Idea: To Win a Series, a Team Must Win a Majority of Scheduled Matches

[Badesumofu]

I had this thought after Australia lost the ODI series 1 - 0 as a result of two of the matches being washed out. It seems a bit silly to me to say that Australia lost a series, given that series consisted of a single match.

So I thought, maybe a bilateral series should be considered to have no result unless one team can actually win a majority of the scheduled matches. This would have the added benefit of forcing teams in Test series to play more aggressively, like in the Sheffield Shield where risking a loss in order to go for the win is almost always a good idea. In bilateral series it's currently much more important to avoid a loss than in multilateral series.

Test series these days often can get quite boring after one team gets a win, and then becomes far more focused on preventing the other team winning, than on chasing a win themselves. If, in order to win a five test series, you had to win 3 tests, I think we would see more aggressive and ballsy declarations and fewer instances of teams batting first and trying to get 700 and end the match as a contest as a first priority.

It would also make winning a series a really significant achievement. Also, with series wins being rarer, just winning a single test match, regardless of context would mean a bit more as well.

Is this maybe something that could spice up test cricket and keep series interesting for longer? It's just a thought that popped into my head, and I'm curious to see if anyone else thinks it has any merit.

:club::diamond::spade:​

 

[Bomber Bears]

No. Draws, weather etc have always been a part of cricket. Leave it as it is.

A side holding out for a draw against a bowling attack gunning for a win can be just as exciting as a side chasing down a high score etc. Takes away a big part of the game.

Who cares about one day cricket

 

[Furn]

Technically you could say India won 2-1 if each team is given half a win for the abandoned games. But really who cares about a 3 games odi series.

With the new Test and ODI world championships coming in you might see teams going for wins at the risk of losing if they need the winning to make the finals, but as far as the rankings go i think losing 1-0 is the same as losing 2-1.

 

[Badesumofu]

The ODI series catalyzed my thought process, but I don't really care about ODIs outside of the World Cup. Having bilateral ODI series at all is a mistake, IMO.

Yeah, the Test world championship might do the job anyway.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think it's a bad thing when avoiding a loss is so much more important than getting a win. That problem is a symptom of bilateral series, so I was thinking that a tweak to the way they work could fix the problem.

I'm not saying that draws aren't or shouldn't be a part of Test Cricket, of course they should, it just seems that a lot of the time teams benefit nearly as much from getting a draw as they would for a win.

 

[eddiesmith]

I am not sure on this, I mean 2-1 in a 5 test series is a win imo, if it was maybe it should be in test cricket terms a series win where there is a result in the majority of matches, but 1-0 in a 4 test series because the home team managed an upset win in game 1 so the pitches have no life for the remaining 3 should not count as true wins

 

[Furn]

Yeh the WI 1 Eng 0 series was a bit much but it was still good watching, I mean Eng came very close to winning 2 of the last 3 despite the roads they played on. WI won fair and square IMO. The home team should get to do things like that, thats part of the home advantge and in the end playing for a draw from day 1 is pretty hard to do.

If you had to win the majority of games it would create an incentive for the team holding the urn/cup to play for draws. If Aus had to win 3 tests to get back the Ashes, Eng could just play 9 batsman and Swann and Broad and try to draw all the games. As it is they arent going to get a 0-0 so they need to try and win some games.

 

[frankrizzo]

Playing 9 bats and two bowlers wouldn't really help a team draw.

The opposition would score so fast that they would get a massive amount of overs to pry out the 9 batsmen twice.

 

[Cleavy]

keep it as it is, but do away with these 2 match Test series.