BIG series (Ashes, a strong Frank, SAf, AB/Sunny).

Let's agree to disagree on this one, mate.

To help matters along I'd name the trophy after Don Bradman..

I wouldn't.

A self centred run scoring machine he may well have been, but as a person and as a genuine team man there are several around, past and present, who'd rank far and away above him.

Jack Hobbs, Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara immediately spring to mind.

The Jack Hobbs Trophy ... now that has a definite ring to it.

Merlin wrote:

To help matters along I'd name the trophy after Don Bradman..

I wouldn't.

A self centred run scoring machine he may well have been, but as a person and as a genuine team man there are several around, past and present, who'd rank far and away above him.

So you wouldn't name the symbol of supremacy in Test cricket after the most supreme Test cricketer ever? Right...

Nope.

"Supremacy" ... interesting word!

That word should encapsulate everything that defines cricket - not just the number 99.99. Face it ... It's an Aussie thing ... and not necessarily something shared by the rest of the cricketing world. It's a stat. A good one ... but just a stat.
The man himself was not particularly liked nor respected in some quarters, according to almost all that's been written about him ... which fact alone should preclude him from having a "supreme" trophy named after him.
Naming a local Oz tournament pot after him should suffice - definitely not a world related trophy.

The Indians would put up Tendulkar, the Poms Hobbs, the WIndians Worrell, the Saffers Graeme Pollock and so on ....

Hope that explains ...

Maybe we should create a new name altogether from an anagram of all the contenders names ... novel idea eh!

Merlin wrote:
The man himself was not particularly liked nor respected in some quarters

I take issue with that. It's true that Bradman was not particularly liked, but even his fiercest enemies respected him.

Bill O'Reilly and Jack Fingleton loathed him and wrote pages of vitriol about him, but their respect for him professionally never waned.

Bradman banned the South Africans from touring Australia in 1971-72, leaving the Australians with a massive hole in the schedule. But Bradman's level of respect was such that he was able to put together a replacement Rest of the World tour in quick smart time. I think it was Garry Sobers who said only Bradman could have got all those players to come at such short notice.

And how's this for respect?

In 1986 a Commonwealth delegation visited Nelson Mandela in prison. The former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was among the delegation. What did Mandela talk to him about? Politics? His own imprisonment? Fraser's campaign to get him released? Well, I suppose they did discuss those things in time. But Mandela's first question was, "Fraser. Tell me, is Don Bradman still alive?"

The Bradman Attapattu Ntini Imran Nawab of Pataudi Dempster Illingworth Ambrose Cup

Hass wrote:Playing the final at Lord's each year would make it special and help set up a tradition. The idea is to make it like the FA Cup final, which is always held at Wembley even if the two finalists are from up north. Or compare it to Wimbledon - England hosts the most important tennis tournament every year even though an Englishman hasn't made the final since 1938!

both the FA cup and wimbledon are english competitions, not ones organised by a world body as its world championship

almost every single wold championship is rotated amongst the member states, dont see why this should be different. the allocation can be made a couple of years in advance to allow teams to set their schedule accordingly

also one of the charms of test cricket is varying conditions across venues. having the finals at the same place would be taking a lot away from the spectacle

Hass wrote:
And how's this for respect?
Mandela's first question was, "Fraser. Tell me, is Don Bradman still alive?"

He then asked if Ian Smith was still running Rhodesia.

We'll agree to differ Hass - let's leave it there.
Like I said - Bradman was an anomoly - a brilliant stat against his name - but to go beyond that and name a World Test Trophy "in his honour" would be way OTT.

a world trophy does not need someone's name on it. just name it the icc test world cup, like the odi and t20 trophies

Zat wrote:

Merlin wrote:

To help matters along I'd name the trophy after Don Bradman..

I wouldn't.

A self centred run scoring machine he may well have been, but as a person and as a genuine team man there are several around, past and present, who'd rank far and away above him.

So you wouldn't name the symbol of supremacy in Test cricket after the most supreme Test cricketer ever? Right...

The Muttiah Muralitharan Trophy??

Good point.

embee wrote:The Bradman Attapattu Ntini Imran Nawab of Pataudi Dempster Illingworth Ambrose Cup

Initially I thought that had a nice ring to it.

Zat wrote:

embee wrote:The Bradman Attapattu Ntini Imran Nawab (of Pataudi) Dempster Illingworth Ambrose Cup

Initially I thought that had a nice ring to it.

Yeah, The B.A.N.I.N.D.I.A Cup DOES have a bit of a ring to it.