World Test Championship - here we go again

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/ca-chief-tips-green-light-for-revolutionary-world-test-championship-20100728-10w46.html

Not sure how many times this has been mooted as an idea, but it's in some of the papers again.

I like the idea of playing it as a six-day match (or even to a result!) but what if it was to be played at the Colombo SSC on the current pitch? It could turn out to be a ten or eleven day affair!

And wouldn't it make more sense to give the team that qualifies #1 the home advantage, or at least the choice of venue? Surely that would generate the best atmosphere for such a match.

A timeless test is should to be a crowd pleaser - what pharking planet are these tw@ts on?

Anything suggested by Martin Crowe (Cricket Max anyone?) should be treated with extreme caution.

We already have a world championship - it's called The Ashes.

Next.

Sagicity from Basil

Test cricket has always been about winning series

The ratings are just a bit of novelty and a discussion topic. Sure it's nice to be #1 but it's all a bit meh

I'd rather win the Ashes then win some test championship thing



Also, they have enough trouble fitting test matches in now so we could served these cruddy 2 test series. A champsionship game thing aint gunna help

Absolutely. I didn't walk into the office the morning with arms raised after we became the no. 1 Test nation (so long ago now!!) but I sure as hell did when we regained the Ashes and Frank.

Poo-pooing a potential World Test Championship isn't being sage, it's being short-sighted.

International cricket is a complete and utter shambles.

It gets by despite its lack of coherent scheduling and context not because of it.

It appers that the powers-that-be are still determning whether the championship is going to address scheduling and resemble a league or whether it's just going to be a playoff of some sort to give the rankings context.

The latter of those sounds more feasible - it would still allow boards to maintain higgilty-piggilty scheduling, while making the rankings mean something (surely an improvement).

If they can come up with a way to make the former work (while maintaining 3-test series and a limited number of 5-test series) then I'm all for it.

Yes, we've heard all this mooted before, but it actually sounds like coming to fruition this time.

we have a world test championship. india are the holders.

skully wrote:Absolutely. I didn't walk into the office the morning with arms raised after we became the no. 1 Test nation (so long ago now!!) but I sure as hell did when we regained the Ashes and Frank.

When did we ever have a championship to decide Australia becoming number one Skully?

The closest thing we had was Australia's win in the Carribean in 1995 and I sure as hell remeber people walking around with arms raised the morning we won at Sabina Park. It wasn't just about regaining Frank after all those years - the world title aspect added to the moment.

Ash wrote:we have a world test championship. india are the holders for a few more days until they lose the current series 2-0 or 3-0, then Sri Lanka goes top.

Fixed.

Will Sri Lanka really go number 1 if they win 3-0 or 2-0?

Henry wrote:Will Sri Lanka really go number 1 if they win 3-0 or 2-0?

Yes ...

test it for yourself on the ICC predictor thingy ...thread bumped for you

Just looked at the rankings. How the hell are England 5th despite recently winning the ashes, and drawing with South Africa at home?

embee wrote:test it for yourself on the ICC predictor thingy ...thread bumped for you

Is the predictor thingy working? When I went, it said there were 'no matches in progress' at the moment.

It wont let me predict anything, saying "there are no matches currently" despite 2 test series currently taking place. Stupid ICC.

Hass wrote:

skully wrote:Absolutely. I didn't walk into the office the morning with arms raised after we became the no. 1 Test nation (so long ago now!!) but I sure as hell did when we regained the Ashes and Frank.

When did we ever have a championship to decide Australia becoming number one Skully?

The closest thing we had was Australia's win in the Carribean in 1995 and I sure as hell remeber people walking around with arms raised the morning we won at Sabina Park. It wasn't just about regaining Frank after all those years - the world title aspect added to the moment.

err we had that ICC rating thingy

The ICC rating thingy is not a championship, despite what it's name might imply.

The ICC is talking about having a real championship - something we haven't tried since 1912.

