Test Championship. For and Against.

[chargers 09]

Thought it would be a good time to generate done discussion about this issue.
Are you for or against the idea of a championship?
If so how would you restructure it?
We all know realistically any change will be difficult with scheduling issues and India's chokehold on the game.
I for one am for the idea, just unsure if a "playoff" type tournament would work.
I'd much prefer in a perfect works a round robin and at the end of a specific date after all teams have played a champion is crowned. Of course this will never happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[t_94]

My ideal setup:

Division 1
South Africa
Australia
England
India
New Zealand
Pakistan
-
Division 2
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Bangladesh
Zimbabwe
Ireland
Afghanistan

Each team in division plays a 3 test series against each other home and away, over a period of four years (30 test matches in total). The schedule could perhaps be completed in a little shorter period of time than that, considering the amount of cricket that is played these days. At the end of this period, the top two teams from each division play each other in a final, with the winner from division 1 being crowned champion and the winner of division 2 promoted to division one.

In terms of The final, I'd advocate for the division 2 final to be played as a 'Curtain raiser' to the division 1 final, ideally at an iconic venue such as Lords, the MCG etc. Obviously a period of time would need to be allowed for in order to allow pitch/ facilities to be adequately prepared. I feel that these back to back finals, would be a fitting end to the four year cycle. Think the English county t20 'finals day' on a much larger scale.

I think this format gives context to test cricket. I'd involve some day night tests where appropriate, too.

 

[iluvparis]

A 4 year rotation is too long to have split divisions IMHO.

Teams in Div 2 will be dead by the time the competition reaches its completion.

 

[chargers 09]

Yeh 4 years is way too long.

 

[Underarm]

A 4 year rotation is too long to have split divisions IMHO.

Teams in Div 2 will be dead by the time the competition reaches its completion.

But 2 years would pack the schedule too tight.

I like the Idea of a FA/Davis Cup style test championship, but the schedule is probabaly already too packed for that as well.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeh 4 years is way too long.

I think a four year rotation is necessary, but all Test nations should be in that. No divisions. Sure that will mean some uncompetitive series, but so be it. Apart from Test cricket being the ultimate, and you can't have two levels of ultimate, just because 6-6 looks a decent split now doesb't mean it will be the case in the future. Will people want a 4-4-4 split when 6th gets hammered all the time against 1st, 2nd and 3rd?

I would stick with series, with equal points against all opponents. Ideally there would be a semi-final series and a final series, but that would be impossible to schedule without using neutral venues.

In short, just adding context and a necessity to play all opponents to the current set-up. And add a final series, minimum 5 Tests, with no other internationals and no domestic T20 on at the time.

 

[to1994]

The main problem right now is that the weaker test nations obviously have very weak F.C. structures forcing the players to learn everything on the job when they start playing Tests rather then being properly prepared at the level below.

I'd like to see the the lower test playing nations work together with the ICC to play each other as often as possible in order to boost the stocks before they play Tests against the Big 3. Having the best XI between smaller countries playing each other regularly should lead to better outcomes and this should include Aus A/Eng Lions etc. when possible and of course the Windies too.

Perhaps if there were smaller Test tournaments where the winner gets a two-Test series against Aus/Ind/Eng could lead to some interesting and competitive series between smaller nations. This shouldn't be at the expense of any games that would scheduled but instead an added bonus for more context between the minnow/lesser nation tours.

 

[The_Reaper]

Four years is just right and I'm for it. As long as each team in the top 8 plays a series home and away against each other team in this time.

There also needs to be a real mechanism for promotion into test status

 

[footyfan1978]

Thought it would be a good time to generate done discussion about this issue.
Are you for or against the idea of a championship?
If so how would you restructure it?

I am certainly for it.
Most important form of the game but much of the time the context of many Test series in terms of overall standing around the world is lost.

I would structure it in a way of once every four years the top 8 Test nations play in the World Test Championship over a two months period.
It has to be done by making sure the main nations are programming no other international series of any form in a blocked off two month period set side for the WTC.
Not every place in world is ideal to host it , so I would think we only program it to start with to be hosted in England during a July and August period or Australia and New Zealand in January and February. I try starting it off in England as easiest place for all nations to get to and ideal place seeing it is place cricket invented.

