Do you agree with the Test Championship?

[kretchy]

Here is the current table

Team Played Won Lost Drawn Points Average
1 Australia 13 9 2 2 20 1.54
2 South Africa 16 11 3 2 24 1.50
3 Sri Lanka 14 7 5 2 16 1.14
4 England 15 7 6 2 16 1.07
5 New Zealand 15 6 6 3 15 1.00
6 West Indies 14 6 7 1 13 0.93
7 India 14 4 7 3 11 0.79
8 Pakistan 15 3 7 5 11 0.73
9 Zimbabwe 16 3 11 2 8 0.50
- Bangladesh 2 - 2 - 0 -

I think the top three positions are fairly accurate but i don't think South Africa should be so close to the Aussies. They have however won their last series in Sri Lanka and India whereas Australia haven't. New Zealand should be infront of England i think, they might play each other soon after the NZ v Bangladesh.
The rest seems alright maybe the windies should be a bit lower.

[Darky]

I think it does demonstrate how far ahead of the pack Australia and South Africa are, and they are probably the only two nations that will be competitive anywhere and everywhere.

It's hard to get a truly realistic idea of where everyone stands unless all teams play eachother both home and away within a certain time frame. The logistics of organising this, taking into consideration northern/southern seasons, world travel, tour lengths etc. is just huge.

By the end of that three year cycle (on which points are awarded) a team can go from peak to trough or vice versa. If a system could be devised where a single season is the criterion for ladder positions then it would be better, but obviously with 10 Test playing nations, tour length usually being about 6-8 weeks, and requiring a home AND away tour, it would be impossible.

I can see why three years is about the minimum achievable turnover time (for awarding points) but three years is still a long time (refer to Aussie cricket 1986 and 1989 as an example) so it's not an 100% accurate system because there isn't one. But this is as close as anyone is ever going to get.

[Player]

The interesting thing is that Pakistan, the team most pundits would suggest is the number 3 team in the world, and a possible contender to beat Australia in Australia, is in fact ranked a lowly 8th.

[mrboy]

i agree, its pretty fair.

yeah.

[red+black]

i think it's safe to say that NZ are actually 16/7/6/3/1.06/17 cos they'll win the Bangladesh series. The only reason Australia is not further ahead is because we are yet to play Zimbabwe or Bangladesh home or away (that's 8 points to us for starters), and we haven't hosted Sri Lanka (see my research below on this one).

I have thought that 2 series draws shouldn't equate with a series win, and maybe in future the points allocated for a series win will be 3 rather than 2 (hey, most soccer comps employ this now). i also believe that a home series win should not equate with an away series win. just a suggestion.
======
i posted (below) this on rec.sport.cricket but no one has replied yet, maybe cos no one could be bothered to do the research:

The ICC have their 10 year plan as we all know and that all 10 teams
will have played each other home and away by 2005. The last time
Australia hosted Sri Lanka was in 1995/96:

<http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1995-96/SL_IN_AUS/>

yet this occurred before the ICC Test Championship came into effect
(May 1996), therefore under this new system, Australia has NOT hosted
Sri Lanka yet.

The ICC state that a straight points system will replace the current
points averaging system when all teams have played each other home and
away, sometime in 2005 they state:

<http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/ICCTC/>

The ICC Ten Year Plan states that Australia will host Sri Lanka in
December 2002:

<http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/TOURNAMENTS/10_YEAR_PLAN/2002.html>

yet if you check the schedule, you will see that Sri Lanka are
actually NOT scheduled to play ANY test matches in Australia, but
simply compete in a round robin ODI series:

<http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/SL_IN_AUS/SL_IN_AUS_DEC2002-JAN2003_SCHEDULE.html>

Australia are due to host Sri Lanka again in November 2007, so I ask
why the 12 years between Australia hosting Sri Lanka in test matches
(as was the case with India not hosting Australia between 1986-1998),
and how can the ICC promote an official Test champion nation in 2005
when arguably two of the best test teams would not have played in
Australia by then?

I hope someone has a theory ...

[Player]

First off I have to give credit to an excellent piece of research, and that said I firmly believe your curiosity has identified a real administrative SNAFU.

After looking at the calender it is impossible but to conclude that Australia simply can not host a test series against anybody during the recommended window because of an already congested Summer.

When this series was first scheduled who ever was responsible ignored that (a) England tours Australia in November, meaning an extended 5 test Ashes series, (b) the Ashes will immediately be followed by the VB OD World Series during December and Janurary, then (c) the Cricket World Cup is supposed to start in February 2003.

Obviously each of these prior commitments takes precedence over completing a Sri Lankan tour.

Ironically the introduction of a uniform international programme increases the difficulty in catching up missed series sometime in the future, unless Australia wants to arbitary determine its own schedule, or hastily insert a two test micro series.

Unless you're team is ranked first or last then I don't really put much credence, other than a novelty value, on the international test championship.

Hell, England tours New Zealand in the new year. If New Zealand wins that series (and I am not saying this is a probability) then they would leap frog both England and Sri Lanka into third place anyway.