Sorry, I was referring to skully's stated moment when we became #1

Why not just have a one month test fest. Like a world cup for tests. Can you imagine 3 test matches taking place in the same country at one time- At Lord's there is Australia v England whilst up at Headingley India are taking on Pakistan. South Africa and New Zealand are battling it out at Trent Bridge. Press the red button on your remote to choose which match you want to watch.

Two groups of five play each other once (5 day tests). The winner of each group (decided by which team took the most wickets if they're level on points) play each other in a final, timeless test.

Awesome.

the test format is not conducive to having a world cup over 4-6 weeks. any other form of world championship would be contrived, too lengthy and pointless. one of the charms of the football / odi world cups is that it gives teams the opportunity to build a side for that tournament over the preceding 4 years. by the time every team has played every other (any less and it wouldnt be a true world championship given the small number of participants), the teams would have changed. a world cup is supposed to be a snapshot in time.

the ICC rating aims to identify the best test team in the world. thats good enough for me.

Henry wrote:Why not just have a one month test fest.

As fun as that would be, I think it's a non-starter.

Firstly, England (and possibly Australia) would be the only places where you'd get decent crowds for all the matches.

Secondly, it would have the potential to devalue Tests that aren't part of the Test World Cup.

Maybe if the team at the top of the rankings was able to host it... but then we're back to point one about crowds.

And Aus beating a whole bunch of number 2's ad nauseum for about ten years.

I think the best idea out there that's workable is to simply have the top four sides play semi-finals and a final in England every year.

Play it over three weeks at the end of the English season ie. late August/early September. 1 v 4 and 2 v 3. If the match is drawn the top-ranked side goes through.

You could make all the matches six-day affairs if you wanted to, or include a reserve day to be used if weather intervenes.

I'm sure it would be well supported in England even if the home side failed to qualify.

You could potentially play it every second year, but I think it would benefit from being an annual part of the English sporting summer.

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.

Hass wrote:

skully wrote:Absolutely. I didn't walk into the office the morning with arms raised after we became the no. 1 Test nation (so long ago now!!) but I sure as hell did when we regained the Ashes and Frank.

When did we ever have a championship to decide Australia becoming number one Skully?

The closest thing we had was Australia's win in the Carribean in 1995 and I sure as hell remeber people walking around with arms raised the morning we won at Sabina Park. It wasn't just about regaining Frank after all those years - the world title aspect added to the moment.

Erm, I did mention Frank, Hass. And yes, I definitely walked in to the office with my arms raised that day. I was merely pointing out that I don't believe holding the no. 1 position ranks as highly as winning a marquee series or, (in the case of Frank) overcoming a long-term oppressor in terms of sheer unadulterated joy.

And I can't see any form of Test Championship (because it would take considerable time to decide) producing the joy of a series win over England, WI, India, SAf particularly if a close and exciting series.

I may be wrong but I don't think you'll find any Englishman that will swap the euphoria of Ashes 05 for the pleasure of England becoming no. 1. This was the sentiment I was trying to express.

I may be wrong but I don't think you'll find any Englishman that will swap the euphoria of Ashes 05 for the pleasure of England becoming no. 1.

You are definitely NOT wrong skulls.
AFAI'veK over the years, us Poms crave one thing above all others in Test cricket ... to beat the Aussies in order to retain/regain the Urn (is that who you refer to as Frank?!)
Win, lose or draw, that's the pinnacle.

World Rankings mean absolutely nothing - whether top, middle or bottom... the Ashes do.
It's as simple as that.

One further point - bearing in mind the boring sh!t going on in Colombo which is a crap excuse for "test" cricket - as a Pom I've always relished a test series against Pakistan above the rest of the subi test nations ... quite simply - Eng V Pak (home or away) are always interesting series purely because of all the sub-cont teams, Pak ALWAYS play with a determined purpose aided by exciting new emerging talent, far more so than India, despite their Bollywood starlets and even SL, who, granted, do have their moments.
There's always been something fiery about Pakistani cricket that adds spice to their matches - something that's missing in the other two sides.