Why has there never been another triangular Test series?

[The Speaker]

There's only ever been one three-way Test series. It was held in 1912, in England, between England, Australia and South Africa, and was unfortunately marred by rain and weakened teams. World War I intervened in the cricket world soon afterwards, and the concept has never really been pitched since. I'm just not sure why, especially in the modern world. I would love to see a triangular Test series, and I think it would be particularly beneficial for the lower ranked Test sides, or even those potentially entering the Test arena (eg. Ireland), to be involved in one.

 

[CAS79]

There's only ever been one three-way Test series. It was held in 1912, in England, between England, Australia and South Africa, and was unfortunately marred by rain and weakened teams. World War I intervened in the cricket world soon afterwards, and the concept has never really been pitched since. I'm just not sure why, especially in the modern world. I would love to see a triangular Test series, and I think it would be particularly beneficial for the lower ranked Test sides, or even those potentially entering the Test arena (eg. Ireland), to be involved in one.

Would you pay to watch South Africa V Ireland....

FWIW I beleive they were examining the concept of a three test series with a final of sorts to commerate the 100 years since the tri series.... but South Africa'n board want nothing to do with their cricket history since before their return... their history books and records do not acknowledge anything from before the 1990s. Graeme Pollock, Dudley Nourse, Barry Richards or Hugh Tayfield are not recorded on their list of test players.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Finding a workable system n the case of equal numbers of wins, etc, may be one point. Use county sty;e bonus points, first innings points, quoteients? Would any boards agree to anything?

Also, how many would turn up to the neutral games - assuming there was one host nation for the full tournament.

There was an Asian Test Championship (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) played twice but it never got any interest.

 

[Smoooothy]

its a good question. if south africa and england were scheduled to play a test in melbourne, i'd certainly go and have a look

 

[DrVanNostrand]

The Australia/Pakistan Tests in England were well attended. If anywhere, that's where it would work.

I hope this is the kind of thing the ICC Test Championship will be. The top four sides playing a round robin, not a dumb semi final/final deal.

 

[Rob]

Yeah, it could only work in England, and at least one of the other sides would need to be India or Pakistan. Preferably both.

But it's always a bit risky running a test tournament with a final because of the prospect of draws. You'd need to make sure there is a fair bit of life in the wickets they use.

 

[usalion]

England would be the best venue since their test season really does not have much overlap with other nations. You would still be fighting schedules with one day tournaments and the like, and I can't see the minnows being a really good thing here- the attendance for their matches would be small, for sure. If you scheduled it over a seven week period, you could have each side play four tests (two against each of the other sides) with a final set for the last week. Might have to do something on run rate or wickets taken to decide who plays- you might well have draws, obviously. The week you aren't playing, have a match against a county side. So let's have England, Australia and India

England v India (Australia v a county side)
England v Australia (India v a county side)
Australia v India (England v a county side- well, maybe not...how about a game against teh Lions)

Repeat

You could obviously do it with just three matches- two for each side- but would there be a likelihood of a clear result? Besides, with so many Test grounds in England now, you could really spread the games about. a key ould be picking a suitable venue for the two touring sides- maybe go with a smaller ground, like Durham, or pick an area where there is a heavy ethnic impact.

Interesting idea- but the scheduling would eb the hard part.

 

[Wallaby]

I like the Test cricket format the way it is. A team goes into another country on a 'crusade' and the home country is 'trying to defend it's honour' - it's all a bit of mythology, but I like it. Home advantage is huge in cricket - that's just part of the game.

For that reason, I'm not too fussed about a World Test championship. I always see Test cricket as single, individual events (series). The 2008-2009 series where SA beat us over here for the first time (historic), only for us to go straight over there an return the favour made for great theatre.

SA vs England in Australia - no thanks. Dioesn't mean anything.

 

[Parquet Court]

i think it would be a great idea, 2 matches against each other in all formats, over 2 months.

could perhaps resurrect the struggling ODI.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

I like the Test cricket format the way it is. A team goes into another country on a 'crusade' and the home country is 'trying to defend it's honour' - it's all a bit of mythology, but I like it. Home advantage is huge in cricket - that's just part of the game.

For that reason, I'm not too fussed about a World Test championship. I always see Test cricket as single, individual events (series). The 2008-2009 series where SA beat us over here for the first time (historic), only for us to go straight over there an return the favour made for great theatre.

SA vs England in Australia - no thanks. Dioesn't mean anything.

If only that was still the case. Even up until the mid-90s, Test tours were serious adventures onto foreign soil to capture their flag. Now with the mega $$$, IPL, 2-Test series, riduculous amounts of ODIs, Bangladesh, I don't think it is anymore.

Historic matchups like SA/Eng, Aus/SA, WI/Eng, Ind/Pak, WI/Aus, should always be four Tests (obviously five Tests is reserved for the Ashes only). Unfortunately we have boards like India and Sri Lanka that keep trying to postpone (read: cancel) Test series because they can't be bothered.

CA is a bit of a joke too, refusing to play against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I like the Test cricket format the way it is. A team goes into another country on a 'crusade' and the home country is 'trying to defend it's honour' - it's all a bit of mythology, but I like it. Home advantage is huge in cricket - that's just part of the game.

For that reason, I'm not too fussed about a World Test championship. I always see Test cricket as single, individual events (series). The 2008-2009 series where SA beat us over here for the first time (historic), only for us to go straight over there an return the favour made for great theatre.

SA vs England in Australia - no thanks. Dioesn't mean anything.

I would love a Test Championship, with a five match final series with no other international or domestic T20 allowed during that time. The whole cricket world focussed on one Test series. Ideally there would be simi-finals of at least three matches duration.
It won't happen of course. A whole month and a bit without T20 would be utterly unacceptable. The timing is also impossible for semi-finals to also be had (assuming 1st and 2nd host semis and the highest ranked winner host the finals series).
Test cricket needs a context. The current rakings system does not attract attention, is not readily understood, and leads to nothing. A championship could at least get around the third of those.

 

[pluga_4]

england v australia in bangladesh - great!
zimbabwe v bangladesh at the MCG - awesome.

crowds don't go to neutral matches, thats why one day triangulars basically don't exist anymore.

neutral games should only be played in world cups.

 

[Belnakor]

crowds don't go to neutral matches

cept in England because there are so many ex-pats.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

cept in England because there are so many ex-pats.

Yeah, but they're playing for England rather than being in the crowd.