ICC introduce new Test, ODI leagues/championsips

[Howard Littlejohn]

So six Test series, three home and three away, from nine nations to qualify for the Test Championship. Is there a formula to which six teams you play or is it designed to increase games against the weakest teams in order to qualify?

That seems to still be up in the air, as does a points system and quite a few other things that are vital to it actually working.

I imagine points earned home and away will carry over between cycles, maybe to a maximum of six years or something; so eventually the points will from the latest result of all 16 combinations (8 home, 8 away) assuming they were played within the carry-over period. But that's speculation, there appears to be no detail.

 

[Cleavy]

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/aust...ampionship-league-james-sutherland/2017-10-14

oh more T20I

 

[Carbine Chaos]

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/aust...ampionship-league-james-sutherland/2017-10-14

oh more T20I

Easily my least favourite form. Leave T20 cricket to franchise and domestic.

 

[The_Reaper]

T20 just doesn't lend itself to bilateral series.

 

[Sammo360]

All but finalised now.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21748804/england-india-other-ashes

 

[The_Reaper]

Aren't we meant to play the Dutch as well?

 

[KBLT]

Two-test series to become much more common by the sounds of it. Horrible, horrible decision on that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21764390/prepare-more-two-test-series-starting-2019

 

[Sammo360]

Aren't we meant to play the Dutch as well?

Only play 8 out of the 12 other countries for the ODI league (May 2020 to May 2022). The 8 countries are India, Zimbabwe, South Africa, New Zealand, England, Pakistan, Afghanistan and West Indies.

We can still organise a bilateral series v Netherlands outside the ODI league as they have done with Sri Lanka, Ireland and Bangladesh.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Only play 8 out of the 12 other countries for the ODI league (May 2020 to May 2022). The 8 countries are India, Zimbabwe, South Africa, New Zealand, England, Pakistan, Afghanistan and West Indies.

We can still organise a bilateral series v Netherlands outside the ODI league as they have done with Sri Lanka, Ireland and Bangladesh.

I really don't see the point of a league where you don't play everyone at least once.
That applies to both test and ODI league. It means we'll still end up with a convoluted rankings system rather than just a simple points system that people can actually understand and follow. If the aim is to give context, it fails when the publilc can't comprehend the maths required to give that context.

 

[Sammo360]

I really don't see the point of a league where you don't play everyone at least once.
That applies to both test and ODI league. It means we'll still end up with a convoluted rankings system rather than just a simple points system that people can actually understand and follow. If the aim is to give context, it fails when the publilc can't comprehend the maths required to give that context.

True. Sadly, India won't play Pakistan and England won't play Zimbabwe etc hence the convoluted system.

 

[The_Reaper]

I really don't see the point of a league where you don't play everyone at least once.
That applies to both test and ODI league. It means we'll still end up with a convoluted rankings system rather than just a simple points system that people can actually understand and follow. If the aim is to give context, it fails when the publilc can't comprehend the maths required to give that context.

A starting point.

 

[The Speaker]

IMO that's comfortably the worst part of the World Cup.

Tough games of cricket that matter interest me. The 1992 World Cup in Australia was fantastic. Just the best nations there, play everyone once. Best four make semi finals.

Then go watch the Champions Trophy.

World Cup group stages exist to grow the game. If you only want 'the best nations', every World Cup would have four teams and no upsets.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Then go watch the Champions Trophy.

World Cup group stages exist to grow the game. If you only want 'the best nations', every World Cup would have four teams and no upsets.

Exactly

Having your showpiece event as a development tool is stupid.

Should we have some slow runners in the Olympic 100m final to boost athletics participation in those nations?

The world cup qualifiers should be like soccer has. Every country gets their chance to make it. These qualifying games in the lead up become quite big events themselves. Then the world cup itself is reserved for the best of the best.

 

[The Speaker]

Exactly

Having your showpiece event as a development tool is stupid.

Should we have some slow runners in the Olympic 100m final to boost athletics participation in those nations?

The world cup qualifiers should be like soccer has. Every country gets their chance to make it. These qualifying games in the lead up become quite big events themselves. Then the world cup itself is reserved for the best of the best.

wut?

What world cup are you watching? Most of the teams at the soccer world cup have no chance of winning it. Getting there is considered to be the big event for some of them. It's the total opposite of what you're claiming it is.

If it weren't for Ireland defeating Pakistan and England at successive world cups, they would not be a Test nation today.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Do you know what World Cup qualifiers are?

Ireland or whoever would still get to play those games.

 

[The Speaker]

Do you know what World Cup qualifiers are?

How many teams at the upcoming FIFA World Cup have a chance of winning? If you say '32' you are dreaming. It would be, at best, about a third. 79 nations have played at at least one soccer world cup. Seven have won. The teams you don't want at the CWC are the same kind of teams that qualify but never win the FWC.

Ireland or whoever would still get to play those games.

Ireland is a full member of the ICC and Test playing nation. Get out of your bubble.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Two-test series to become much more common by the sounds of it. Horrible, horrible decision on that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21764390/prepare-more-two-test-series-starting-2019

They way I see it you can have a more inclusive schedule (with lower-ranked nations getting a relatively consistent touring schedule agains Aus, Eng, India and South Africa) or longer series; commercial reality would suggest you can't have both.

 

[Cochblocked]

Exactly

Having your showpiece event as a development tool is stupid.

Should we have some slow runners in the Olympic 100m final to boost athletics participation in those nations?

The world cup qualifiers should be like soccer has. Every country gets their chance to make it. These qualifying games in the lead up become quite big events themselves. Then the world cup itself is reserved for the best of the best.

You're missing the part where in Soccer it's regional qualifiers where the best play against the lower teams helping them get better and qualifying themselves. In Cricket 8 teams automatically qualify with no need to play lower teams and not helping them improve that's why you need a bigger world cup. Cricket would have to be the only sport to reduce their world cup.

I assume Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland and one of Zimbabwe/Afghanistan will miss out on the next world cup which is a joke they can absolutely compete. It isn't like the early 2000s anymore.