For example July and August of 2019 could be the first such World Cup for the Test match format.
At a certain qualifying date such as end of April 2019 the top ranked 8 Test nations qualify at that time to take part.
You would split it into two groups of round robin matches.
Before the group stages start in May the teams already arrive in England and play two warm up 4 day games against County sides or against each other from teams from other group.

So Group A would be Test nations ranked 1, 4, 5 and 8


Group B would be Test nations ranked 2,3, 6 and 7

Within those groups over July and first week of August the teams play the other 3 nations in their group in Test matches in grounds around England.

After that phase of round robin Test matches the bottom two teams in each group eliminated from the World Cup title.

The two top teams from each group qualifying for the semi-finals in mid August. The top team from one group plays lower placed team from other group and you have two semi-finals.

The final is played by the two leading teams from those two semi-finals. If any of these are a draw the team that finished top of either group from round robin phase moves on into the Final.

The World Cup Title Test match is played in last week of August at Lord's in 2019.


The second time this is run would be 2023 in Australia for January and February.
Things like Big Bash would be scheduled early in December for that year.
The normal Australia summer of Test matches in November and December and into the new year cancelled for that Test Championship Title year.

I think it is the only way to structure it and make it work and worthwhile idea.

 

[Marklar_33]

Top 8 play a knockout every 2 years, takes maybe 3 weeks

 

[KangarooUnicorn]

I am for a test championship of some description. There needs to be a bit more structure to the test match game rather than letting the test nations organise their own series on an ad hoc basis as happens at the moment.
There is a good structure in place for the Associate Nations by way of the Intercontinental Cup. Can something similar not be structured for the Test playing nations?
All test series should be a minimum of 3 tests.
I am not sure whether you actually need a final though. The top team after everyone has played each other has shown their superiority and deserve to be crowned champions.

 

[The Speaker]

Russell Degnan is currently doing a survey about the Test championship:

https://t.co/1njzt2qAFN

 

[KangarooUnicorn]

Russell Degnan is currently doing a survey about the Test championship:

https://t.co/1njzt2qAFN

Completed. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[chargers 09]

Russell Degnan is currently doing a survey about the Test championship:

https://t.co/1njzt2qAFN

I'll have a go at this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Marklar_33]

Russell Degnan is currently doing a survey about the Test championship:

https://t.co/1njzt2qAFN

Awesome! I've had my say. I'm glad there was a big chance to push Associates in that survey, which of course there always will be with Russell!

 

[JackOutback]

I like the idea of a Test championship, but doesn't the idea of a tournament lend itself to the home side having a massive advantage? The home and away series idea ensures the truly best team is determined, but perhaps there could be a final at a neutral venue.

 

[SuperEgz]

http://www.thecricketpaper.com/feat...sh-holds-the-key-to-staging-test-world-title/

Cash holds the key to staging Test world title
Posted on February 20, 2016
Derek Pringle explains how it would be possible for the ICC to deliver a Test World Championship

Test cricket is the only form of the game the International Cricket Council does not have a marquee competition for, so you’d have thought it would have started one ages ago.

To be fair, they have twice tried to get a Test Championship underway, in 2013 and in 2017, and while there have been tentative murmurings again, recently, the idea tends to get kicked into the long grass by countries worried that it will reduce the value of their broadcasting deals.

Test cricket might be the most fascinating of the three formats across which international cricket can market itself, but as many have discovered it is an awkward fit with our modern lives. Crowds still turn up in England and, if the right opponent is present, Australia and India, but elsewhere it is an effort to get more than a few thousand spectators through the gates.

Broadcasters also find Test cricket a challenge to fit into their schedules. Like many who need to plan, they prefer certainty, something bilateral tours between two countries offer them but not a Test Championship, at least not the knockout stage.

With the latter, they would be unable to control the participating teams, the length of the match, or even whether there would be a champion – draws being part of the fabric of Test cricket. So, when ICC recently proposed a Test Championship to replace the Champions Trophy, a 50-over tournament of dubious worth, broadcasters insisted the latter be re-instated.

With T20 leagues proliferating and turning players heads away from traditional forms like never before, many believe Test cricket needs a stronger context, like a championship, if it is to survive. You might argue that the ratings already provide a league table from which the top team is decided, but that does not provide the global showpiece a knockout tournament would ensure.

To create one you first have to decide how often it should be contested. A four-year cycle would give the top eight-ranked teams enough time to play each other home and away, over a series comprising a minimum three Tests, to decide the new league order. Old rivalries like the Ashes can remain as five-Test extravaganzas and there should still be enough time to fit in most of the T20 leagues that help to line the pockets of leading players.

On the other hand you could neutralise some of the T20 threat by improving rewards elsewhere. With most current players and administrators still claiming Test cricket to be the ultimate form of the game, why not reflect that primacy by increasing, exponentially, the pay and prize money?

A top prize of £10 million for the winners of the Test Championship, £5 million for the runners-up, and £3 million and £1 million for three and four, would be a start.

ICC would also pay each cricketer in the top division £15,000 for each game played, remuneration in addition to whatever their Boards pay them for representing their country. ICC could afford it as the costs of setting up a Test Championship would be a fraction of those for World Cups with only the knock-out stage incurring much organisational cost.

To make a series as meaningful as possible, I would have promotion and relegation, with teams like Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Ireland, Netherlands and Scotland jostling for promotion out of a second division. The first two on that list are unlikely to vote for it, but it would be an incentive for them to improve, and quickly. Only teams finishing fifth and six would be sat with their bats idle during this period.

While the first four teams in the top division (one v two, three v four) decide the leading places over the best-of-three matches, the bottom two sides would play the top two in the second division over a single Test home and away. I understand that opportunities for those in the second division would present themselves only every four years, but they remain an opportunity nonetheless.

There would be no protectionism for England, Australia and India from relegation, as demanded by them in last year’s shake-up of ICC’s resources. If they cannot stay away from relegation with the money they spend on their cricket teams they deserve to go down.

Logistically, this will not be straightforward, but Rugby Super 15 franchises traverse the Southern Hemisphere to play each other before playing a short knock-out tournament. Obviously a rugby team has less kit than a cricket team, but there are those who feel that cricket could streamline itself on that front anyway.

The travel burden would be eased if countries specialised by having distinct red and white-ball teams, but if they couldn’t, one-day series could still be fitted in, especially if they were to be used mainly for trying new players out in the lead ups to World Cups.

Draws are the big, and some would say insoluble, issue for a Test Championship, given that modern mores demand a winner. Australia’s Sheffield Shield competition circumvented the draw by awarding the trophy to the side scoring the most runs in their first innings. Yet, that often saw the top-ranked finalist, with the right to play at home, produce docile pitches in the hope of winning the toss and racking up a big, insurmountable score.

The final of a Test Championship would be played over the best of three, though still at the home of the No 1 ranked team. They should at least have that perk for finishing top.

You cannot plan for weather, but one idea of removing the draw from the equation is to play until there is a result, the so called ‘timeless’ Test. The only problem with that, apart from broadcasters hating the scheduling uncertainty, is that the last one, 76 years ago in Durban, was described as interminably dull – and that when attention spans were far longer than today.

In the unlikely event that all three matches of the final are drawn, the winner could be decided by taking the runs per wicket lost over the three matches for each team, and then subtracting the runs per wicket taken by them, and deciding the winner like that. It may not be a satisfying way to decide a champion, but it is more likely to reward positive cricket which would then lead to a result anyway.

The other bugbear for many, to the point of obsession, is the pitches for the final, and who would produce them? I have never understood the chin-stroking given to this. Tosses are not guaranteed and the surface has to be played on by both teams. Also, pitches are an inexact science and while turgid ones tend to produce dull cricket, sporty ones can be too bowler-friendly for a good spectacle between bat and ball.

One solution to obviate any bias would be to play the final at a neutral venue, but that is likely to prove unsatisfactory if say you had Australia and South Africa, with fast bowlers to the fore, playing on a dead heap in Mumbai.

Another suggestion is to cede groundsman duties to the ICC, but I wouldn’t bother. Test cricket has got on without them preparing pitches for almost 140 years and nobody has been shot yet.

This piece originally featured in The Cricket Paper, Friday February 19 2016

 

[chargers 09]

http://www.thecricketpaper.com/feat...sh-holds-the-key-to-staging-test-world-title/

Certainly has done merit to it. Good write up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk